Conflict and Conflict Management

in
Jewish Sources

Editor: Michal Roness

Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation,

Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, 2008

1
The late Hans Bachrach of Melbourne, Australia was the
visionary behind the founding of the Interdisciplinary
Graduate Program on Conflict Management and
Negotiation at Bar-Ilan University.
We thank the Bachrach family for their ongoing support
and encouragement.

The Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation, Bar-Ilan

University is an interdisciplinary graduate program which integrates conflict
resolution theories and models from the fields of psychology, political science,
law and Jewish history. There are over 150 active students in the M.A. and
Ph.D. programs. The project "Jewish Approaches to Conflict Resolution" is
one of the ongoing research activities carried out in the framework of the
program. Other activities include a research group on the Contact Hypothesis
and its effects and a Campus Mediation Center.

English Stylist: David Brauner

Hebrew Translations: Shlomit Stern (Hazan)

Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation

Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 52900, Israel
+972-3-5318043 pconfl@mail.biu.ac.il
www.barilan-conflict.com

2
Table Of Contents
Preface by Dr. Ephraim Tabory, Director, Program on Conflict Management and 4
Negotiation, Bar-Ilan University
Foreword by Sir Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew 7
Congregations of the Commonwealth
Jewish Sources on Conflict Management: Realism and Human Nature by 10
Prof. Gerald Steinberg, Founder of the Program on Conflict Management
and Negotiation, Bar-Ilan University
Editorial Note, Michal Roness 24

1. Judaism’s approach to conflict and dispute

1.1 Conflict from the Jewish perspective 26
1.2 Dispute between Hillel and Shammai: A dispute for the sake of Heaven 32
(Machloket Leshem Shamayim)
1.3 Perpetuation of relationships despite conflict 36
1.4 “You shall not separate yourselves” (Lo Titgodedu) 38
2. The prevention of conflict
2.1 Prevention of conflict between Jews and non-Jews 41
2.2 Treatment of an adversary 44
2.3 Ways of peace (Darchei Shalom) 47
2.4 Ways of pleasantness (Darchei Noam) 59
2.5 Aaron, pursuer of peace (Aaron, Rodef Shalom) 64
2.6 Peace in the home (Shalom Bayit) 67
2.7 Manner of speaking 74
2.8 Respect for one’s fellows (Kevod Habriyot) 77
2.9 Baseless Hatred (Sinat Chinam) 80
3. Methods for resolving conflict
3.1 Violence 83
3.2 Separation 84
3.3 Follow the majority (Acharei Rabim Lehatot) 85
3.4 Compromise 88
3.5 Laws of compromise 97
3.6 Reconciliation 105
4. Approaches to managing conflict
4.1 Prohibition against revenge and bearing a grudge 109
4.2 Cities of refuge (Arei Miklat) 111
4.3 Excommunication and ostracism (Nidui, Cherem) 116
4.4 Forgiveness and pardon in family conflict 121
4.5 Requesting forgiveness and pardon 124

Bibliography of Translated Texts and Additional Literature 135

3
 Preface

****

While conflict can lead to separation and division, it can also bring people and
groups together. One social function of conflict in Judaism has been to establish borders
between the profane and the holy, and between the pure and the impure. The ingroup
can coalesce around a common identity as it becomes crystallized, while castigating
and denouncing, vilifying and discriminating against an outgroup.
From this perspective, conflict can be beneficial, as it contributes to social cohesion.
It can reduce pressure for change by negating the legitimacy of the other. Partnership
in negotiation carries the potential for social change and the subsequent possibility of
accommodation and even assimilation. As much as the Jewish world has suffered from
prejudice and discrimination throughout generations, the psychological barriers, not
to mention the ghetto walls that separated Jews from their neighbors, contributed
to the vitality and independence of the Jewish people. Both peace and war can be
threatening, each in its own way.
These thoughts come to mind when reading Gerald Steinberg's Introductory Essay
to this volume, and the sourcework that Michal Roness has compiled. This volume
constitutes the preparatory work for the fourth conference in a series on Jewish
Approaches to Conflict Resolution held under the auspices of the Interdisciplinary
Graduate Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation at Bar Ilan University.
Previous conferences have explored whether there is a Jewish approach to conflict
resolution. It sometimes seems that Jewish sages have sought to mitigate conflict between
disputants who are considered to be integral members of the community, and to be
less supportive of efforts at reducing conflict between parties when one of the sides
represents what is perceived as an aberrant view of Judaism or Jewish life. Professor
Steinberg notes in his Introductory Essay that an amicable agreement is sometimes
preferable to strict justice. Perhaps that is more often found in communities where
maintaining internal cohesion is a primary motivation, when it is feared that members
who are dissatisfied might choose an exit option. A secure, autonomous society living
in its own state might prefer a just solution when encountering disagreement, feeling
that in the long run perceived justice might lead to greater legitimacy and identity by
all parties, as the society is based on higher order principles rather than short term
solutions that are fickle and can seemingly change by whim and circumstance.
This volume is being published in conjunction with the fourth conference in the
Jewish Approaches to Conflict Management series.The specific topic of this conference
(conducted in conjunction with the Departments of Political Studies and Jewish History
at Bar Ilan University, and Beit Morasha of Jerusalem) is leadership in crisis. Beyond an
expectation that leaders respond to crises, there is also substantial recognition of the
fact that leaders themselves occasionally generate crises and conflict. Some political
leaders seek peace, while others might prefer conflict, since accommodation could

4
entail concessions that are perceived as endangering the very existence of society,
whether from a physical or metaphysical perspective. The divergent perspectives of
rabbinical leaders in Israel regarding conflict and accommodation are evident in the
shmitta year of 5768. This case, which pits nationalistic and non-nationalistic religious
positions against one another, illustrates the impact of the relationship between identity
and religion on social conflict.
In addition to questioning whether there is a Jewish approach to conflict
management, one could ask whether there is a Jewish approach to forgiveness. Here
too leaders could play an important role, as demonstrated in recent years by some
world figures who have issued public apologies for actions their countries wrought
against other societies in the past. Much has been written about the significance
of apologies in conflict resolution. Saying that one is sorry can have a tremendous
impact on conflicting parties, but a genuine apology implies a confession of being
wrong, and this involves an admission of guilt that many conflicting sides cannot bring
themselves to face. (One can only wonder how history might have been different
had Adam expressed remorse and apologized to God for eating the apple, instead
of blaming Eve.) Acceptance of an apology is also problematic and worthy of further
analysis. Among the volatile issues in Israel in this regard were the disagreement about
the symbolism of accepting reparations from Germany; hostility against the religious
camp following the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin; and the resentment
following the withdrawal from Gaza. In considering the role of apology in conflict,
forgiveness enables accommodation, but forgetting (as in "to forgive and forget") opens
the door to assimilation. It is no wonder that the Jews are commanded never to forget
what was wrought upon them by Amalek.
Some actions are actually a pleasure to remember in Judaism, and there does seem
to be a Jewish approach toward appreciation. In the interpersonal spirit of Hakarat
Hatov [giving credit where it is due], it is very fitting here to express appreciation to the
Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, Sir Jonathan
Sacks, for his support of our Conflict Program since its inception. As he indicates in his
Foreword, the topic of conflict resolution is close to his heart, and he has taken brave
stands on recognizing and accepting the "other." We appreciate his encouragement to
continue our work, and his ongoing contribution to our Program.
I also take this opportunity to thank Professor Gerald Steinberg, the founder of
the Interdisciplinary Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation, who served
as Director of the program from its establishment in 2001 until 2007. As Deputy
Director, I had the opportunity of working with him and seeing how committed he was
to developing an academic program with rigorous standards that confronted such an
important discipline for Israel and peoples around the world. We dedicate this volume
to him, in recognition of his devotion and achievements.
It is always a pleasure to express our appreciation to the Bachrach family for
their contribution to the development and success of the Conflict Program. The late
Hans Bachrach of Melbourne, Australia was the visionary behind the founding of the
Interdisciplinary Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation. Our deepest

5
gratitude goes to Mrs. Gini Bachrach and family for their ongoing support.
Finally, special thanks to Michal Roness, M.A. (Conflict Management, Hebrew
University of Jerusalem), who compiled the sources that appear in this volume for her
initiative in undertaking this project and seeing it through to fruition. We hope that
this initial work (to be expanded in the future) will be of assistance to researchers and
those interested in further considering the relationship between Judaism and conflict
resolution. Michal Roness, together with Shlomit Stern (Hazan), also organized and
coordinated the Leadership in Crisis Conference, and the entire Conflict Program
faculty express their appreciation to them for their professional work.

Ephraim Tabory, Director

Interdisciplinary Graduate Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation
Bar-Ilan University
Á¢Ò˘˙ ˙·Ë, December 2007

6
 Foreword

****
By Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks,
Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth

It may sound strange, but I believe it to be true, that conflict management is the single
greatest unsolved problem in Jewish history, and equally so in the Jewish present.
Three times the Jewish people has gone into exile: in the days of Joseph, after the
Babylonian conquest and the destruction of the First Temple, and after the destruction
of the Second Temple in the days of the Romans. Each time, the cause was the same.
In the first case, the chain of events that led to the Egyptian exile began with Jacob’s
children unable to live peaceably together. As the Torah puts it: ‘When his [Joseph’s]
brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him, and
could not speak peaceably to him.’
In the second, the Israelites, having conquered the land and achieved sovereignty,
were divided into twelve tribes. The Book of Judges laments, ‘In those days, there was
no king in Israel: everyone did what seemed right in his own eyes.’ Eventually the
people appointed a king, but after only three generations – Saul, David and Solomon
– the nation split in two, the northern kingdom of Israel, and the southern kingdom,
Judah.
Always a small nation surrounded by large empires, the people needed a high
degree of national unity to survive. When the kingdom divided, it was only a matter of
time before each fell before a stronger power. In 722 BCE the northern kingdom fell to
the Assyrians. Its people were deported and disappeared, the so-called ‘lost ten tribes’.
The southern kingdom fell to the Babylonians, the Temple was destroyed and most of
the elite sent into exile.
Eventually, many returned. Yet the nation seems not to have learned the lesson of
history. The impression we have of Second Temple Jewry is of a people deeply divided
along class, religious and political lines. There were, says Josephus, Pharisees, Sadducees
and Essenes. There were moderates and zealots. Josephus paints a chilling picture of
Jews inside the besieged Jerusalem, more intent on fighting one another than the
enemy outside. Inevitably, the city fell. With the defeat of the Great Rebellion, and the
Bar Kochba revolt sixty years later, there began the longest exile ever suffered by a
people. It lasted until 1948.
The significance of these three episodes can be measured by the fact that the
Israelites, and later the Jews were attacked by some of the greatest empires that
ever bestrode the stage of history: from the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians,
Greeks and Romans, to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. All have vanished. Israel
and the Jewish people survives. Only one people in history has had the power to
threaten the very existence of the Jewish people, namely, the Jewish people. In a literal
and tragic sense, we have been our own worst enemies.

7
 Nor, after all that had happened in the biblical era, did Jews succeed in solving the
problem. In the early thirteenth century, Jews burned Maimonides’ writings; within
years, the Dominicans were doing the same. From the sixteenth to the nineteenth
century, Jews turned to the non-Jewish authorities to resolve their internal conflicts,
immeasurably weakening their own position. Jews denounced Hassidic leaders like
Rabbi Shneor Zalman of Ladi to the Russian government.The Reform Jews of Rumania
brought accusations against the orthodox Chief Rabbi, Meir Loeb Malbim, who was
imprisoned and eventually deported. Even in the Warsaw ghetto, the Jews involved in
the uprising were unable to unite to form a single fighting unit.
It is hard to read this history without weeping for the harm Jews brought on
themselves by their inability to manage their internal conflicts. Ruth Wisse, in her recent
Jews and Power, asks the important question, ‘Why are Jews so bad at politics?’ The
simplest answer is that they lacked the ability to manage and contain internal conflict.
Maimonides in his Letter to the Sages of Marseilles says that the Second Temple fell
because Jews neglected ‘the art of martial defence and government’.This is an insightful
comment. The Talmud says that it fell because of sinat chinam, gratuitous hatred.
Maimonides’ point is that some form of conflict is inevitable within any society. Politics,
the art of government, is about mediating conflict.When politics fail, sinat chinam is the
inevitable outcome.
It continues today. Israel is still riven by deep conflicts, between religious and secular,
Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox (dati and haredi), Ashkenazim and Sefardim, and many
other rifts. During the first Gulf War (1991) I was living in Jerusalem together with my
family. The war produced an unusual casualty: family life. Israeli families were unused to
spending long periods together in a sealed room while the SCUD missile attacks were
taking place. I was contacted by someone from Teddy Kollek’s office, asking whether
I would be willing to sit as the rabbinic representative on a group dealing with family
stress. I asked, ‘Are there no other rabbis in Jerusalem?’ ‘Yes’, came back the reply, ‘but
none trained in family therapy’. Again it highlighted how remote the ideas of conflict
resolution and mediation are from the empirical mainstream of Jewish life.
One of the most compelling, if controversial, explanations was given by the late
Rabbi Moshe Avigdor Amiel, Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv from 1936. He argued that in
Judaism, the individual has a higher value than the collective.This is counterintuitive, but
Rabbi Amiel was one of the most brilliant Talmudists of his time, and did not make the
suggestion lightly. It was precisely the refusal of the individual to yield to the majority,
he said, that was the greatest Jewish strength in the Diaspora and its greatest danger to
the new State (Amiel did not live to see the State; he died in 1946). Had Jews followed
the majority, they would never have survived dispersion, where they were always a
minority. But the refusal to yield to the majority threatens to render Jews ungovernable
when they become a sovereign nation in their own land.
Whether this view is sustainable in Jewish law is open to question. But the
psychological insight is unmistakable. Jews are strong individuals; we tend to be at
our weakest when it comes to yielding to consensus and working together for the
common good. Hence the vital importance of conflict management.

8
 In truth, Judaism contains one of the most profound forms of conflict management
ever to appear within a culture. The sages called it ‘argument for the sake of heaven’.
Judaism is the only religion in which God and human beings argue. All Judaism’s canonical
texts – Tanakh, Midrash, Mishnah, Gemarah, Maimonides’ code, the Shulkhan Arukh, and
the standard editions of Torah with commentaries – are anthologies of argument.
Conflict management, in Judaism, is about conversation and the protocols of respectful
debate. It is about speaking and listening. Jews tend to be good at the first, less good at
the second.That is why, in my new edition of the Siddur, I have translated Shema Yisrael
as ‘Listen, Israel’. Shema in one or other of its forms appears no less than 92 times in
the Book of Devarim. In Judaism, listening is a religious act.
One of the creative developments in 19th century Jewish life was the Mussar
movement associated with Rabbi Yisrael Salanter. It focused on ethics, but in a specific
way. It tended to speak about shlemut, personal perfection. But personal perfection
is easy. It is interpersonal perfection that is hard. Were anyone to attempt to create
a Mussar movement for the 21st century, they would be advised to concentrate on
the Zwischenmentsliche, the virtues that make possible a world of intersubjectivity:
listening, respecting, praising, mediating and finding lateral solutions offering a way
beyond the zero-sum game of conflict. Without these, we will find it hard to sustain
marriages, communities and a cohesive Jewish society. The finest essay on the subject
is the introduction of the Netziv (R. Naftali Zvi Berlin) to his commentary to the Book
of Bereishith. Every word of it is relevant today.
So it is an honour and privilege to commend Bar Ilan University, and especially
Professor Gerald Steinberg and his team, for creating a department of Conflict
Management and producing this set of classic texts. Professor Steinberg’s essay in this
volume is a superb introduction to the subject, and he and his department are genuine
pioneers in a field in which there is much to say that has not yet been said.
This source-book shows how rich is the classic Jewish literature in this field. The
rabbis were deeply aware of the destructive impact of machloket, and – as Professor
Steinberg makes eloquently clear – their principles are based on psychological and
political realism. The prophets had visions of a utopian peace at the end of days. The
sages – through such concepts as darkhei noam and darkhei shalom – sought peace
in an unredeemed world, in the here-and-now of ordinary human interactions. The
pragmatism of the rabbis is less inspirational than the idealism of the prophets, but it is
more effective. It deserves to be better known than it is.
The work of Professor Steinberg and his team stands firmly within the tradition
attributed to the disciples of Aaron, who ‘sought peace and pursued peace’.There is no
higher achievement than to help bring peace between individuals, groups, and nations.
For pointing the way, may Professor Steinberg and his colleagues be blessed.

9
 Jewish Sources on Conflict Management:
Realism and Human Nature

****
By Prof. Gerald M. Steinberg*

Moslems have Sulha1; Christians have forgiveness and confession; Buddhists speaks
of "mindful mediation"2, and other culturally specific approaches to managing internal
social conflict are used in many other societies. But as yet, there is no systematic
and recognized Jewish approach to mediation and conflict resolution. And this is not
surprising, given both the Jewish emphasis on machloket (disputes and strife), and the
long and diverse social and political contexts in which Jewish communities have found
themselves during the past 4000 years.Thus, the concept of a coherent and specifically
Jewish approach to dispute resolution and mediation, or at least conflict management,
is an admittedly difficult concept to consider, much less to define.
Given these frameworks for containing or preventing social conflict,3 it is logical
to look for a parallel Jewish tradition, derived from behavior and not only based on
idealistic hopes and norms. And given the importance of managing the intense conflicts
that mark the modern Jewish condition, both within Israel and in the Diaspora, such
a behavioral framework is also necessary. With restored Jewish national sovereignty
and the accompanying responsibilities, the costs of allowing conflicts to expand until
communities break up is too great -- internal disputes and power-struggles cannot
be allowed to escalate and expand into “senseless hatred”. (Intra-community conflict
and therefore also dispute resolution is very different from the framework governing
conflict with outsiders – the following analysis is focused only on the internal conflict
dimension.)
As in most other areas of Jewish life, the search for this pragmatic and behavioral, as
distinct from normative or theoretical, approach to conflict resolution (what Michael
Walzer calls “the concrete life of the Jews”4) begins with a review of Jewish texts from
the Bible, Talmud, early and modern commentators and philosophers.5 These sources
provide numerous quotes, examples, analyses and legal rulings, which, as will be argued in
this essay, form the components of a coherent and different approach. The overarching
framework, I argue, differs fundamentally from the idealist and altruistic foundation of
the standard Christian prescriptions for dealing with conflict,6 but rather is anchored in
a hard-headed “realist” understanding of human nature and social interaction, including
the inherent role of conflict.
The realist approach to conflict is based on the political theory espoused by
Hobbes, rediscovered by Morgenthau7 and E. H. Carr after World War II, developed
*This discussion is an extension of my previous essay, “Conflict Prevention and Mediation in the
Jewish Tradition”, in Jewish Political Studies Review (Special Volume on “Jewish Approaches to Conflict
Resolution”), Fall 2000 12:1 & 2. I thank Michal Roness, Dr. Ephraim Tabory, Dr. Ben Mollov, and my
colleagues and students in the Program on Conflict Management at Bar Ilan University for their insightful
comments and suggestions.

10
further through game theory, and applied to negotiation theory by Fisher and Ury
(“Getting to Yes”), Schelling, and others. Realism, in various forms, views interests,
power and rational calculation of costs and benefits, and, when necessary, coercion
from a legitimate authority, as the keys to successful conflict management.
This approach stands in contrast to the predominant idealist perceptions and
prescriptions for relationship or personality transformation and social harmony in
much of the conflict resolution and ADR (“alternative dispute resolution”) literature.
The process of transformation, as delineated in the publications of Bush and Folger8,
and of Riskin9 and many others, are based on changing human behavior.These idealistic
prescriptions are very difficult to implement, and the evidence of success in broad
social contexts is sparse.
Before elaborating the evidence for realism in Jewish sources, it is necessary to
acknowledge that numerous texts exist on social conflict that reflect an idealist and
altruistic approach. But justice (zedek or din) and peace (shalom), as demanded by the
Jewish prophets in their sharp condemnations of official corruption and exploitation
of the widow and orphan, are distinct from the daily events of ordinary life and
society. And the overall theological objective of human perfection and peace, based
on creation in God’s image (B’zelem elokim), divine revelation, and fulfillment of the
commandments (mitzvoth) generally operates in an entirely different dimension.There
are some tzadikim (saintly individuals) who are able to combine the two realms of
idealism and realism, but these are rare exceptions. While striving for perfection, in day-
to-day interaction, even the archetypal tzadikim – Abraham and Moses –were engaged
in familiar human interaction and sometimes mundane interpersonal conflict.
This is also the approach taken by many respected Jewish philosophers. Rabbi
Eliezer Berkowitz, for example, emphasizes concepts such as darchei noam (“gentle
pathways”), and the many halachic rulings that are not consistent with the strict letter
of the law, but are the result of the importance of actions that are permitted and even
encouraged for shalom bayit – “peace in the home”, and mipnei darchei shalom -- “for
the sake of peace”. 10 Similarly, leaders are enjoined to seek and pursue peace (“bakesh
shalom v’rodfehu”).11
But such emphases are philosophical and normative, in contrast to the descriptive
behavioral emphasis in my analysis. As noted above, in practice, Jewish history is highly
confrontational, and the sensitivity required for darchei noam on a daily basis is quite
rare.
While generalizations are dangerous and contradictory evidence can always be
found, the following analysis presents the claim that, in a practical sense, the Jewish
approach to social disagreement does not require perfecting or changing human
nature. Indeed, in Leviathan, the founding text of political realism, Hobbes’ description
of the state of nature and conflict, and the need for centralized authority and law based
on social covenants echoes and quotes from the Jewish biblical texts.12
The emphasis on realism in conflict – not as a distant ideal but as a description of
and guide to actual behavior -- is clear and abundant from the beginning in Genesis, in
which the Jewish tradition presents human beings as far from perfect (“man’s heart is

11
evil from his youth - ¢ÂȯÚÓ Ú¯ Ì„‡‰ ·Ï ¯ˆÈ¢). This framework does not seek to discover
and impose a formula for the elimination of interpersonal disputes.
Rather, the behavioralist Jewish approach to social and interpersonal conflict is
based on managing the often harsh reality and curtailing the impact of the inevitable
power struggles and other quarrels that are part of any society. Instead of demanding a
different form of human nature to prevent or resolve conflict, the goal is to contain the
negative impact of the inevitable quarrels within Jewish communities, and to prevent
a process that escalates and deteriorates into bitter personal discord, destructive
behavior, and Sinat Hinam – unfounded hatred.
Pragmatic conflict management, as distinct from resolution, is a frequent theme.
Abraham – the founding father – opted to part ways from his nephew Lot in the
wake of growing tension between their camps; he did not attempt to resolve this
dispute, or to fight for principle or interest – this would be counterproductive “because
we are brothers”. (In contrast, in conflicts outside the family and against external
enemies, Abraham did not hesitate to use force when necessary. Texts and rules of
engagement related to war and relations with outsiders are fundamentally different
from the conditions of domestic conflict, not only in the Jewish framework but in
general.13 Similarly, Yaakov and Lavan, and then Yaakov and his brother Esau also agree
to disagree, rather than engaging in violent conflict.
Later, the biblical text devotes a relatively high level of attention to the establishment
of “Cities of Refuge” (Numbers, 35; Joshua, 21) where the perpetrators of accidental
deaths (manslaughter) can be safe from the blood avengers common in many Middle
Eastern societies. The immediate objective here is not to perfect human behavior by
condemning and uprooting the practice of revenge killing in response to accidental
death, as this practice is apparently too deeply rooted in human nature and social
mores of the time in order to change by fiat. Rather, by taking a realist approach and
making revenge and vendettas all but impossible, while also isolating and imposing a
limited punishment on the perpetrator, the escalation chain of violence is broken and
communal peace is fostered.
At the same time, in Jewish tradition, for offenses such as heresy and rebellion
against “the yoke of the commandments”, conflict management and compromise are
simply not on the table. When Korakh led a rebellion against Moses in the wilderness
(Numbers, Chapter 17), he and his followers were punished by death. Similarly, after
the incident of the golden calf, Moses ordered his supporters from the tribe of Levi
(Aaron’s tribe) to take their swords and go from “gate to gate” in the camp, to punish
“each man his brother, each man his neighbor, and each man his relative”. In this
punitive action, 3,000 men were killed “And the Lord smote the people, because of
the calf that Aaron made.” (Exodus, Chapter 32). In other eras and communities, rabbis
have excommunicated members of sects that deviated from normative behavior or
challenged their power and authority. In Eastern Europe, Hasidim and Mitnagdim
excommunicated each other, and involved the Gentile authorities in these conflicts.14
The realist approach to conflict also emerges in the Talmudic discussions on the
tension between truth (emmet) and justice (mishpat). Talmud (Sanhedrin) includes a

12
detailed discussion of mediation in civil disputes, including instructions on the choosing
of mediators, and concluding that an agreed resolution is preferable to a legal judgment.
But, through the process of machloket, other sages argue that mediation avoids the
legal process, and obstructs justice and truth. However, the social benefits of mediation
compensate for the legal detours.
This point is also emphasized in the extensive Talmudic and midrashic discussion
of conflict prevention between Joseph and his brothers following the death of their
father Jacob (Israel) the Patriarch. As is generally the case in these sources, the goal is
not only academic, in the sense of understanding the text, but is also a reflection of the
day-to-day issues that were of concern to the community leaders, including internal
conflict and violence. This family saga had many episodes of violence involving the
twelve sons (the founders of the 12 tribes), including the kidnapping and sale of Joseph.
But in the final scene, when the brothers fear that Joseph would exact his revenge, the
brothers invent a story, claiming that from his deathbed, their father had commanded
reconciliation. In this case, the ends – conflict prevention in the family – justified the
distortion of the truth.
Taken together, these texts, commentaries, examples and explanations form a
foundation for a Jewish approach to communal and interpersonal conflict based on a
realist perception of society and the human condition.

Machloket – Constructive Conflict “for the Sake of Heaven”

The realist approach to conflict is reflected in and amplified in theTalmud – both the
Mishna (written in the Land of Israel in the two centuries before and after the Roman
destruction) and the Gemarra (developed in parallel in Babylonia and the remnant of
the Jewish community in the Land of Israel after the redaction of the Mishna). Indeed,
in the Talmud, the emphasis on Machloket (disputation and conflict) as an essential
value in Jewish tradition emerges. The process of Machloket is a central mechanism
for discerning the meaning of texts and their implications, as well as for renewal and
adaptation in response to a changing environment. Through the continuous process
of explication and machloket, the law (halacha) and meaning of revealed texts are in
constant revision – the canon of interpretation is never closed. In these debates, which
continue in the Responsa, in the yeshivot (schools of Jewish learning), and among
commentators, rabbis discussed specific instances of community strife covering a very
wide range of issues. As a result, Machloket, in the form of constructive conflict15, is
viewed as a part of community life, the Torah learning center interaction and family
relationships.
As these texts demonstrate, however, what may have started as “constructive”
conflicts often led to splits in the Jewish communities – kehilot and minyanim (prayer
quorums) divided on the basis of disputes on doctrine, practice, and other issues. As
is often the case, principled disputes on relatively minor issues escalated and became
personal disputes, with the protagonists becoming bitter enemies.This type of "senseless
hatred" (sinat chinam) is said to have led to the destruction of the Second Temple.
But the 2000-year exile that followed served to increase the process of dispute

13
and separation, since there was little penalty for such divisions. Shalom Bayit – literally,
“peace in the home”, is more of an abstract goal than a practical approach. For
generations, conflict has divided communities, synagogues and schools of learning. In
effect, this process of division in the face of conflict has been a survival mechanism.
When a dispute led to a split and the groups broke away from each other, they began
to function again independently, each evolving and developing in its own way. In the
Diaspora, the possibility of division with a very limited cost was generally available, and
machloket was not only acceptable, but in addition, the social and political environment
served to encourage groups to split. Without the need for political and social unity, the
costs of such divisions appeared to lower than the risks of a violent explosion.
The distinction between constructive machloket which encourages growth,
development and renewal, and dangerous disputes that lead to sinat chinam, is a
familiar theme in Jewish texts. Pirkei Avot, (often translated as the Ethics of our Fathers)
distinguishes between conflicts "for the sake of heaven", and those that are not "for the
sake of heaven" (Chapter 2, Mishna 17)
˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ‡È‰ ÂÊȇ ÌÈȘ˙‰Ï ‰ÙÂÒ Ôȇ ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ‰ȇ˘Â ÌÈȘ˙‰Ï ‰ÙÂÒ ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ‡È‰˘ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ Ï΢
¢ÆÂ˙„Ú ÏΠÁ¯˜ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÂÊ ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ‰ȇ˘Â È‡Ó˘Â Ïω ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÂÊ ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ‡Â‰˘
"Every controversy that is in the name of heaven, the end thereof is [destined] to result
in something permanent; but one that is not in the name of heaven, the end thereof is not
[destined] to result in something permanent. Which is the [kind of] controversy that is in
the name of heaven? Such as was the controversy between Hillel and Shammai; and which
is the [kind of] controversy that is not in the name of heaven? Such as was the controversy
of Korah and all his congregation."
Korach (a priest of stature during the period in the Sinai desert following the
Exodus) presents the archetype of an individual who seeks fame and power. He is
presented as self-centered who, instead of focusing on the greater good of society,
sought self-promotion. In stark contrast, the goal of the many disputes between Hillel
and Shammai – sages during the early Mishnaic period -- was to discover the law
and its truth. This is the positive archetype of "machloket" -- dispute for the sake of
heaven. The conflict does not prevent open communication and mutual respect, with
the goal of serving a higher purpose, and without emotion, violence or the rhetoric of
incitement, it is encouraged and even welcomed.
Although the disciples of Hillel and Shammai, which formed into different schools
of thought with different traditions, quarreled sharply over basic interpretations of the
law, and over 300 such differences are recorded, their relationship was also marked
by mutual respect, at least until the final decades of the Second Temple period. In one
famous dispute recorded in the Talmud (Eruvin) which went on for three years, a
heavenly voice (“bat kol”) finally declared that while the law is based on the majority
that supported Beit Hillel’s interpretation. “Eilu v’eilu divrei elohim chayim” (“both of
these are the words of the living God.”) In other words, both views are legitimate,
and the majority of rabbis (from Beit Hillel) did not discard or demonize the minority
position.
Indeed, according to even these two groups disputed the details of the laws of

14
yibum, levirate marriage, they continued to intermarry with each other. (Tractate
Yebamot, 14b)
Â˙˘‡ ˙‡ ˘¯‚Ó·Â ¨˘È‡ ˙˘‡ ˜ÙÒ·Â ¨Ô˘È Ë‚· ¨˙ÂÈÁ‡·Â ¨˙¯ˆ· Ïω ˙È·Â È‡Ó˘ ˙È· ˜ÏÁ˘ ÈÙ ÏÚ Û‡¢
‡Ï ¨Ïω ˙È·Ó ÌÈ˘ ‡˘ÈÏÓ È‡Ó˘ ˙È· ÂÚÓ ‡Ï ¨‰Ë¯٠‰Â˘·Â ‰Ë¯ٷ ¨ÛÒÎ ‰Â˘·Â ÛÒη ¨˜„ÂÙ· ÂÓÚ ‰ÏÂ
ÌÂÏ˘‰Â ˙Ó‡‰ ®ËÈ∫Á ‰È¯ÎÊ© ∫¯Ó‡˘ ‰Ó ÌÈÈ˜Ï ¨‰Ê· ‰Ê ÆÌÈ‚‰Â ˙ÂÚȯ ‰·ÈÁ˘ ¨Í„ÓÏÏ ¨È‡Ó˘ ˙È·Ó Ïω ˙È·
¢ Æ·‰‡
"Although Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel are in disagreement on the questions of
rivals……….., Beth Shammai did not, nevertheless, abstain from marrying women of the
families of Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel refrain from marrying those of Beth Shammai.
This is to teach you that they showed love and friendship towards one another, thus putting
into practice the Scriptural text, Love ye truth and peace."
The Jewish perspective on constructive conflict, as illustrated in the central
example of the schools of Hillel and Shammai, separates the substantive issues from
personalities and emotions. In other words, they respected the other's opinions, and
agreed to disagree. This principle is also important to modern Jewish leaders and
philosophers. In his book, Arguments for the Sake of Heaven, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
emphasizes the difference between the positive process of constructive conflict, which
promotes debate and does not end with a decision or labeling of “winner and loser”,
with destructive conflict which seeks to gain power, property, or control for one of the
participants. In another analysis using this theme, he wrote: When two sides fight, not
with weapons but with ideas, they recognize that their very disagreement presupposes
an agreement: about the value of argument itself. Two chess players may be bitter
adversaries, but they agree on the rules of chess and their love of the game.”16

Conflict Management: The Examples of Abraham and Joseph

The core Jewish texts contain numerous examples of living with and managing
conflict, rather than the more ambitious and often unattainable goal of shalom bayit.
Indeed, the foundations of the human society and the Jewish people as depicted in
the archetypal events described in the Book of Genesis, reflect continuous conflict
situations.17 Some of these are resolved peacefully, while others end in intense
violence.
The example of Lot and Abraham (Genesis 13:7-9) illustrates the conflict
management theme within the family.
ı¯‡‰ ÏÎ ‡Ï‰ ∫ÂÁ‡ ÌÈÁ‡ ÌÈ˘‡ ÈÎ ÍÈÚ¯ ÔÈ·Â ÈÚ¯ ÔÈ·Â ÍÈÈ·Â ÈÈ· ‰·È¯Ó ȉ˙ ‡ χ ËÂÏ Ï‡ ̯·‡ ¯Ó‡È¢
¢∫‰ÏÈ‡Ó˘‡Â ÔÈÓȉ ̇ ‰ÓÈ‡Â Ï‡Ó˘‰ ̇ ÈÏÚÓ ‡ „¯Ù‰ ÍÈÙÏ
"And Abram said to Lot, Let there be no strife, I beg you, between me and you, and
between my herdsmen and your herdsmen; for we are brothers. Is not the whole land
before you? Separate yourself, I beg you, from me; if you will take the left hand,
then I will go to the right; or if you depart to the right hand, then I will go to
the left."
The relationship between Abraham and his nephew Lot was very complex; Lot
was like a junior partner who accompanied Abraham on his journeys, but did not
contribute much, and often got into trouble. But when this happened, Abraham was
always ready to go to great lengths and enormous costs in order to rescue Lot, whether

15
from kidnappers, or from the murderous mob in Sodom. (Lot’s wife, it will be recalled,
disobeyed the command not to look at the destruction and was turned into a pillar
of salt. Lot was more prudent, and survived.) And after each such episode, Abraham
was ready to forgive and forget, because Lot was family and at the core of Abraham’s
interests.
When the conflict between their respective herdsmen broke out, Abraham
understood that if left untreated, it would escalate and threaten the unity of the family
-- emotions would overcome interests.18 His response was not to seek a resolution
or to find a mediator; the conflict was part of the human condition -- the Hobbesian
“state of nature”. Justice was also not a factor – in the narrative, there is no mention of
the source of the conflict, or which side was misbehaving. Instead, the conflict suddenly
erupted, and Abraham chose to separate and end the friction, while accepting the
costs. He gave Lot the option of choosing the best land (in the Jordan Valley) – what
modern conflict resolution theorists refer to as “cutting the cake”. By addressing the
effects of the conflict and the friction, rather than taking the highly doubtful path of
attempting to resolve the core causes, Abraham and Lot were able to manage or
deescalate the conflict.
Two generations later, the resolution of the intense conflict between Jacob and his
kinsman Lavan has many of the same elements. They ended their relationship through
a covenant (“brit”) based primarily on separation.
And we find similar approaches to interpersonal conflict much later in the Bible,
after the Israelites had left Egypt and the revelation at Sinai. The commandments to be
implemented upon entry and conquering the Land of Israel hundreds of years later
included the seemingly obscure requirement to establish cities of refuge, arei miklat.
Six such cities were designed to protect accidental killers from the vengeance of the
victim’ family – the blood avenger.
Although we know little about the actual operation of cities of refuge, the text
regarding the intricacies covers many pages in the Talmud and commentaries. The
commandment to build cities of refuge recognized the human need to preserve honor
and the interests of the family group while preventing the escalation of large scale
violence between the groups. Blood vengeance, even for accidental killing, was (and
in some societies still is) common in Middle East cultures, and often led to a cycle
of escalating violence. But cities of refuge break this cycle, following the example of
separation set by Abraham and Lot.
The Talmud discusses whether the Torah requires the family of the victim to take
revenge or this is simply a recognition of the practice. (Mishne Makot 5:7)
È·¯ Ì„‡ ÏÎ „È· ˙¢¯Â Ì„‰ χ‚ „È· ‰ÂˆÓ ¯Ó‡ ÈÏÈÏ‚‰ ÈÒÂÈ È·¯ Ì„‰ χ‚ ‡ˆÓ ÌÂÁ˙Ï ıÂÁ ‡ˆÈ˘ ÁˆÂ¯¢
¢ÆÂÈÏÚ ÔÈ·ÈÈÁ Ôȇ Ì„‡ ÏΠ̄‰ χ‚ „È· ˙¢¯ ¯Ó‡ ‡·È˜Ú
"If a slayer went beyond the bounds and the blood [and the] avenger fell in with him,
R. Jose the Galilean says that for the avenger it is a matter of obligation [to strike]; for
everyone else, a matter of option. R. Akiva says that for the avenger it is a matter of option
and anyone [else] is [not] responsible for him."
The differences between R. Akiva and R. Jose, as well as their shared views, are

16
instructive. According to R. Akiva, even though revenge was allowed, it was not a
commandment. Allowing the family to exact revenge on the murderer is recognition
of this theoretical right, but this perspective rejects the common view that failure to
exact revenge undermines a family’s honor. R. Jose the Galilean views the vengeance
of the murder as an obligation, but only for the family and both views emphasize the
importance of cities of refuge, which stop the cycle of violence in the conflict.

Truth, Justice, Compromise, and Shalom Bayit

In Judaism, peace (shalom) is the ultimate aspiration in human relations. And because
peace is so highly valued, Judaism sometimes justifies false statements and 'white lies'
to serve a higher cause, and to maintain the peace, particularly in family relations.
The sources bring two far-reaching examples. (Derech Eretz Zuta, Perek
Hashalom).
ÛÒÂÈ ÔÈ· ÌÂÏ˘ ÏÈˉ È„Î ˙‡„· ȯ·„ ÌÈË·˘‰ ¯·„˘ ÂÈˆÓ˘ ÌÂÏ˘‰ ‡Â‰ Ï„‚ ¯Ó‡ χÈÏÓ‚ Ô· ÔÂÚÓ˘ È·¯¢
χÈÏÓ‚ Ô· ÔÂÚÓ˘ È·¯ ÌÂÏÎ Ì‰Ï ‰Âˆ˘ ÔȇˆÂÓ Â‡ Ôȇ ß‚ ‰Âˆ ÍÈ·‡ ¯Ó‡Ï ÛÒÂÈ Ï‡ ˆȠ® ˙È˘‡¯·© ¯Ó‡˘ ÂÈÁ‡Ï
ÌÈ„˜Ó ÌÂÏ˘ ۄ¯ ÌÂÏ˘ ·‰Â‡ ‰È‰˘ ÌÂÏ˘‰ ÏÈ·˘· ‡Ï‡ Á·˙˘ ‡Ï ԉΉ Ô¯‰‡ ȯ‰˘ ÌÂÏ˘‰ ‡Â‰ Ï„‚ ¯Ó‡
„ÓÏÓ ®‡Ï‡ ÔÂÚÓ ·È˘‰ ÌÈ·¯Â ‰È¯˙· ·È˙Î ‰Ó© È˙‡ Íω ¯Â˘ÈÓ·Â ÌÂÏ˘· ®· È·ÏÓ© ¯Ó‡˘ ÌÂÏ˘ ·È˘Ó ÌÂÏ˘
Èχ ‡· ¯·Î ÈÂÏÙ ˙‡ ‰˙‡ ‡¢ ‰ÓÏ ÂÏ ¯Ó‡Â Ô‰Ó „Á‡ ψ‡ Íω ‰Ê ˙‡ ‰Ê Ôȇ¢ Ì„‡ È· È˘ ‰‡Â¯ ‰È‰˘Î
ÌÈ˘Ó ‰È‰Â Ô¢‡¯Î ÂÏ ¯Ó‡ È˘‰ ψ‡ Íω ‰ÊÏ ÁÈÓ ÂÈÏÚ ÒÈÈÙ ÍÏ ÈÂÏÙÏ È˙‡ËÁ ÈÏ ¯Ó‡Â ÈÙÏ ÁË˙˘ È˙È·Ï
¢∫ÔÂÚÓ ·È˘‰ ÌÈ·¯Â ¯ȷÁÏ Ì„‡ ÔÈ· ˙ÂÚȯ ‰·‰‡Â ÌÂÏ˘
"Rabbi Simeon b. Gamliel said: Great is peace, for we find that the tribes reported
an untrue statement in order to maintain peace between Joseph and his brethren; as it
is stated, ‘And they sent a message unto Joseph, saying: thy father did command before
he died, saying: So shall ye say unto Joseph: Forgive, I pray thee now, the transgression
of thy brethren and their sin.’ But we do not find that [Jacob] had given them any such
command.’
Rabbi Simeon b. Gamliel said: Great is peace, for Aaron the [High]Priest was praised
only for peace; for he loved peace , pursued peace, greeted with the salutation of peace and
responded with it, as it is stated, ‘He walked with Me in peace and uprightness.’ It teaches
that when he noticed two persons at enmity one with the other, he used to go first to one
of them and say to him, ‘Why do you hate So-and-so? He has already come to my house,
prostrated himself before me and said to me, “I sinned against So-and-so.’ Go and pacify.’
When he left this one, he went to the other and spoke to him similarly, and so made peace,
love and friendship between a man and his fellow.What is written subsequently? ‘For he is
the messenger of the Lord of hosts.’ "
In another example, the problematic relationship between Joseph and his brothers
is given extensive treatment in the commentaries. Based on the Biblical text, the rabbis
noted that as long as Jacob the Patriarch was alive, both Joseph and his brothers
avoided open warfare – Joseph was not going to exact revenge and undermine
the fragile family reconciliation. But following Jacob’s death, the brothers feared, the
revenge would begin. The brothers therefore invented a story that their father had
asked him not to hurt them for what they had done to him in the past. Rabbi Shimon
ben Gamliel explicitly notes that there is no evidence of this request in the Scripture.
He understands their lie to be evidence of their understanding of the importance of

17
maintaining peace and avoiding revenge between the brothers following their father's
death. The prevention of conflict and pragmatic shalom bayit takes precedence over
the truth (emet), overriding (in this instance) the clear Biblical commandment "Keep
thyself far from falsehood" (Exodus 23:7).
The precedence of social harmony over truth is reflected in the emphasis placed
on the role of Aaron the High Priest, who toiled to make amends between people
and couples in order to maintain the peace. According to the midrash, Aaron would
approach people he knew were in conflict in order to attempt to restore their relations.
It is told how often he would fabricate a conversation of one side's regret in order to
bring two disputing sides to resolve their conflict.
Similarly, the Jewish tradition also recognizes the inherent tension between the
strict requirements of the law (justice) and need for compromise for the sake of
peace.19 The attempts to reconcile these two values, concluding that only decisions
which are based on compromise can encompass the fusion of both peace and justice.
(Tractate Sanhedrin 6b).
‡Ï‰Â ÆÌÎÈ¯Ú˘· ÂËÙ˘ ÌÂÏ˘ ËÙ˘Ó ˙Ó‡ ®Á ‰È¯ÎÊ© ∫¯Ó‡˘ ¨Úˆ·Ï ‰ÂˆÓ ∫¯Ó‡ ‰Á¯˜ Ô· Ú˘Â‰È È·¯¢
∫¯Ó‡ ȉ ≠ ÌÂÏ˘ · ˘È˘ ËÙ˘Ó Â‰Êȇ ‡Ï‡ ÆËÙ˘Ó Ôȇ ≠ ÌÂÏ˘ ˘È˘ ̘ӷ ¨ÌÂÏ˘ Ôȇ ≠ ËÙ˘Ó ˘È˘ ̘ӷ
¢ ÆÚˆȷ ‰Ê
“R. Joshua b. Korha says: Settlement by compromise is a meritorious act, for it is written,
‘Execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates (and let none of you devise evil in
your hearts against his neighbor) [Zecharia 8:16].’ Surely where there is strict justice there
is no peace, and where there is peace, there is no strict justice! But what is that kind of
justice with which peace abides? We must say: Arbitration".20
On this basis, Maimonides urges judges to promote voluntary mediation, praising
any judge who does not have to make a legal ruling in his lifetime, and is able to
mediate a compromise between the rival litigants.21 In a practical sense, compromise
is described as the basis for preserving the peace of the community,22 and the Shulchan
Aruch, (the authoritative code of Jewish Law compiled by Rabbi Yosef Karo in the 16th
century) states that judges are required to open all civil proceedings by proposing a
compromise to the litigants for consideration.23 A judge may also offer to mediate a
solution (“to speak to their hearts”), even after the evidence has been heard, in order
to encourage a peaceful settlement. 24 In some cases, such as when the evidence is
unclear or cannot be discovered, judges are advised or even required to impose a
compromise (a form of binding mediation).25 In rare cases, involving litigants with
different economic means, the wealthier party may be asked to accept a compromise
and less than would be due according to the strict interpretation of the law, for the
sake of peace. 26 (This can be compared to the technique of re-balancing power, as
found in the modern mediation literature.)27
However, despite the emphasis on the desirability of mediation and compromise
in civil disputes, there is little in these texts that provide guidance on the process of
mediation itself, and few references to actual practice.28 In contrast to the very detailed
instructions on legal procedure, regarding witnesses, evidence, and other aspects, there is
essentially no instruction regarding the mediation process, and few cases are presented
as examples. Judges are simply told to seek a compromise solution. Thus, the overall

18
impression, particularly with respect to the practice of mediation and compromise, is
that while the ideal is important and valued, implementation was very limited.

Win-win models in the Jewish tradition

The terms and analyses derived from game theory that examine rational interest-
based conflict resolution based the transformation from zero-sum to win-win models
are modern inventions. But the concept, as noted by Brams,29 is rooted in Jewish
tradition and sources, and provides further evidence in support of identifying a realist
approach.
In his many books and articles on conflict in modern society, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
has expanded on these themes and applied them to conflict situations. In The Politics
of Hope [London, Random House, 1997], he devotes a full chapter to game theory in
exploring social harmony through the concept of “the common good”.30 In a related
way, Jewish sources emphasize compromise based on “splitting the difference”, as
expressed for example in the concept of “one person benefits and the other does
not lose”.
¢ °¯ÂËÙ ≠ ¯ÒÁ ‡Ï ‰Ê ‰‰ ‰Ê ∫‰ÈÓ ‡Ó˘¢
"The defendant derived a benefit and the plaintiff sustained no loss – he is exempt"
(Tractate Baba Kama 20b)
In this situation were a squatter to be found living in a lodging that was not for rent
– technically and legally, he is required to pay rent to the owner. However, since the
room was unused and there was expectation of rent, the squatter did not cause any
harm or loss to the landlord. The judge may then conclude that because there was no
loss, no compensation is required.

Forgiveness and its limitations

In the modern academic literature on conflict resolution,forgiveness and reconciliation
are given a great deal of attention, in large part reflecting the Christian model.31 In
the Jewish tradition, forgiveness and reconciliation between the disputing parties are
encouraged, but, again following the realist framework, the inherent difficulties are
recognized. Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year, does not atone for sins committed
between people and this forgiveness must be achieved through personal interaction
-- the process is not automatic, and the difficulties are recognized.
The sources teach that the process must work in both directions, and the offended
party is encouraged to forgive and reconcile a dispute. (Rambam, Hilchot Teshuva
5:10).
ÌÚÙ ÂÏ ÔÁ˙ ϷÂÁ‰ ÂÓÓ ˘˜·˘ ÔÂÈÎ ‡Ï‡ χ¯˘È Ú¯Ê Í¯„ ÂÊ Ôȇ ÂÏ ÏÂÁÓÈ ‡Ï ȯÊ· ˙ÂÈ‰Ï Ï·ÁÏ ¯Â҇¢
ÌÈÓÎÁ Á¯ Á·Â˘Ó ‡Â‰ ȯ‰ ÏÂÁÓÏ ¯‰ÓÓ‰ ÏΠ¨ÂÏ ÏÂÁÓÈ Â˙Ú¯ ÏÚ ÌÁÈ ‡ËÁÓ ·˘ ‡Â‰˘ Ú„È ‰È˘Â ‰¢‡¯
¢ ÆÂÓȉ ‰ÁÂ
"The injured person, however, is forbidden to be harsh and to withhold forgiveness, for
such behavior does not become a descendant of Israel. But once the offender has asked
forgiveness and has entreated him a first and a second time, and he knows that the
offender has repented of his sin and regrets his evil deed, he should forgive him. Whoever
forgives quickly is praiseworthy and his behavior meets with the approval of the Sages."

19
 An individual responsible for causing offense or injury is required to ask forgiveness
and seek reconciliation three times. If, after three attempts, the offended party does
not forgive, no further attempts are necessary. Here again, we see the acceptance of
the darker sides of human nature and the recognition that it is not possible to force
or command individuals to reconcile. Jewish law also lists situations where one is not
required to forgive due to the irreparable damage caused. (Shulchan Aruch, Orach
Haim 706:1)
ªÂÒÈÈÙÏ Íȯˆ ¨Ìȯ·„· ‡Ï‡ ÂËÈ˜‰ ‡Ï ÂÏÈÙ‡ ªÂÒÈÈÙÈ˘ „Ú ¯ÙÎÓ ÌȯÂÙÈΉ ÌÂÈ Ôȇ ¯ȷÁÏ Ì„‡ ÔÈ·˘ ˙¯ȷڢ
ÒÈÈÙ˙Ó Âȇ ̇ ¨ÌÈ˘‡ ‰˘Ï˘ ÂÓÚ Á˜È ÌÚÙ Ïη ¨˙È˘ÈÏ˘Â ‰ÈÈ˘ ÌÚÙ ÍÏÈ ¯ÂÊÁÈ ¨‰¢‡¯· ÒÈÈÙ˙Ó Âȇ ̇Â
ÍÏÈÏ Íȯˆ ¨Â·¯ ‡Â‰ ̇ ª ®‰ÏÈÁÓ ÂÓÓ ˘˜·˘ ‰¯˘Ú ÈÙÏ ÍÎ ¯Á‡ ¯Ó‡È ‰ÈÓ© ÆÂÏ ˜Â˜Ê Âȇ ÌÈÓÚÙ ‰˘Ï˘·
̇ ª‰ÏÈÁÓ ˘˜·Ó‰ ˙·ÂËÏ ÔÂÂÎÓ˘ ‡Ï ̇ ÏÂÁÓÏÓ È¯Ê· ‰È‰È ‡Ï ÏÁÂӉ ∫‰‚‰ ÆÒÈÈÙ˙È˘ „Ú ÌÈÓÚÙ ‰ÓÎ ÂÏ
¢ ÆÂÏ ÏÂÁÓÏ Íȯˆ Âȇ ¨Ú¯ Ì˘ ÂÈÏÚ ‡ÈˆÂ‰
"Transgressions between man and G-d. the Day of Atonement does not atone for, until
he conciliates his neighbor; even if he only antagonized his friend through words, he must
appease him; And if he does not appease him the first time, he must return to him a
second and third time. And each time, he must take with him three people. And if he does
not appease him by the third time, he does not have to. (Some would say that after that
he must ask for forgiveness before ten people). And if it is his teacher, then he must try to
appease him as many times as is needed to conciliate. Note:The injured person should not
be harsh and not forgive if the offender sincerely asks for forgiveness; and if he ruined his
reputation, he does not have to forgive him. "
The complexities of forgiveness and reconciliation in the Jewish tradition,
and the theological and cultural differences in comparison with Christianity, were
highlighted by Simon Weisenthal in his book The Sunflower.32 While Christians speak of
forgiveness, even in extreme cases such as the Holocaust, Weisenthal vividly portrays
the difficulties for Jewish victims of Nazi atrocities to contemplate this measure. For
many of Weisenthal’s Jewish correspondents, forgiveness for these crimes would be
immoral. Similarly, Schimmel recalls a discussion of forgiveness and reconciliation in
South Africa at the end of the apartheid era, quoting a rabbi who declared: “.. you
can’t sadistically murder 12 innocent people by burning them alive and just say ‘I’m
sorry!’. One Christian participant in the forum immediately attacked the rabbi for his
comment, saying ‘That’s because you Jews don’t know how to forgive.’ From the rabbi’s
perspective, the officer, having ordered the murder of innocents, was beyond human
forgiveness.”33

Conclusion
This “realist” analysis of Jewish approaches to conflict management presentation
is far from exhaustive, and for every source cited in this essay, a contradictory source
can probably be found. The rich Jewish texts are known to present a multitude of
approaches '‫' "שבעים פנים לתורה‬There are seventy facets to Torah' ˛Ê¢Ë ¨‚¢È ߯٠‰·¯ ¯·„Ó·].
The purpose of this essay is to start and to stimulate a wider discussion of
Jewish approaches to intercommunal and interpersonal conflict. The Exile is over, for
at least half of the Jewish population, and it is no longer possible to allow conflicts to
expand and lead to divisions, without exacting a significant cost to the Jewish people.

20
In Israel, as a sovereign state, as well as in the remaining Diaspora communities, internal
disputes and power-struggles that escalate and expand into “senseless hatred” are
extremely dangerous. The time for a broadly accepted system of conflict management
and resolution is overdue.
At the same time, many of the interpretations, legal rulings and ethical maxims
cited in this essay are rarely implemented, both in the religious and secular frameworks.
In Israel, while the number of trained mediators is growing and there is a great deal
of public discussion regarding conflict management and alternative dispute resolution
(ADR), and many organizations offer related service, in practice, applications in real
disputes are very limited.The courts have adopted a limited approach, encouraging but
rarely requiring mediation in civil disputes, and most Israelis appear to prefer their day
in court and demand justice, rather than compromise.
In the modern State of Israel, the danger of fragmentation is clear, and to avoid
this situation, there is a need for pragmatic mechanisms for dispute resolution and
conflict management, that do not attempt to ignore the very deep social, religious and
other conflicts. With a majority culture based on Jewish sources, the application of a
specifically Jewish approach to conflict management would be useful in dealing with
societal and interpersonal disputes.
Many sources are available for this purpose, as shown in this essay. From the example
of Abraham and Lot, and extending through the Talmud and to modern rabbinical
sources, there are numerous examples and detailed justifications for the realist model,
based on an understanding of the limitations resulting from human nature, and the long
journey necessary for perfection. Machloket is a necessary and valuable part of the
Jewish tradition, and in dealing with communal conflict, the tradition of dispute “lishem
shamayim” should not be and cannot be discarded.
The principles of darchei noam and the praise for mediation stand in sharp contrast
to the history of the Jewish people and of sometimes very difficult dispute. In the
realist approach, there is no expectation for the elimination of conflict, but rather
the emphasis is on containing its most damaging impacts, and blocking the tendency
towards sinat chinam – senseless hatred. These goals are complex enough, and any
progress in this direction will be welcome.

Notes
1 George Irani and Nathan Funk ‘Rituals of Reconciliation: Arab-Islamic Perspectives’,
KROC Occasional Paper, # 12, Notre Dame University, Indiana, August 2000;
Muhammad Abu-Nimer, " Conflict Resolution in an Islamic Context: Some
Conceptual Questions," Peace and Change, Vol. 21, No.1 (January 1996), pp. 22-40;
George E. Irani. “Islamic Mediation Techniques For Middle East Conflicts”, Middle
East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, 3:2 (June 1999)
2 McConnell, J. 1995: Mindful Mediation: A Handbook for Buddhist Peacemakers.
Bangkok: Buddhist Research Institute

21
3 Kevin Avruch and P. Black, “The Culture Question and Conflict Resolution”, Peace
and Change, Vol. 16, No. 1, January 1991
4 Michael Walzer. “Universalism and Jewish Values”, The Carnegie Council on Ethics
and Foreign Policy: New York, 2001. http://www.cceia.org/resources/publications/
morgenthau/114. html
5 See Gerald Steinberg, “Conflict Prevention and Mediation in the Jewish Tradition”,
in Jewish Political Studies Review (Special Volume on “Jewish Approaches to
Conflict Resolution”), Fall 2000 12:1 & 2 Conceptually, this approach is based
on the application of core Jewish texts to a modern Jewish political philosophy
applicable to the era of restored sovereignty, as developed by Daniel Elazar, Shmuel
Sandler, Stuart Cohen and others.
6 Solomon Schimmel, Wounds Not Healed by Time, Oxford U. Press, 2002
7 Hans Morgenthau, who is considered the father of modern political realism,
was heavily influenced by his Jewish background. M. Benjamin Mollov, Power
and Transcendence: Hans J. Morgenthau and the Jewish Experience, Rowman &
Littlefield, 2002
8 Baruch Bush and Joseph Folger, The Promise of Mediation (Jossey-Bass, 1994)
9 Leonard L. Riskin, The Contemplative Lawyer: On the Potential Contributions of
Mindfulness Meditation to Law Students and Lawyers and their Clients, 7 Harvard
Negotiation Law Review 1-66 (June 2002)
10 Eliezer Berkowits, “Essential Essays on Judaism”, edited by David Hazony, Shalem
Press, Jerusalem, 2002; See also Marc Gopin. Between Eden and Armageddon:
The Future of World Religions, Violence, and Peacemaking. (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2000).
11 Psalms 34:15
12 See Daniel J. Elazar, “Hobbes Confronts Scripture”, Jewish Political Studies Review,
special volume on Thomas Hobbes Confronts the Bible” Volume 4, number 2, Fall
1992
13 There is an extensive literature on Jewish approaches to war, and peace and conflict
with other peoples and nations. See for example, Aviezer Ravitzky, “Degamim shel
shalom be-hagut ha-yehudit” [Models of Peace in Jewish Thought], in Al Ha’daat
v’al hamakom , Keter, Jerusalem, 1991; Michael Walzer. “Universalism and Jewish
Values”, The Carnegie Council on Ethics and Foreign Policy: New York, 2001, Marc
Gopin, Holy War, Holy Peace, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002); Joseph E.
David and Dr. Avinoam Rosenak, “Judaism and Peace: Between Responsibility and
Identity”, in The Role of Religious and Philosophical Traditions in Promoting World
Peace: An Asian Perspective, edited by Imtiyaz Yusuf, The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung,
Singapore 2007
14 Moshe Rosman, “The Role of Non-Jewish Authorities in Resolving Conflicts within
Jewish Communities in the Early Modern Period”, Jewish Political Studies Review,
12: 3-4, 2000
15 Lewis Kriesberg, Constructive Conflicts (Lanthan, MD: Rowan and Littlefield, 1998);
Marc Gopin. Between Eden and Armageddon: The Future of World Religions,

22
 Violence, and Peacemaking. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000)
16 Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, The Torah of Conflict Resolution, Chukat 8th July 2006, 12th
Tammuz 5766 (weekly commentary)
17 Steven John Brams, Biblical Games : Game Theory and the Hebrew Bible, Cambridge:
MIT Press, 2003
18 Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without
Giving In, New York: Penguin Books, 1981
19 For detailed analysis of the contradictions of peace and justice see Rabbi Soloveitchik:
Reflections of the Rav vol I. The Torah Way of Justice p.55-57; also Menachem Elon,
“Law, Truth and Peace: Three Pillars of the World”, New York University: Journal of
International Law and Politics, Summer 1997, 29:4, pp. 439-472; Menachem Elon
“HaDin, HaEmet, Hashalom, V’haPshara: Al Shlosha v’arbah Amudei HaMishpat
V’haChevra”, (Law, Truth, Peace, and Compromise: On Three and Four Pillars of
Law and Society) Michkari Mishpat, School of Law, Bar Ilan University, Vol. 14, No.
2, 1998 (special volume on Peace: Legal and other Aspects, in memory of Yitzchak
Rabin), pp. 269-342.
20 The Talmud also uses the term “bitzuah”, which may refer to a procedure like
“splitting the difference”. However, the precise meaning of this term remains
obscure. Sanhedrin 6b; Steinsaltz, 6b, p. 50)
21 Hilchot Sanhedrin, Chap 22, cited by Elon, fn. 203; see also Bazak, fn. 17
22 Bazak, p. 1-2 , citing the commentary of Maimonides on the Mishna Ketubot, 10:5
23 Elon, ftnt. 207; Bazak, fn. 13
24 Choshen Mishpat, Hilchot Dayanim, Section 12, Halakha 20.
25 Bazak, ftnt. 41
26 Bazak, p. 11, ftnts 46-50
27 A. M. Davis and R. A. Salem, “Dealing with Power Imbalances in the Mediation of
Interpersonal Disputes”, Mediation Quarterly, 1984, pp. 17-26
28 Menacham Elon, “Compromise”, in The Principles of Jewish Law, (Jerusalem: Keter,
1975), p. 570-573
29 Steven John Brams, Biblical Games : Game Theory and the Hebrew Bible, Cambridge:
MIT Press, 2003
30 Jonathan Sacks, The Politics of Hope London, Random House, 1997, pp. 198-209
31 Solomon Schimmel, Wounds Not Healed by Time, Oxford U. Press, 2002
32 Simon Wiesenthal, The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness,
New York: Schocken Books, 1998
33 Schimmel, p. 8, citing Boteach, pp. 42-3

23
 Editorial Note
We have divided the sources into four categories:

1. Judaism’s approach to conflict and dispute. This includes the sources relating
to the Jewish legal perception of conflict. The embodiment of desirable dispute as
exhibited between the schools of Hillel and Shammai demonstrate the possibility of
day-to-day coexistence despite conflict. Here we also advance the Jewish precept of
not breaking faith with the community or being different in order to prevent internal
strife.

2. Prevention of conflict. This category deals with sources that encourage and
establish the importance of peace. Sources dealing with improving relations between
adversaries as well as between people in general, and the maintaining of respect between
one another are considered here. Judaism regards Aaron as the model peacemaker
and here we quote sources that outline his approach. Also, sources decrying the
divisiveness of hatred and the absence of peace enter into this component.

3. Methods for resolving conflict. In this category, we include sources illustrating

options of how to deal with conflict by showing examples of violent solutions,
separation, majority rule, compromise or reconciliation.

4. Approaches to managing conflict. This final unit explores the theme of revenge.
Herein, we look at the biblical cities of refuge as means of neutralizing the natural
inclination for vengeance. Sources treating excommunication and forgiveness are
addressed here.

Each category is divided into sub-topics. At the end of each sub-topic appears
a short summary and explanation of the texts presented.The sources under each sub-
topic are presented in chronological order. A one-line biography of the source’s author
precedes each quotation.

This work attempts to survey an array of Jewish sources dealing with conflict but
makes no claims to be exhaustive. Our intention is to present representative texts
from different Judaic sources and thinkers, thus encompassing a wide range of Jewish
thought on and reaction to conflict. When texts exist in different versions and from
different periods of Jewish history, i.e., the same text written in the Midrash, Talmud,
Rambam (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon [Maimonides]) and the Shulchan Aruch, we use
the earliest text unless the later text is easier to understand, adds further detail or is
the best known version.

Though each text can be analyzed and discussed at great length, our limited space
here simply does not allow a fuller coverage of each topic. Readers are invited to

24
delve more deeply into the many commentaries of the myriad original texts that
exist in secondary sources. Here, we prefer to examine the original text with minimal
commentary. The aim of this work is to be a springboard for further study of the topic.
Sometimes, we have introduced a source only to indicate an initial aspect of a point of
conflict or dispute in need of further research. Much has been written about many of
these sources and where we can, we have suggested references for further reading.

The English translations of the texts have been adapted from a number of sources.
The majority of translations were taken from the Soncino translations. Other translations
were adapted freely by the editors.

In the field of conflict studies,much exploration is currently taking place in the cultural
aspects of conflict, that is, how culture affects, interprets and deals with discord.

One particular facet of the cultural influences on conflict resolution comes from
religion. Hence, religious writings on conflict and the ways different religions tackle
the issue have attracted many researchers’ interest. In order to understand the Jewish
approach to conflict (if there is one), one must first turn to the primary sources and
texts relating to dispute and understand these. A study of the Bible together with
its commentaries, the Midrash and Talmud, and modern rabbinic responsa, as well as
an analysis of texts written about conflict, constitute the first step to understanding
Judaism and its approach to conflict.

Since the idea for this project was first raised two years ago, many members of
the Program on Conflict Management have contributed greatly to its development.
I would like to thank Dr. Ephraim Tabory for reading through, and commenting on,
several drafts and seeing it to its completion. Thank you to Daniel Roth, Yair Eldan and
Shlomit Stern (Hazan) for their insightful input as the project took shape. Thank you
to Yitzchak Avi Roness for his constant support and advice. Finally, thank you to Prof.
Gerald Steinberg for initiating this project and propelling it forward.

Michal Roness

25
 1. JUDAISM’S APPROACH TO CONFLICT AND DISPUTE
‫היחס לסכסוך ומחלוקת‬
1.1 Conflict from the Jewish Perspective ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ Ï˘ ‰ÒÈÙ˙

ÌÈÁÒÙ ˙ÎÒÓ ‰˘Ó

‡ ‰˘Ó „ ˜¯Ù

Íω‰ÆÔÈ˘ÂÚ Ôȇ ≠ ˙¢ÚÏ ‡Ï˘ ‚‰˘ ÌÂ˜Ó ¨ÔÈ˘ÂÚ ≠ ˙ˆÁ „Ú ÌÈÁÒÙ È·¯Ú· ‰Î‡ÏÓ ˙¢ÚÏ Â‚‰˘ ̘Ó
‡ˆÈ˘ ÌÂ˜Ó È¯ÓÂÁ ÂÈÏÚ ÔÈ˙Â ≠ ÔÈ˘ÂÚ˘ ̘ÓÏ ÔÈ˘ÂÚ Ôȇ˘ ̘ÓÓ Â‡ ¨ÔÈ˘ÂÚ Ôȇ˘ ̘ÓÏ ÔÈ˘ÂÚ˘ ̘ÓÓ
Æ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ ÈÙÓ Ì„‡ ‰˘È χ ÆÌ˘Ï Íω˘ ÌÂ˜Ó È¯ÓÂÁ ¨Ì˘Ó

Mishnah Pesachim
Chapter 4 Mishnah 1
He who goes from a place where they work to a place where they do not work, or
from a place where they do not work to a place where they do work, we lay upon
him the restrictions of the place whence he departed and the restrictions of the place
whither he has gone; and a man must not act differently [from local custom] on
account of the quarrels [which would ensue].

****
ÌÈÁÒÙ ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙
· „ÂÓÚ ‡ Û„

Íω˘ ÌÂ˜Ó È¯ÓÂÁ ÂÈÏÚ ÔÈ˙Â ÔÈ˘ÂÚ Ôȇ˘ ̘ÓÏ ÔÈ˘ÂÚ˘ ̘ÓÓ Íω‰ ‡ÓÏ˘· ÆÈÏÂΠ̘ÓÓ Íω‰
Ì„‡ ‰˘È χ ≠ ÔÈ˘ÂÚ˘ ̘ÓÏ ÔÈ˘ÂÚ Ôȇ˘ ̘ÓÓ ∫‡Ï‡ Æ„È·ÚÈÏ ‡Ï ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ ÈÙÓ Ì„‡ ‰˘È χ ¨Ì˘Ï
¯Ó‡ ≠ °Ì˘Ó ‡ˆÈ˘ ÌÂ˜Ó È¯ÓÂÁÂ Ì˘Ï Íω˘ ÌÂ˜Ó È¯ÓÂÁ ÂÈÏÚ ÔÈ˙Â ∫˙¯Ó‡ ‡‰ ø„È·Ú ¨˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ ÈÙÓ
‰‡Â¯‰ ∫˙¯Ó‡ ‡˜ È‡Ó Æ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ ÈÂÈ˘ ÈÙÓ ÂÊ· Ôȇ ∫¯Ó‡˜ ÈΉ ¨‡ÙÈÒ‡ ÌÏÂÚÏ ∫¯Ó‡ ‡·¯ Ƈ˘È¯‡ ∫ÈÈ·‡
Ƈ˜Â˘· ȉ ÈÏË· ‰ÓÎ ∫ȯӇ ¯ÓÈÓ ≠ ‰¯ÂÒ‡ ‰Î‡ÏÓ ¯Ó‡

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Pesachim 51b
He who goes from a place, etc. As for [teaching], he who goes from a place where
they do work to a place where they do not work . . .We lay upon him the restrictions
of the place whither he has gone, and a man must not act differently, on account of
the quarrels, and he must not work. But [if he goes] from a place where they do not
work to a place where they do work . . . A man must not act differently, because of the
quarrels — [that is] he is to work? But you say, we lay upon him the restriction or the
place whither he has gone and the restrictions of the place whence he has departed!
— Said Abaye: It refers to the first clause. Raba said: After all it refers to the second
clause, but this is its meaning: This does not come within [the scope of] differences
which cause quarrels. What will you say: He who sees will say, “[He regards] work
as forbidden?” [No:] they will indeed say, “How many unemployed are there in the
market place!”

26
 ÔÈ˘Â„È˜ ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙
· „ÂÓÚ Ï Û„
Æ®‰∫ÊΘ ÌÈω˙© ¢¯Ú˘· Ìȷȇ ˙‡ ¯·„È ÈÎ Â˘Â·È ‡Ï Ì‰Ó Â˙Ù˘‡ ˙‡ ‡ÏÓ ¯˘‡ ¯·‚‰ ȯ˘‡¢ ∫¯Ó‡Â
„Á‡ ¯Ú˘· ‰¯Â˙· ÔȘÒÂÚ˘ ¨Â„ÈÓÏ˙ ·¯‰ ¨Â·Â ·‡‰ ÂÏÈÙ‡ ∫‡·‡ ¯· ‡ÈÈÁ È·¯ ¯Ó‡ ø¯Ú˘· Ìȷȇ ˙‡ ȇÓ
¯·„Ó·© ‰ÙÂÒ· ·‰Â ˙‡¢ ∫¯Ó‡˘ ¨‰Ê ˙‡ ‰Ê ÌÈ·‰Â‡ ÌÈ˘Ú˘ „Ú Ì˘Ó ÌÈÊÊ Ìȇ ¨‰Ê ˙‡ ‰Ê Ìȷȇ ÌÈ˘Ú
ƉÙÂÒ· ¨‰Ù»Ò· ȯ˜˙ χ ¨®‡Î

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Kiddushin 30b
And it is also said: Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them; they shall not
be ashamed, when they speak with their enemies in the gate.What is meant by “with
their enemies in the gate”?— Said R. Hiyya b. Abba, Even father and son, master and
disciple, who study Torah at the same gate become enemies of each other; yet they do
not stir from there until they come to love each other, for it is written, love is be-sufah;
read not be-sufah but be-sofah.

****
‰·¯ ˙È˘‡¯·
„ ‰˘¯Ù
¯Ó‡Ó· ‡Ï‰Â ¨‡‰Ó˙‡ ˘ÚÈ ¨ÌÏÂÚ‰ ˙‡ ‡ÓÂÊ Ô· ˘ÈÚ¯‰˘ ˙‡¯˜Ó‰ ÔÓ „Á‡ ‰Ê ¨ÚȘ¯‰ ˙‡ Ìȉχ ˘ÚÈÂ
ø·ÂË ÈÎ È˘· ·È˙Î Ôȇ ‰ÓÏ ¨Ì‡·ˆ ÏÎ ÂÈÙ Á¯·Â ¢Ú ÌÈÓ˘ ߉ ¯·„· ®‚Ï ÌÈω˙© ȉ Ô‰
ÏÂÓ˙‡Ó ÍÂ¯Ú ÈÎ ®Ï ‰ÈÚ˘È© ¯Ó‡˘ ¨Ì‰È‚ ˙‡¯· ·˘ ‡˙ÙÏÁ È·¯ Ô· ÈÒÂÈ È·¯ Ì˘· ‰Ï È˙ ÔÁÂÈ È·¯
ÆÌÂ˘Ï˘ · Ôȇ ÏÂÓ˙‡ · ˘È˘ ÌÂÈ ¨‰˙Ù˙
˙˜ÂÏÁÓ Ì‡ ÈÓÂÈ·Ë È·¯ ¯Ó‡ ¨ÌÈÓÏ ÌÈÓ ÔÈ· ÏÈ„·Ó ȉÈ ¯Ó‡˘ ¨˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ˙‡¯· ·˘ ¯Ó‡ ‡ÈÁ È·¯
ƉÓΠ‰ÓÎ ˙Á‡ ÏÚ Â·Â·¯ÚÏ ‡È‰˘ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ¨·ÂË ÈÎ ‰· Ôȇ ·¢ÈÏ ÌÏÂÚ Ï˘ Â˜˙Ï ‡È‰˘

Genesis Rabbah
Portion 4
AND G-D MADE THE FIRMAMENT (Gen. I:7). This is one of the verses over which
the son of Zoma raised a commotion: He made - how remarkable! surely it [came
into existence] at [G-d’s] word, [as it is written,] By the word of the Lord were the
heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth (Ps. 33:6).

Why is “that it was good” not written in connection with the second day? R. Johanan
explained, and it was also thus taught in the name of R. Jose b. R. Halafta: Because
on it the Gehenna was created, [as it is written,] For Tofteh is ordered from yesterday
(Isa. 30:33) which signifies a day to which there was a yesterday but not a day before
yesterday. R. Hanina said: Because in it schism was created, [as it is written,] AND LET
IT DIVIDE THE WATERS. R.Tabyomi said: If because of a division made for the greater
stability and orderliness of the world, “for it was good” is not written in connection
with that day, then how much the more should this apply to a division which leads to
its confusion!
****
Ôȯ„‰Ò ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙
‡ „ÂÓÚ È˜ Û„
∫·¯ ¯Ó‡„ ¨˙˜ÂÏÁÓ· ÔȘÈÊÁÓ Ôȇ˘ Ô‡ÎÓ ∫˘È˜Ï ˘È¯ ¯Ó‡ ®ßÊË ¯·„Ó·© ¨Ì¯È·‡Â Ô˙„ χ ÍÏÈ ‰˘Ó ̘ÈÂ
¨Ú¯ËˆÈÏ È‡¯ ∫¯Ó‡ È˘‡ ·¯ ÆÂ˙„ÚΠÁ¯˜Î ‰È‰È ‡Ï ®ßÊÈ ¯·„Ó·© ¯Ó‡˘ ‡Ϸ ¯·ÂÚ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ· ˜ÈÊÁÓ‰ ÏÎ

27
 ÏÎ ∫ÈÒÂÈ È·¯ ¯Ó‡ Æ͘ÈÁ· Í„È ‡ ‡·‰ „ÂÚ ÂÏ ß‰ ¯Ó‡È ®ß„ ˙ÂÓ˘© Ì˙‰ ·È˙Π¨ÂÏ ‰˘Ó „È· ‡Î‰ ·È˙Î
‡È¯Ó ¯˜·Â Ô‡ˆ ‰È„‡ Á·ÊÈ ®ß‡ ߇ ÌÈÎÏÓ© ‡Î‰ ·È˙Î Æ˘Á ¢ÈÎ‰Ï È‡¯ ≠ „„ ˙È· ˙ÂÎÏÓ ÏÚ ˜ÏÂÁ‰
˜ÏÂÁΠ·¯ ÏÚ ˜ÏÂÁ‰ ÏÎ ∫‡„ÒÁ ·¯ ¯Ó‡ ƯÙÚ ÈÏÁÂÊ ˙ÓÁ ÌÚ ®ß·Ï Ìȯ·„© Ì˙‰ ·È˙Π¨˙ÏÁÂʉ Ô·‡ ÌÚ
·¯ ÌÚ ‰·È¯Ó ‰˘ÂÚ‰ ÏÎ ∫‡ÈÁ È·¯· ‡ÓÁ È·¯ ¯Ó‡ Æ߉ ÏÚ Ì˙ˆ‰· ®ßÂÎ ¯·„Ó·© ¯Ó‡˘ ‰È΢‰ ÏÚ
¯· ‡ÈÁ È·¯ ¯Ó‡ Æ߉ ˙‡ χ¯˘È È· ·¯ ¯˘‡ ‰·È¯Ó ÈÓ ‰Ó‰ ®ßÎ ¯·„·Ó·© ¯Ó‡˘ ‰È΢ ÌÚ ‰˘ÂÚÎ
®Ì‡© ÈÎ ÌÎÈ˙ÂÂÏ˙ ÂÈÏÚ ‡Ï ®ßÊË ˙ÂÓ˘© ¯Ó‡˘ ¨‰È΢‰ ÏÚ ÌÚ¯˙Ó ÂÏȇΠ·¯ ÏÚ ÌÚ¯˙Ó‰ ÏÎ ∫‡ÙÙ
ÌÚ‰ ¯·„È ®ß‡Î ¯·„·Ó·© ¯Ó‡˘ ¨‰È΢ ¯Á‡ ¯‰¯‰Ó ÂÏȇΠ·¯ ¯Á‡ ¯‰¯‰Ó‰ ÏÎ ∫‰·‡ È·¯ ¯Ó‡ Æ߉ ÏÚ
Ɖ˘Ó·Â Ìȉχ·

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Sanhedrin 110a
And Moses rose up and went in to Dathan and Abiram. Resh Lakish said:This teaches
that one must not be obdurate in a quarrel; for Rab said: He who is unyielding in a
dispute violates a negative command, as it is written, And let him not be as Korah, and
as his company. R. Ashi said: He deserves to be smitten with leprosy: here it is written,
[as the Lord said] to him by the hand of Moses, whilst elsewhere, it is said, And the
Lord said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom [and when he
took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow] (Ex. 4:6).
R. Joseph said: Whoever contends against the sovereignty of the House of David
deserves to be bitten by a snake. Here it is written, And Adonijah slew sheep and
oxen and fat cattle by the stone of Zoheleth; whilst elsewhere it is written, with the
poison of serpents [zohale] of the dust. R. Hisda said:Whoever contends against [the
ruling of] his teacher is as though he contended against the Shechinah, as it says,
when they strove against the Lord. R. Hama son of R. Hanina said: Whoever quarrels
with his teacher is as though he quarreled with the Shechinah, as it is said, This is
the water of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with the Lord. R. Hanina
b. Papa said: Whoever expresses resentment against his teacher, is as though he
expressed it against the Shechinah, as it is said,Your murmurings are not against us,
but against the Lord. R. Abbahu said: He who imputes [evil] to his teacher is as though
he imputed [it] to the Shechinah, as it says, And the people spake against G-d, and
against Moses.

****

ÌȘȄˆ ˙ÂÁ¯Â‡ ¯ÙÒ

ÒÚΉ ¯Ú˘ ¯˘Ú ÌÈÈ˘‰ ¯Ú˘
‰‡˜ ˘È ≠ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ˘È˘Î ¨Ì‰ÓÚ ‡Â‰Â ÂÓÚ Â·È¯È ÂȯȷÁ ÌÚ ÒÚÂÎ ‡Â‰˘Î ¨˙˜ÂÏÁÓ È„ÈÏ Ì„‡ ‡È·Ó ÒÚΉ
Æ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ ¯Ú˘· ¯‡·˙È ¯˘‡Î ¨˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ ˙ÂÚ¯ ˙Ú„È ¯·Î Ɖ‡˘Â

Pathways of the Righteous

Chapter 12 Gate to Anger

Anger brings a man into quarrels for when he is angry with his companions, they
quarrel with him and he quarrels with them. And when there is a quarrel, there is, of
course resulting envy and hatred. And you already know the evils of a quarrel, as will
be further explained in the chapter on quarrels.

****

28
 ÌȯÓÓ ˙ÂÎω ‰¯Â˙ ‰˘Ó
®±±≥∏≠±≤∞¥ ¨ÌȯˆÓ≠„¯ÙÒ© ÔÂÓÈÓ Ô· ‰˘Ó ߯ ≠ Ìßß·Ó¯
„ ‰Îω ‡ ˜¯Ù

Ï‡Â˘ χ¯˘ÈÓ „Á‡Ï ˜ÙÒ Â· „ÏÂ˘ ÔÈ„ ÏÎ ‡Ï‡ ¨Ï‡¯˘È· ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ‰˙ȉ ‡Ï ÌÈȘ Ï„‚‰ ÔÈ„ ˙È· ‰È‰˘Î
ÌÈÏ˘Â¯ÈÏ ÔÈÏÂÚ ÂÈÁÂÏ˘ ÌÚ Â‡ ÔÈ„ ˙È· Â˙‡ ÌÚ Ï‡Â˘‰ ȯ‰ Â‡Ï Ì‡ ÂÏ Â¯Ó‡ ÂÚ„È Ì‡ ¯ÈÚ·˘ ÔÈ„ ˙È·Ï
ÂÚ„È Ì‡ ¨‰¯ÊÚ‰ Á˙Ù ÏÚ˘ ÔÈ„ ˙È·Ï Ôȇ· ÏΉ Â‡Ï Ì‡ ÂÏ Â¯Ó‡ ÂÚ„È Ì‡ ˙È·‰ ¯‰·˘ ÔÈ„ ˙È·Ï ÔÈÏ‡Â˘Â
¨ÏÎÏ ˜ÙÒ‰ · „ÏÂ˘ ¯·„‰ ‰È‰ ̇ ¨ÔÈÏ‡Â˘Â Ï„‚‰ ÔÈ„ ˙È·Ï ˙ÈÊ‚‰ ˙΢ÏÏ Ôȇ· ÏΉ Â‡Ï Ì‡Â Ô‰Ï Â¯Ó‡
ψ‡ ¯Â¯· ¯·„‰ ‰È‰ ‡Ï ̇ ¨„ÈÓ ÌȯÓ‡ ‰· Â„˘ ‰„Ó‰ ÈÙÓ ÔÈ· ‰Ï·˜‰ ÈÙÓ ÔÈ· Ï„‚‰ ÔÈ„ ˙È· ψ‡ Ú„È
¯ӇÈ ·Â¯‰ ¯Á‡ ÂÎÏÈ ÔÈÓÏ Â„ÓÚÈ Â‡ ¨ÔÏÂÎ ÂÓÈÎÒÈ˘ „Ú ¯·„· ÔÈ˙Â Ôȇ˘Â Ô˙Ú˘· · ÔÈ„ Ï„‚‰ ÔÈ„ ˙È·
ÌÚË Ô˙Â ‡ÓËÓ ‰Ê χ¯˘È· ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ‰˙·¯ Ï„‚‰ ÔÈ„ ˙È· ÏË·˘Ó ¨Ô‰Ï ÔÈÎω ‰Îω ÍÎ ÌÈÏ‡Â˘‰ ÏÎÏ
ƯÈ˙Ó ‰Ê ¯Ò‡ ‰Ê Âȯ·„Ï ÌÚË Ô˙Â ¯‰ËÓ ‰Ê Âȯ·„Ï

Mishneh Torah Laws of Rebels

Maimonides - Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Spain - Egypt, 1138-1204)
Chapter 1 Law 4
When the High Court was in session, there were never any (prolonged) differences of
opinion among the Jewish people. Instead, if a doubt arose in a Jew’s mind over any
law, he would inquire of the court in his city. If not, the questioner and that court - or
its agents - ascend to Jerusalem and ask the court which holds sessions on the Temple
Mount. If they know, they will reply to him. If they do not know, everyone comes to
the court that holds sessions at the entrance to the Temple courtyard. If they know,
they will reply to him, if they do not know, everyone comes to the Chamber of Hewn
Stone, to the High Court and presents the question. If the matter that was unresolved
by all [the others] was known to High Court - either as part of the Oral Tradition
or because of its derivation through the principles [of exegesis] - they relate [the
decision] immediately. If, however, the decision was unclear to the High Court, they
deliberate the matter at that time and debate it back and forth until they reach a
uniform decision, or until a vote is taken. [In such a situation] they follow the majority
and then tell all the questioners: “This is the Halachah.” [The questioners] then all
depart.

After the High Court was nullified, differences of opinion multiplied among the
Jewish people. One would rule [a certain item] is impure and support his ruling
with a rationale and another would rule that is it pure and support his ruling with a
rationale. This one would rule [a certain item] is forbidden and this would rule that
it is permitted.

****
‰˘Ó ˙¯‚‡ ˙ßߢ
®±∏πµ≠±π∏∂ ¨˙ȯ·‰ ˙ˆ¯‡≠‰ÈÒ¯© ÔÈÈˢÈÈÙ ‰˘Ó ߯
‰Î ÔÓÈÒ „ ÌÈÈÁ Á¯Â‡ ˜ÏÁ

Ô¯ÒÁ Ì‰Ï ‰È‰È ‡Ï˘ Û‡˘ ˘ÂÁÏ ˘È ‡ÏÈÓÓ˘ ˙Á‡ ‰Ú„·Â ˙Á‡ ‰ËÈ˘· ÌÏÂÎ ÂÈ‰È˘ ¯˘Ù‡ ȇ ËÚÓÎ
˘È˘ ÈÙÎ ˙ÂÓÁÏÓ ˙¢ÚÏ ÒÂÓÁÏ ÏÂÊ‚Ï ˙ÂÈÓ˘‚‰ ˙‡˙ ÏÈ·˘· ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ‰È‰È ‡Ï ÌÂÏ˘Â ÒÁ ‰ÂÓ‡
Ï„‚ ·¯ ÏÎ ˙„¯٠˙¯·Á ÂȉÈ ÌÓÈÈ˜Ï Íȇ ‰¯Â˙‰ ÈÈ„· ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ‰È‰È˘ ˘ÂÁÏ ˘È ‡‰ ¨˙ÂÓ‡‰ ψ‡
ÆÔÓÊ ÔÓÊ Ïη ÔΠ‡˙·¯„ ‡˙‚ÂÏÙ ‰ÓÎ ‰¯Â˙‰ ÈÈ„ Ïη ËÚÓÎ ‡Îȇ˘ Ò¢˘‰ Ïη ÔÈÊÁ„Π„·Ï ÂÈ„ÈÓÏ˙Â

29
Iggerot Moshe
Rabbi Moses Feinstein (Russia-USA, 1895-1986)
Orach Haim 4:25

Because it is almost impossible for everyone to be of the same approach and the
same opinion, for in any event we may consider that despite not having a deficiency
in faith, God forbid, and [despite] there not being any dispute as to corporal desires
[regarding] theft, robbery and waging wars as [these] exist among the [gentile]
nations, we may consider there will be disputes in how to fulfill Torah laws, and
there will be separate groupings, each great rabbi and his students, as we witness
throughout the Talmud that in almost all the Torah’s laws there are a number of
disputes of the Sages, and so shall it be in every era. Orach Haim 4:25

****
‰˘Ó ˙¯‚‡ ˙ßߢ
®±∏πµ≠±π∏∂ ¨˙ȯ·‰ ˙ˆ¯‡≠‰ÈÒ¯© ÔÈÈˢÈÈÙ ‰˘Ó ߯
ÂÓ ÔÓÈÒ ‡ ÌÈÈÁ Á¯Â‡ ˜ÏÁ

ÌÈ„Á‡ ÌȈ¯ Ôȇ ‰Ê ÏÈ·˘·˘ χ¯˘È ˙È„ÓÓ ˙ȯ·‰ ˙ˆ¯‡Ó ÌÈÏ‚„‰ Ì˘ „ÓÚ‰˘ ˙ÒΉ ˙È· ÔÈÚ·
ÆÆÆÆÆ˘ÓÓ ‰Ê· ˘È ̇ Ì˘ ÏÏÙ˙‰Ï
Ì˘ ÂÁÈ‰Ï Ôȇ˘ Ô΢ ÏΠ‰˘Â„˜ ÌÂ˜Ó ‡Â‰˘ ˙ÒΉ ˙È·· ÒÈÎ‰Ï ‡Â‰ ȇ¯‰ ÔÓ ‡Ï ȇ„¢ Û‡ ÔÎÏÂÆÆÆÆÆ
¨˙ÂË˘Â Ï·‰ ÔÈÚ ‡Â‰˘ ‡Ï‡ ‰Ê ÏÚ ¯ÓÂÏ ÍÈÈ˘ ‡Ï ˘ÓÓ ¯ÂÒȇ Ï·‡ ¨˘„˜‰ Ô¯‡ ψ‡ ‡Ï Ô΢ ÏΠ˙ÂÚÈ·˜·
ƯÂÒ‡ ‰Ê ÏÈ·˘· ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ˙¢ÚÏ Ï·‡ ·ÂË ¯·„ ‰Ê ‰È‰ ˙ÒΉ ˙È·Ó Ì˜ÏÒÏ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï˘ ÔÙ‡· ¯˘Ù‡ ̇Â
ÔÂÎ Èχ ÔÎ Ì‚ ‰È‰ ÌÈÚ˘¯‰ ‰˘ÚÓÏ Ô¯ÎÊ ‰È‰È ‡Ï˘ È„Î Ï‚„‰ ÔÈÚ ¯Â˜ÚÏ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ‡Ï· ÁÎ ‰È‰ ̇Â
Ɖʷ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ˙¢ÚÏ ÌÂÏ˘Â ÒÁ Ï·‡ ¨˙¢ÚÏ

Iggerot Moshe
Rabbi Moses Feinstein (Russia-USA, 1895-1986)
Orach Haim 1:46

In the matter of a synagogue where Israeli and American flags were placed, and for
this reason there are a number of people who do not wish to pray there...
Therefore, while it is certainly not proper to admit [flags] into the synagogue, a holy
place, definitely not to establish them there on a permanent basis and certainly not
next to the Ark, nevertheless, there is no actual prohibition to speak of; rather, it is
silly and nonsensical. If it is possible to remove them in a peaceful manner, then that
would be the proper thing to do. But to cause a dispute because of it is forbidden. And
if it is possible to remove the flag without conflicts, so as there will be no memory of
the acts of wrongdoers, it would be correct to so; however, Heaven forbid, to cause a
dispute over it.
****

30
 Summary

The Hebrew word machloket in the Jewish context can mean “controversy”
or “dispute.” There have been different and changing approaches to conflict in the
academic world. At first, academics related to conflict as something that needed to
be resolved, ended and avoided. However, the trend later moved towards conflict
management: the recognition that conflict is a natural part of human nature and while
it must be contained, it cannot be eliminated. More recently, conflict has been viewed
as a positive facet of human nature that must be transformed in order to harness
the positive, creative strength of the conflict. Supporters of conflict transformation
recognize that conflict will always exist and its positive aspects must be utilized to affect
change in society.
In Jewish sources we also find these different approaches throughout the ages.
Controversy can present a negative face, which must be avoided or eliminated. However,
Judaism views certain types of controversy and conflict as positive and beneficial for
the sake of Heaven.
In the Mishnah and Talmud, conflict is introduced as something to be avoided.When
entering a place whose customs differ from that left behind, one should adopt the
values of the surrounding community to avoid confrontation or conflict.
In the Midrash commenting on the Creation, conflict is seen as resulting from the
dividing of the elements, hence G-d did not describe the day that the waters were
divided as a “good” day.The explanation is that on that day conflict was created, because
of the dividing of the waters above from the waters below.
The Rambam wrote that divisions within the people of Israel developed because of the
decline of formal authority.When the High Court (the Sanhedrin) ruled as the accepted
authority over the people, there was no division. As the authority of the formal court
system waned, division among the people increased. Each man decided for himself and
often decisions were conflicting, thus magnifying the disparities between customs and
practices. Both the Mishnah and the Rambam are referring to conflict resulting from
the fragmentation in Halachic interpretations and practices.
In a modern example, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein expresses the need to avoid conflict.
Thus, if a deed is likely to cause a collision of opinions, even if it is the correct thing to
do, it should be sidestepped to prevent the potential controversy.

31
1.2 Dispute Between Hillel and Shammai: A Dispute for
the Sake of Heaven
ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ∫È‡Ó˘Â Ïω ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ
˙·‡ ˙ÎÒÓ ‰˘Ó
ÊÈ ‰˘Ó ‰ ˜¯Ù
ÂÊȇ ÌÈȘ˙‰Ï ‰ÙÂÒ Ôȇ ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ‰ȇ˘Â ÌÈȘ˙‰Ï ‰ÙÂÒ ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ‡È‰˘ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÏÎ
∫Â˙„Ú ÏΠÁ¯˜ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÂÊ ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ‰ȇ˘Â È‡Ó˘Â Ïω ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÂÊ ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ‡Â‰˘ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ‡È‰

Mishnah Avot
Chapter 5 Mishnah 17
Every controversy that is in the name of Heaven, the end thereof is [destined] to
result in something permanent; but one that is not in the name of Heaven, the end
thereof is not [destined] to result in something permanent. Which is the [kind of]
controversy that is in the name of Heaven? Such as was the controversy between
Hillel and Shammai; and which is the [kind of] controversy that is not in the name of
Heaven? Such as was the controversy of Korah and all his congregation.

****
˙·‡ ˙ÎÒÓ ‡¯Â˯·Ó ‰È„·ÂÚ È·¯
®±¥¥∞≠±µ≥∞ ¨Ï‡¯˘È ı¯‡ ≠ ‡¯Â˯·© Â¯È ‰È„·ÂÚ È·¯
ÊÈ ‰˘Ó ‰ ˜¯Ù
¨ÔÈ„·Â‡ Ìȇ ÌÈÓÈȘ˙Ó ‡È‰‰ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ È˘‡˘ ¯ÓÂÏÎ ≠ ÌÈȘ˙‰Ï ‰ÙÂÒ ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ‡È‰˘ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÏÎ
È‡Â Æ„·‡ Â˙„Ú Á¯Â˜ Ï·‡ ÆÏω ˙È· È„ÈÓÏ˙ ‡ÏÂ È‡Ó˘ ˙È· È„ÈÓÏ˙ ‡Ï „·‡ ‡Ï˘ È‡Ó˘Â Ïω ˙˜ÂÏÁÓÎ
˘˜Â·Ó‰ ÛÂ҉ ˙ÈÏÎ˙‰ ¨ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ‡È‰˘ ˙˜ÂÏÁӉ ƉÈÚÓ ˘˜Â·Ó‰Â ‰˙ÈÏÎ˙ ¨‰ÙÂÒ ˘Â¯ÈÙ ¨È˙ÚÓ˘
¯¯·˙˘ ÂÓΠ¨˙Ó‡‰ ¯¯·˙È ÁÂÎȉ ÍÂ˙Ó Â¯Ó‡˘ ÂÓÎ ¨ÌÈȘ˙Ó ‰Ê ¨˙Ó‡‰ ‚È˘‰Ï ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ‰˙‡Ó
˙˘˜· ‡È‰ ‰· ‰ˆ¯‰ ˙ÈÏÎ˙ ¨ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ‰ȇ˘ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÆÏω ˙È·Î ‰Îω˘ È‡Ó˘Â Ïω ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ·
Ì˙ÂÂÎ ÛÂÒ ˙ÈÏÎ˙˘ Â˙„Ú Á¯Â˜ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ· ÂÈˆÓ˘ ÂÓÎ ¨ÌÈȘ˙Ó Âȇ ÛÂÒ‰ ‰Ê ¨ÁˆÈ‰ ˙·‰‡Â ‰¯¯˘‰
∫ÍÙÈ‰Ï Âȉ ‰¯¯˘‰Â „·Ή ˙˘˜· ‰˙ȉ

Rabbi Ovadiah Bertinoro Tractate Avot

Rabbi Ovadiah Yare (Bertinoro - Land of Israel, 1440-1530c)
Chapter 5 Mishnah 17

Every controversy that is in the name of Heaven, the end thereof is [destined] to result
in something permanent - That is to say that the people of controversy are destined
to exist and not be destroyed, as with the dispute between Hillel and Shammai that
were not destroyed. Neither them nor the students of Hillel and Shammai. But Korah
and his congregation were destroyed. And I heard the explanation of “the end,” its
purpose and the matter is needed. The controversy which is in the name of Heaven,
the purpose and its desirable end is to obtain the truth, and this continues to exist, as
they said that from a disagreement the truth will be revealed, as was revealed in the
disputes between Hillel and Shammai - that the law was like the school of Hillel. And
a controversy which is not for the sake of Heaven, its purpose is to achieve power and
the love of victory, and its end will not continue to exist, as we found with the dispute
of Korah and his congregation that its purpose and their desired goal was to achieve
honor and power and the opposite was their result.

32
 ****
˙·‡ ÏÚ ‰ÂÈ ÂÈ·¯ ˘Â¯ÈÙ
(13-‫ המאה ה‬,‫רבי יונה בן ארבהם גירונדי )ספרד‬
ÊÈ ‰˘Ó ‰ ˜¯Ù
ÂÓÈȘ˙È ÌÏÂÚÏ˘ ‰ÂΉ ÌÈȘ˙‰Ï ‰ÙÂÒ ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ‡È‰˘ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÏÎ ¯Ó‡˘ ‰Ó ÈÎ ¯ÓÂÏ ≠ ÆÆÆ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÏÎ
‡Ï ̉ÈÈÁ ÈÓÈ ÏΠ̉ÈÈ· ͢Ó ÌÈȘ ‰È‰È ˙˜ÂÏÁÓÏ ¯Á‡ ¯·„· ¯ÁÓÏ „Á‡ ¯·„· ˜ÂÏÁÈ ÌÂȉ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ·
˙˜ÂÏÁÓ· ˜¯ ÌÈȘ˙‰Ï ‰ÙÂÒ Ôȇ ÌÈÓ˘ ÌÂ˘Ï ‰ȇ˘Â Ì‰Ï ÂÙÈÒÂÈ ÌÈÈÁ ˙Â˘Â ÌÈÓÈ Í¯Â‡˘ ‡Ï‡ „ÂÚ
∫Á¯˜ Ï˘ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓÎ Â˙ÂÓÈ Ì˘Â ÂÓ˙È Â¯ÙÒÈ Ô¢‡¯‰

Rabbenu Yonah on Pirkei Avot

Rabbi Yonah ben Rabbi Abraham Gerondi (Spain, 13th Century)
Chapter 5 Mishnah 17

Any dispute... In other words, what this means is, “Every dispute for the sake of
Heaven is destined to exist” [which in turn] means that they will always remain in
dispute:Today they will dispute one issue, and tomorrow another; the dispute will exist
and continue throughout their lives. Furthermore, they will merit additional length of
days and years of life. [A dispute] that is not for the sake of Heaven is not destined
to go on - they will only deal with the first dispute; they will meet their end and die
there, akin to Korah and his dispute.

****
˙·‡ ÏÚ ı¢·˘¯Ï ˙·‡ Ô‚Ó
®±≥∂±≠±¥¥¥ ¨‰È¯‚χ ≠ ‰˜¯ÂÈÓ© ԯ„ ÁÓˆ Ô· ÔÂÚÓ˘ ߯
ÊÈ ‰˘Ó ‰ ˜¯Ù

ÆÆƉگ ‡È‰ ˙ÓÈȘ˙Ó‰ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ ÈÎ ¨˜ÙÒ ÔȇÆÆÆ ˘Â¯ÈÙ‰ ÌÈȘ˙‰Ï ‰ÙÂÒ ¨ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ‡È‰˘ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÏÎ
ÔÂÈ΢ ÈÙÏ ÂÓÈȘ˙È Ìȯ·„‰˘ ¨Ï¢Ê ‰˘Ó ÂÈ·¯ ˘¯ÈÙ ¨ÌÈȘ˙‰Ï ‰ÙÂÒ˘ ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ‡È‰ ̇˘ ¯Ó‡˘ ‰ÓÂ
Ì„È ÏÚ ÌÈÎÒÓ ‰¢·˜‰Â ˙Ó‡‰ ˙Ú„Ï ‡Ï‡ ¯·Á ȯ·„ ¯Â˙ÒÏ ÔÈÂÎ˙Ó Âȇ ¨ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ‡È‰ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰˘
‡Ï‡ ‰Ê ˙‡ ‰Ê ÁˆÏ ÔÈÂÂÎ˙Ó Ôȇ˘ ‰ÊÏ ‰Ê „ÂÈ˘ ¨ÌÈȘ˙‰Ï ‰ÙÂÒ ¨˘¯ÙÏ ¯˘Ù‡ÂÆÆÆ Ìȯ·„‰ ÂÓÈȘ˙È˘
˙Â¯Â‰Ï Ïω ˙È· ¯ÊÁ ¨ÂÈ˘˘ ÂÓΠ¨¯Á‡‰ ȯ·„ ÂÏË·˙È „Á‡‰ ˙Âȇ¯ ÂÓÈȘ˙È˘Î ¨Âȯ· ÏÚ ¯·„‰ „ÈÓÚ‰Ï
Æ˛· ‡Ó ÔÈËÈ‚¸ ÁÏ¢‰ ˜¯Ù· ¨È‡Ó˘ ˙È·Î

Magen Avot of the Tashbatz on Avot

Rabbi Shimon Ben Zemach Doran (Majorca - Algeria, 1361-1444)
Chapter 5 Mishnah 17

Any dispute which is for the sake of Heaven is destined to exist - the explanation
...there is no doubt that a dispute which persists is negative... and that which it states
that if it is for the sake of Heaven it is destined to exist. Moses our Teacher explained
that the issues will persist, because the dispute is for the sake of Heaven, neither

33
 party intends to disprove the opinion of his fellow, but rather to establish the truth,
thus, the Holy One, blessed be He acquiesces to them thereby causing the issue to
persist... One may explain “it is destined to be fulfilled” signifies that they will concede
to each other, for they have no intentions to defeat the other, rather only to clearly
establish the matter, and when the proofs of one are upheld, those of the other will
be annulled, as we learned, the school of Hillel reverted to instructing in accordance
with the school of Shammai (Gittin 41b).

****
˙·‡ ·Ï ˘Â¯ÈÙ
®±∂≠‰ ‰‡Ó‰ ¨‰ÈίÂ˙© ÈÂω ˙È·Ï ˜ÁˆÈ ¯¢· ‰ÓÏ˘ ߯
ÊÈ ‰˘Ó ‰ ˜¯Ù
¯¯·˙‰Â ˙Ó‡‰ Ú„ÂÂȉ ¯Â‡Ï ¯·„‰ ˙‡ÈˆÈ ˙·ÈÒ ‡Â‰ „ÂÓÈÏ·Â ÔÂÈÚ· ÌÈÈÎÙ‰‰ ÌÈ„„ˆ‰ ÔÓ ÁÂÎȉ˘ ÚÂ„È ÈÎ
ÆÆÆ˘˜Â·Ó‰ ˙‚˘‰Ï Ï„‚ ‡Â·Ó Ô‰ ˙ÂÈ˘Â˜‰Â ˙¯ډ‰Â ˙˜ÙÒ‰ ÔÎÏ ¨˜ÙÒ Ì¢ ˙ÏÂÊ·
¯¯·˙È ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ Â˙‡ ÌÚ˘ ‡Â‰ ÌȘÏÂÁ‰ ˙ÂÂ΢ ¨ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ‡Â‰ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰˘Î˘ ‡˙‰ ¯Ó‡È ÔΠ̇Â
ÌÈȘ˙È ˙Ó‡‰˘ ˙Âȉ ÌÚ ÈÎ ¨ÌÈȘ˙È˘ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ Â˙‡ ÛÂÒ È‡„· ¨Â˙ÏÂÊ ‡ˆÂÈ ‰È‰ ‡Ï˘ ‰Ó ¯Â‡Ï ‡ˆÈ ˙Ó‡‰
ȄΠÏȇ‰ ¨„ÁÈ ÌȯÎÊ ÂȉÈ ÂÓÈȘ˙È ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ È„„ˆ È˘ ÏÎ ‰Ê ÏÎ ÌÚ ¨Ì‰Ó „Á‡‰ „ˆ‰ ψ‡ ¯‡˘ÈÂ
‡Â‰ ÔÈ„ ÔÎÏ ¨˙Ó‡‰ ¯¯·˙È ÂÓˆÚ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ ÌÚ ¨˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ ˙Â˙Î È˙˘ ÍÈ¯Ú‰Ï Íȯˆ ˙Ó‡‰ ˙¯È¯· ˙Ú„Ï
ÆÌ‰Ó „Á‡Î ‡Ï‡ ˙Ó‡‰ Ôȇ˘ ˙Âȉ ÌÚ ¨ÂÈ„ÁÈ ÌÈ˘Ú ÌȯÎÊ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ ˙Â˙Î ÏΠ¯‡˘È˘

Lev Avot Commentary

Rabbi Shlomoh ben Rabbi Yitzchak of the House of Levi (Turkey, 16th century)
Chapter 5 Mishnah 17

For it is known that dispute from opposite perspectives of analysis and study is the
basis for the clarification of issues and for the revelation of the truth and its definitive
elucidation. Therefore, the doubts, criticisms and difficulties raised form the great
preface to achieving one’s goal...
Thus, the Tannaic scholar states that when the dispute is for the sake of Heaven,
then the intentions of the disputants as a result of the dispute is that the truth will
be clarified and that which may only be revealed through this dispute be revealed;
certainly the dispute will continue to exist, for despite the fact that the truth will be
attained and it will remain with one party, both parties to the dispute will exist and
be remembered together, because in order to clarify the truth two disputing groups
are required, and it is through the dispute the truth is clarified.Therefore, it is proper
that all the parties to the dispute be remembered and seen together, despite the truth
only being with one of them.

****

34
 Summary

These sources illustrate positive and negative conflicts - the latter to be avoided
and the former to be aspired to. The example of Korah and his sons points out a
controversy that centered on personal ambition and gain (Num. 16:1). They aimed
to destroy the fabric of society and the established structure of the community. The
positive example of controversy between the schools of Hillel and Shammai served
the will of Heaven. Their intellectual positions were argued out to seek truth, and
although the two schools strongly differed in their opinions and approaches to most
aspects of law (Halachah), they still respected one other and accepted the other’s
opinion as a legitimate approach to Halachic problems.
A conflict, which takes place in the name of a higher purpose and with positive
intentions, will continue into the future and it is good that it continues. However,
a conflict involving personal motives and ambitions will bring destruction and the
downfall of its adherents.The purpose of the controversy between the schools of Hillel
and Shammai was not to defeat the opponent; rather, both opponents accepted that
if one side or the other proved their opinion using accepted precedents and evidence,
then both sides would accept that opinion.
The commentaries on Tractate Avot explain how divisive opinions serve to clarify
the truth and the deeper meaning of the legal, ethical and moral issues. When two
opposing opinions are presented and questions asked, the learning process is enriched
and an argument or a position is strengthened.
Some commentaries accept only one truth, thus leading to a dispute, which is not
a desirable state; however, this condition is only temporary until the whole truth is
revealed. Such a controversy was, nevertheless, a tool that could reveal truth even if it
did not allow for more than one interpretation of a point in dispute. However, as we
shall see regarding Hillel and Shammai, both continued to live according to their own
opinions, beliefs and understanding of the law. Thus, their dispute demonstrated that
despite their fundamental differences on certain issues, each side could live according
to its interpretations of the law, and yet coexist in harmony with the other side.

35
1.3 Perpetuation of Relationships Despite Conflict
˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ˙¯ÓÏ ÌÈÒÁÈ Í˘Ó‰

˙ÂÓ·È ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙

· „ÂÓÚ „È Û„
Â˙˘‡ ˙‡ ˘¯‚Ó·Â ¨˘È‡ ˙˘‡ ˜ÙÒ·Â ¨Ô˘È Ë‚· ¨˙ÂÈÁ‡·Â ¨˙¯ˆ· Ïω ˙È·Â È‡Ó˘ ˙È· ˜ÏÁ˘ ÈÙ ÏÚ Û‡
¨Ïω ˙È·Ó ÌÈ˘ ‡˘ÈÏÓ È‡Ó˘ ˙È· ÂÚÓ ‡Ï ¨‰Ë¯٠‰Â˘·Â ‰Ë¯ٷ ¨ÛÒÎ ‰Â˘·Â ÛÒη ¨˜„ÂÙ· ÂÓÚ ‰ÏÂ
˙Ó‡‰ ®ÊË∫Á ‰È¯ÎÊ© ∫¯Ó‡˘ ‰Ó ÌÈÈ˜Ï ¨‰Ê· ‰Ê ÌÈ‚‰Â ˙ÂÚȯ ‰·ÈÁ˘ ¨Í„ÓÏÏ ¨È‡Ó˘ ˙È·Ó Ïω ˙È· ‡ÏÂ
Æ·‰‡ ÌÂÏ˘‰Â

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Yebamot 14b

Although Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel are in disagreement on the questions of
rivals, sisters, an old bill of divorce, a doubtfully married woman, a woman whom
her husband had divorced and who stayed with him over the night in an inn, money,
valuables, a perutah and the value of a perutah, Beth Shammai did not, nevertheless,
abstain from marrying women of the families of Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel refrain
from marrying those of Beth Shammai.This is to teach you that they showed love and
friendship towards one another, thus putting into practice the scriptural text, Love ye
truth and peace.

****
Ôȷ¯ÈÚ ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙
· „ÂÓÚ ‚È Û„
ÂÏω Â˙ÂÓÎ ‰Îω ÌȯÓ‡ ÂÏω ¨Ïω ˙È·Â È‡Ó˘ ˙È· ˜ÏÁ ÌÈ˘ ˘Ï˘ ∫χÂÓ˘ ¯Ó‡ ‡·‡ È·¯ ¯Ó‡
¯Á‡Ó ÈΠÆÏω ˙È·Î ‰Îω ¨Ô‰ ÌÈÈÁ Ìȉχ ȯ·„ Âχ Âχ ∫‰¯Ó‡Â Ϙ ˙· ‰‡ˆÈ ÆÂ˙ÂÓÎ ‰Îω ÌȯÓ‡
ÔÈ¢ ¨Âȉ ÔÈ·ÂÏÚ ÔÈÁÂ˘ ÈÙÓ ≠ Ô˙ÂÓÎ ‰Îω Ú·˜Ï Ïω ˙È· ÂÎÊ ‰Ó ÈÙÓ ÌÈÈÁ Ìȉχ ȯ·„ Âχ Âχ˘
ÆÈ‡Ó˘ ˙È· ȯ·„ ԉȯ·„

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Eruvin 13b

R. Abba stated in the name of Samuel: For three years there was a dispute between
Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, the former asserting, “The Halachah is in agreement
with our views” and the latter contending, “The Halachah is in agreement with our
views.”Then a bath kol issued announcing, “[The utterances of] both are the words of
the living G-d, but the Halachah is in agreement with the rulings of Beth Hillel. Since,
however, both are the words of the living G-d what was it that entitled Beth Hillel to
have the Halachah fixed in agreement with their rulings? Because they were kindly
and modest, they studied their own rulings and those of Beth Shammai.”

****

36
 Summary

Their agreement to intermarry illustrated the respect and acceptance between

the schools of Hillel and Shammai, even though their opinions regarding the laws of
performing the levirate marriage conflicted.
Both schools accepted the other’s opinions as legitimate. All were members of
the same community, living in peace and harmony, despite their opposing views on key
Halachic issues influencing their way of life.
An interesting aspect of the ongoing Hillel-Shammai disputation was that after three
years in which each group maintained their own practices, the controversy was resolved
by G-d. The voice of G-d announced that although both opinions represented the
truth, the people should live according to Hillel’s interpretations, because they inclined
to the side of mercy. G-d’s ruling worked much like a mediation meeting, where both
sides present their views of the conflict and no one is judged to be right or wrong.Yet
at the conclusion of the meeting, the conflict must be resolved and a decision reached.
So too with the Hillel-Shammai conflict, which was a legitimate dispute, due process
took over and reached a conclusion thus maintaining harmonious community relations.
This conclusion does not negate the legitimacy of the either position, which remains
an integral line of argument, but closure is necessary to allow the community to move
on as one entity.
This process entered into the jurisprudence of Halachic differences. Opposing views
are acceptable, as long as they are based on established law and follow G-d’s word.
Even so, only one side in any dispute can become Halachicly acceptable if the system
is to continue in harmony.

37
1.4 “You Shall Not Separate Yourselves” „„‚˙˙ ‡Ï
Ìȯ·„
‡ ˜ÂÒÙ „È ˜¯Ù

∫˙ÓÏ ÌÎÈÈÚ ÔÈ· ‰Á¯˜ ÂÓÈ˘˙ ‡Ï „„‚˙˙ ‡Ï ÌÎȉχ ß‰Ï Ì˙‡ ÌÈ·

Deuteronomy
Chapter 14 Verse 1

You are the children of the Lord your G-d; you shall not cut [gash] yourselves, nor
make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.

****

˙ÂÓ·È ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙

‡ „ÂÓÚ „È Û„

‡Ï ÔȯӇ ÈÎ ∫ÈÈ·‡ ¯Ó‡ °˙„‚‡ ˙„‚‡ ¢Ú˙ ‡Ï ¨Â„„‚˙˙ ‡Ï ©„È Ìȯ·„® ∫ԇΠÔȯ˜ ¨Â˘Ú ¯Ó‡„ Ô‡ÓÂ
Ï·‡ ¨Ïω ˙È· ȯ·„Î ÌȯÂÓ ÂÏÏ‰Â È‡Ó˘ ˙È· ȯ·„Î ÌȯÂÓ ÂÏω ¨˙Á‡ ¯ÈÚ· ÌÈÈ„ È˙· È˙˘ Ô‚Π≠ „„‚˙˙
¯ÈÚ· ÌÈÈ„ È˙· È˙˘Î Ïω ˙È·Â È‡Ó˘ ˙È· ‡‰Â ∫‡·¯ ‰ÈÏ ¯Ó‡ Ɖ· ÔÏ ˙ÈÏ ≠ ˙¯ÈÈÚ È˙˘· ÌÈÈ„ È˙· È˙˘
‚ÏÙÂ È‡Ó˘ ˙È· ȯ·„Î ÔȯÂÓ ‚ÏÙ ¨˙Á‡ ¯ÈÚ· ÔÈ„ ˙È· Ô‚Π≠ „„‚˙˙ ‡Ï ÔȯӇ ÈÎ ∫‡·¯ ¯Ó‡ ‡Ï‡ °ÈÓ„ ˙Á‡
Ɖ· ÔÏ ˙ÈÏ ≠ ˙Á‡ ¯ÈÚ· ÔÈÈ„ È˙· È˙˘ Ï·‡ ¨Ïω ˙È· ȯ·„Î ÔȯÂÓ

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Yebamot 14a

Now as to the other who “maintains that they did act [according to their views]” —
should not the warning, “Lo tithgodedu, you shall not form separate sects” be applied?
— Abaye replied:The warning against opposing sects is only applicable to such a case
as that of two courts of law in the same town, one of whom rules in accordance with
the views of Beth Shammai while the other rules in accordance with the views of Beth
Hillel. In the case, however, of two courts of law in two different towns, [the difference
in practice] does not matter. Said Raba to him: Surely the case of Beth Shammai and
Beth Hillel is like that of two courts of law in the same town! The fact, however, is,
said Raba, that the warning against opposing sects is only applicable to such a case
as that of one court of law in the same town, half of which rule in accordance with
the views of Beth Shammai while the other half rule in accordance with the views of
Beth Hillel. In the case, however, of two courts of law in the same town [the difference
in practice] does not matter.

****

38
 ȯȇÓÏ ‰¯ÈÁ·‰ ˙È·
®±≤¥π≠±≥±µ ¨˙Ù¯ˆ© È¯È‡Ó ‰ÓÏ˘ Ô· ÌÁÓ È·¯
· „ÂÓÚ ‚È Û„ ˙ÂÓ·È

ÔÈ˘ÂÚ ÂÈ‰È˘ ¨¯ÓÂÏ ‰ˆÂ¯ Æ˙„‚‡ ˙„‚‡ ˙ÂÂˆÓ ˙¢ÚÏ ‡Ï˘ · ˘È ÊÓ¯ ÆÆÆƢ„„‚˙˙ ‡Ï¢ ‰¯Â˙ ‰¯Ó‡˘ ÂÊ
¨„Á‡ ÔÈ„ ˙È· ‡Ï‡ ¯ÈÚ· Ôȇ˘Î øÌȯ·„ ‰Ó· Æ˙¯Â˙ È˙˘ ÔÈ‚‰Â· Ôȇ¯ Â‰È˘ „Ú ¨‰Ê ͯ„Î Âχ ‰Ê ͯ„Î Âχ
È˘ ̉˘ ÏÎ Ï·‡ Æ˙¯Á‡ ‰ËÈ˘Î Â˙ˆ˜Ó ¨˙Á‡ ‰ËÈ˘Î Â˙ˆ˜Ó ¨˜ÂÒÙÏ ÔȘÂÏÁ ÂÓˆÚ· ÔÈ„ ˙È· Â˙‡ Û‡Â
Ôȇ ¨ÂÊ ‰ËÈ˘Î ¯Á‡‰ ÔÈ„ ˙È·Â ¨ÂÊ ‰ËÈ˘Î ˜ÂÒÙÏ ‚‰Â ¯Á‡ ÔÈ„ ˙È·Â ¨˙Á‡ ¯ÈÚ· Ô‰˘ ÈÙ ÏÚ Û‡ ÔÈÈ„ È˙· È˙Î
Æ˙Á‡ ˙Ú„ ÏÚ ÌÏÂÎ ÂÓÈÎÒÈ˘ ÌÏÂÚÏ ¯˘Ù‡˘ ȇ˘ ≠ ˙„‚‡ ˙„‚‡ Ô‡Î

Beit ha-Bechirah l'Meiri

R. Menachem ben Solomon Meiri (France, 1249-1315)
Yebamot 13b

That which the Torah states, “Do not mutilate yourselves” (Deut. 14:1)... alludes to
not making the commandments into separate clusters. In other words, that they
perform these [commandments] in accordance with this [opinion] and these
[commandments] in accordance with that [opinion], to the extent that it appears
that they are performing two Torahs. What does this apply to? When there is only
one court of law in the city and even that court itself is divided in its decision-making
process, part in accordance with one approach and part in accordance with another
approach. However, as long as there are two courts of law, even if they are together
in one city, and one court rules in accordance with one approach, and the other court
in accordance with another approach, here there are no “clusters,” for it is impossible
for everyone to maintain the same opinion.

****

ÈÂÚÓ˘ ˘ÏÈ
‡ˆ˙˙ ÊÓ¯ ‰‡¯ ˙˘¯Ù

Á¯˜ ‰˘Ú˘ Ì˘Î Ìη ‰Á¯˜ ÂÓÈ˘˙ ‡Ï˘ ¨Âχ ÏÚ Âχ ÔȘÂÏÁ Âȉ˙ ˙„‚‡ ˙„‚‡ ÂÓÈ˘˙ ‡Ï „„‚˙˙ ‡Ï
Ɖ·¯‰ Ì„‡ È· ÂÓÚ ÂÚÏ·˘ χ¯˘È· ‰Á¯˜ ‰˘Ú ˙„‚‡ ˙„‚‡ Ô‡˘Ú χ¯˘ÈÏ ˜ÏÁ˘

Yalkut Shimoni
Parshat Re'eh 891

“Lo titgodedu.”You shall not form separate sects and be divisive between each other,
that you should not put “baldness” (karcha) on you in the way that Korah that made
a dispute with Israel and formed separate groups, and made baldness in Israel that
many people were swallowed up with him.

****

39
 ÌÈ·ÎÂÎ ˙„Â·Ú ˙ÂÎω ‰¯Â˙ ‰˘Ó
®±±≥∏≠±≤∞¥ ¨ÌȯˆÓ≠„¯ÙÒ© ÔÂÓÈÓ Ô· ‰˘Ó ߯ ≠ Ìßß·Ó¯
„È ‰Îω ·È ˜¯Ù

̯‚ ‰Ê ¯·„˘ ¨¯Á‡ ‚‰ÓÎ ‚‰Â ‰Ê ‰Ê ‚‰ÓÎ ‚‰Â ‰Ê ˙Á‡ ¯ÈÚ· ÔÈÈ„ È˙· È˘ ÂÈ‰È ‡Ï˘ ‰Ê ‰¯‰Ê‡ ÏÏηÂ
Æ˙„‚‡ ˙„‚‡ ¢Ú˙ ‡Ï „„‚˙˙ ‡Ï ¯Ó‡˘ ˙ÂÏ„‚ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓÏ

Mishneh Torah Laws of Idolatry

Maimonides - Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Spain - Egypt, 1138-1204)
Chapter 12 Law 14

From this statement in Deuteronomy 14:1, we learn that there should not be two [or
more] Courts of Law with different customs in the same town, because this can cause
arguments. The Hebrew for, “You shall not gash [cut] yourselves” can be interpreted
to mean, “You shall not set up separate factions.”

****

Summary

The demand for the establishment of a harmoniously functioning legal system

dates back to the Bible. While every position must be reached through due process
emanating from the Torah, it is unacceptable for two authorities to operate in one
city. Though Judaism encourages pluralism and a wide range of views, for the rule of
law to function smoothly the process must conclude with one position to be applied
practically. This comes back to only one court of law acting for each city, and the idea
that all people’s customs should conform to the demands of the community in which
they live in order to avoid conflict. It is a biblical commandment not to break up into
groups, because this causes conflict and disharmony within society. (Although this is not
the literal meaning of the verse in the Bible, it has become a lesson learned from this
verse, as quoted above.)

40
2.THE PREVENTION OF CONFLICT ÍÂÒÎÒ ˙ÚÈÓ

2.1 Prevention of Conflict Between Jews and Non-Jews

ÌÈÈÂ‚Ï ÌÈ„Â‰È ÔÈ· ÍÂÒÎÒ ˙ÚÈÓ

È˙·¯ ‰ÏÎ ˙ÎÒÓ

‡ ‰Îω ‚ ˜¯Ù

È‡Ó ‡Î‰Â ¨ÌÂÏ˘ Èί„ ÈÙÓ Ì„È‡ ÌÂÈ· ÂÏÈه ÔÓÂÏ˘· ÔÈÏ‡Â˘ ÚÓ˘ ‡˙ ¨ÈÂ‚Ï ÌÂÏ˘ Ô˙ÈÏ Â‰Ó Â‰Ï ‡Èڷȇ
ÆÂÏ ·È˘Ó‰Ó ÂÏ ÌÈ„˜Ó‰ ·ÂË ¨Â‰Ï ‡Èڷȇ ÌÈ„˜‰Ï ¨‡ËÈ˘Ù„ ÔÏ ‡Èڷȇ

Kallah Rabati
Chapter 3 Law 1

The question was asked: Is it permissible to give salutation to a heathen? Come and
hear: Greetings may be given to them on their feast day in the interests of peace.
Seeing that [the answer] is evident, why was the question asked? The question asked
was, Is it permissible to salute them first? It has been taught: Better is he who greets
him first than he who responds to his greetings.

****

ÌÈÎÏÓ ˙ÂÎω ≠ ‰¯Â˙ ‰˘Ó

®±±≥∏≠±≤∞¥ ¨ÌȯˆÓ≠„¯ÙÒ© ÔÂÓÈÓ Ô· ‰˘Ó ߯ ≠ Ìßß·Ó¯
·È ‰Îω È ˜¯Ù

Ôȇ ‰ˆÂ¯ Âȇ „Á‡‰Â ‰ˆÂ¯ „Á‡‰ ¨ÔÈ„ ‰¯Â˙ ÔÈ„ ÔÂ„Ï Ô‰È˘ ˆ¯Â ¨Ï‡¯˘È ÈÈ„· ÔÂ„Ï ÍÈÙÏ Â‡·˘ Ì¢ÂÎÚ È˘
ÂÏ ÌȯÓ‡ ¨Ì‰ÈÈ„· ÂÏ ÔÈ„ Ô‰ÈÈ„· χ¯˘ÈÏ ˙ÂÎÊ ˘È ̇ Ì¢ÂÎÚ χ¯˘È ‰È‰ ¨Ô‰ÈÈ„· ‡Ï‡ ÔÂ„Ï Â˙‡ ÔÈÙÂÎ
¯‚Ï ÔÎ ÔÈ˘ÂÚ Ôȇ˘ ÈÏ ‰‡¯È ¨ÂÈÈ„ ÍÎ ÂÏ ÌȯÓ‡ ‰¯Â˙ ÔÈ„ ÂÏ ÔÈ„ ÂÈÈ„· χ¯˘ÈÏ ˙ÂÎÊ ˘È ̇ ¨ÌÎÈÈ„ ÍÎ
¨Ï‡¯˘ÈÎ ÌÈ„ÒÁ ˙ÂÏÈÓ‚Â ı¯‡ ͯ„· ·˘Â˙ ȯ‚ ÌÚ ÔÈ‚‰Â˘ ÈÏ ‰‡¯È ÔΠ¨Ì‰ÈÈ„· ÂÏ ÔÈ„ ÌÏÂÚÏ ‡Ï‡ ·˘Â˙
ÌÂÏ˘ Ô‰Ï ÔÈÏÙÂÎ Ôȇ ÌÈÓÎÁ ¯Ӈ˘ ‰Ê ¨‰Ï· ‰˙˙ ÍÈ¯Ú˘· ¯˘‡ ¯‚Ï ¯Ó‡˘ Ô˙ÂÈÁ‰Ï ÔÈÂÂˆÓ Â‡ ȯ‰˘
Ò¯ÙÏ ¨Ï‡¯˘È È˙Ó ÌÚ Ì‰È˙Ó ¯Â·˜Ï ¨Ì‰ÈÏÂÁ ¯˜·Ï ÌÈÓÎÁ ˆ Ì¢ÂÎÚ‰ ÂÏÈÙ‡ ¨·˘Â˙ ¯‚· ‡Ï Ì¢ÂÎÚ·
Èί„ ‰Èί„ ¯Ó‡ ¨ÂÈ˘ÚÓ ÏÎ ÏÚ ÂÈÓÁ¯Â ÏÎÏ ß‰ ·ÂË ¯Ó‡ ȯ‰ ¨ÌÂÏ˘ Èί„ ÈÙÓ ¨Ï‡¯˘È ÈÈÚ ÏÏη ̉ÈÈÚ
ÆÌÂÏ˘ ‰È˙·È˙ ÏΠÌÚÂ

Mishneh Torah Laws of Kings

Maimonides - Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Spain - Egypt, 1138-1204)
Chapter 10 Law 12

[The following laws apply when] two idolaters come before you to [have their dispute]
judged according to Jewish law. If they both desire to be judged according to Torah law,
they should be judged [accordingly]. If one desires [to be judged according to Torah
law] and the other does not, they are only forced to be judged according to their own
laws.

41
 [The following laws apply when] there is [a dispute between] a Jew and an idolater:
If the Jew will fare better according to their laws, they are judged according to their
laws. [When the judgment is rendered, the judges] explain: “Your law obligates this
judgment.” If the Jew will fare better according to our laws, they are judged according
to Torah law. [When the judgment is rendered, the judges] explain: “Our law obligates
this judgment.” It appears to me that this approach is not followed in regard to a
resident alien. Rather, he is always judged according to their laws.
Similarly, it appears to me that in regard to respect and honor and also, in regard to
charity, a resident alien is to be treated as a Jew, for behold, we are commanded to
sustain them as [Deut. 14:21] states: [You may not eat any animal that has not been
properly slaughtered...] give it to the resident alien in your gates that he may eat it.
Though our Sages counseled against repeating a greeting to them, that statement
applies to idolaters and not resident aliens.
[However,] our Sages commanded us to visit the gentiles when ill, to bury their dead
in addition to the Jewish dead, and support their poor in addition to the Jewish poor
for the sake of peace. Behold, [Ps. 145:9] states: G-d is good to all and His mercies
extend over all His works, and [Prov. 3:17] states: [The Torah’s] ways are pleasant
ways and all its paths are peace.
****
‰Ú„ ‰¯ÂÈ ÍÂ¯Ú ÔÁÏ¢
®±¥∏∏≠±µ∑µ ¨Ï‡¯˘È ı¯‡ ≠ „¯ÙÒ© ¯‡˜ Ìȯه Ô· ÛÒÂÈ ·¯
·È ÛÈÚÒ ÁÓ˜ ÔÓÈÒ

ÍÎÈÙÏ ÌÈ·ÎÂÎ ˙„Â·Ú È„·ÂÚ Ìȇ ‰Ê‰ ÔÓÊ· Ï·‡ ¨ÔÓÊ Â˙‡· ‡Ï‡ ÌȯÂÓ‡ Âχ Ìȯ·„ ÏÎ Ôȇ˘ ÌȯÓ‡ ˘È
ÆÌȯ·„ ¯‡˘ ÏΠÌ˙ÂÂωÏ ̂Á ÌÂÈ· ̉ÓÚ ˙˙Ï ˙‡˘Ï ¯˙ÂÓ
ÌÈÏ· ÌÈ‰Î‰ ‡Ï‡ ¨ÌÈ·ÎÂÎ ˙„Â·Ú ÈÂ ‡ ˙·Â¯˜˙ Ì‰Ó ÔÈ˘ÂÚ Ôȇ ¨ÌÈ‰ÎÏ ˙ÂÚÓ‰ ÌÈ˙Â ÂÏÈه ∫‰‚‰
ÌÈÎȯˆÂ ̉ÈÈ· ÌÈȯ˘ Â‡Â ¨Ì‚Á ÌÂÈ· Ì‰Ó ÂÓˆÚ ˘Â¯Ù ̇ ‰·È‡ ÌÂ˘Ó ‰Ê· ˙ȇ„ „ÂÚ ªÂ· ÌÈ˙¢Â
ȉ„ ‰·È‡ ÌÂ˘Ó Ì‰ÓÚ ÁÓ˘È ¨Ì‚Á ÌÂÈ· ÌÈÁÓ˘ ̇ˆÓ ¯ÈÚÏ ÒÎ ̇ ÔÎÏ Ɖ˘‰ ÏΠ̉ÓÚ ˙˙Ï ˙‡˘Ï
ÔΠƯ·„· ‰·È‡ ÂÏ ‰È‰È ‡Ï˘ ˙¢ÚÏ ÏÎÂÈ Ì‡ ̉ÓÚ ÁÂÓ˘ÏÓ ˜ÈÁ¯È ˘Ù ÏÚ· ÌÂ˜Ó ÏÎÓ ÆÌ‰Ï ÛÈÁÓÎ
¯˘Ù‡ ̇ ¨‡Â‰‰ ‚Á· Ô¯„ Ì‰Ï ÚÈ‚È Ì‡ ÔÓÈÒ Ì‰Ï ˘È˘ „Á‡ ÌÂÈ· ‰Ê‰ ÔÓÊ· ÌÈ·ÎÂÎ „·ÂÚÏ Ô¯„ ÁÏ¢ ̇
ÆÂÓˆÚ ‚Á· ÂÏ ÁÏ˘È ¨‡Ï ̇ ª·¯Ú·Ó ÂÏ ÁÏ˘È ÂÏ

Shulchan Aruch
Rabbi Joseph ben Ephraim Caro (Spain -Land of Israel, 1488-1575)
Yoreh Deah Chapter 148 Section 12

There are those of the opinion that all these laws stated are in relation to that era,
but in our [contemporary] era they are not [to be considered] idolaters, and therefore
one may trade with them and afford them loans and so on, on their festival day.
Note: And even if they transfer the money to the priests, they do not use it in idolatrous
practices or for beautification of the idolatry, rather the priests utilize it for their food
and drink. Furthermore, there also is the aspect of “hatred” if we distance ourselves
from them on the day of their festival, for we live among them and we must trade
with them throughout the year. Therefore, if one enters the city and he finds them
rejoicing on the day of their festival, he may rejoice with them due to [fear of their]
“hatred,” for he is merely adulating them. In any event, a righteous person should
distance himself from rejoicing with them, if he is able to, in a manner that will not
lead to “hatred.” So too if one sends a gift to a gentile in this [contemporary] era such
that it is a good omen if a gift arrive on that festival, and if it is possible, he must send
it at night, and if not, send on the festival itself.

42
 ‰˘Ó ˙¯‚‡ ˙ßߢ
®±∏πµ≠±π∏∂ ¨˙ȯ·‰ ˙ˆ¯‡≠‰ÈÒ¯© ÔÈÈˢÈÈÙ ‰˘Ó ߯
„Ù˜ ÔÓÈÒ ‡ ‰Ú„ ‰¯ÂÈ ˜ÏÁ

¯È˙‰Ï Ôȇ ‰·È‡ Ì˙Ò·„ ·¢˜ ÛÈÚÒ „¢˜ ÔÓÈÒ ‰Ú„ ‰¯ÂÈ ‰·Â˘˙ ÈÁ˙Ù· ‡·Â‰ ‡¢Ï˜ ÔÓÈÒ ¯ÙÂÒ Ì˙Á· ÔÈÈÚÂ
ÔÎÏ ÆÆƇ˙Èȯ‡„ ‰Î‡ÏÓ ÂÏÈÙ‡ ¯È˙‰Ï ˘È ˙¢Ù ˙ÎÒ ˘˘Á ÂÊ ‰·È‡· ˘È ̇ ·˙΢ ¨‡˙Èȯ‡„ ‰Î‡ÏÓ
ÂÊÎ ‰·È‡ ˘È˘ ®‡© ∫Ìȯ·„ È˘ ‰Ê· ˘È ¨˘ÂÁÏ ÂÏ ÌÈÓÎÁ ¯Ӈ˘ Ì¢ÂÎÚÓ ‰·È‡„ ‰Ê· È˙Ú„ ˙ÂÈÚÏ ÔÂÎ‰
χ¯˘È‰ ÂÏ ‰˘Ú ‡Ï˘ ۇ ¨‰Ê ‡Ï· Ì‚„ ®·© χ¯˘È‰Ó ̘Ï Ï‡¯˘È‰ ‰˘Ú˘ ‰Ê ÏÈ·˘· Ì¢ÂÎÚ‰ ‰ˆ¯È˘
ÌÈÓ„ ˙ÂÎÈÙ˘ ÏÚ ÌÈ„Â˘Á ‡Ï˘ χ¯˘È· Û‡ ȯ‰ ¨Â‡¢ ÂÏ ‰˘Ú ̇ Ï·‡ ¨‰Ê ÏÈ·˘· ̘Ï ‰ˆ¯È˘ ¯·„
˙Ó ˘Ù Â‰Î‰Â Â‰Ú¯Ï ‡˘ ˘È‡ ‰È‰È ÈΠ‡¯˜‰ ÏÚ ÌÈËÙ˘ ˙˘¯Ù ˘ÓÂÁ· È¢˘¯ ˘Â¯ÈÙ· ‡·Â‰Â Ï¢ÊÁ ¢¯„
˘¯ÂÙÓÎ ‡Â‰ ¨‰‡˘ ‡Â‰˘ ¨‰ÓˆÚ ‰·È‡ ÔÂ˘Ï ÈÎ ÆÆÆÌÈÓ„ ˙ÂÎÈÙ˘ È„ÈÏ ‡· ÂÙÂÒ ‡˘˙ ‡Ï ÏÚ ¯·Ú˘ ÈÓ˘
ƉÁȈ¯ È„ÈÏ Ì‚ ‰ÊÓ ‡·Ï ¯˘Ù‡˘ ‰Ó ‡ÏÈÓÓ

Iggerot Moshe
Rabbi Moses Feinstein (Russia-USA, 1895-1986)
Yoreh Deah 1:184

View the Responsa Chatam Sofer 131, quoted in Pitchei Teshuvah, Yoreh De’ah
154:102, that in a case of basic [fear of gentile] “hatred,” one may not permit a
biblically forbidden act; however, if this “hatred” involves possible threat to life, then
even a biblically forbidden act is permitted... And therefore it is correct, in my humble
opinion, that the “hatred” which our Sages commanded us to be concerned with
incorporates two categories: a) “Hatred” such that the gentile will desire to avenge
the act the Jew performed; b) even without this (act), even despite the Jew not having
done anything that will cause him [the gentile] to seek revenge, [for instance] if he
has become his enemy. For even regarding Jews - who are not suspected of murderous
tendencies - our Sages explained, and it is brought in Rashi to the verse, “And if a
person hates his fellow...and he smites him mortally, and he dies” (Deut. 19:11), that
he who transgresses the prohibition of “Do not hate [your brother]” (Lev. 19:17) will
ultimately come to murder... For the term itself “Eivah,” which is hatred, inherently
indicates that this may also result in murder.

****

Summary

The Baraitha encourages a Jew to be polite to a non-Jew, to greet him and ask his
well-being in order to avoid a conflict between them.The Rambam prescribes that a
Jew should relate to a non-Jew like any human person. He must give him charity as
he does Jewish paupers, he must visit the non-Jewish sick and must bury their dead.
These guidelines are required in order to promote the peace between nations and
neighbors. The topic of how a Jew should treat a non-Jew is complex and reflective of
the relationship between Jews and non-Jews throughout history. In the sources above,
we see a specific approach to this relationship, although the issue is a much wider one
beyond the scope of this work.

43
2.2 Treatment of an Adversary ·ÈÂ‡Ï ÒÁÈ
˙ÂÓ˘
‰ ˜ÂÒÙ ‚Î ˜¯Ù

∫ÂÓÚ ·ÊÚ˙ ·ÊÚ ÂÏ ·ÊÚÓ ˙Ï„Á ‡˘Ó ˙Á˙ ı·¯ ͇˘ ¯ÂÓÁ ‰‡¯˙ ÈÎ

Exodus
Chapter 23 Verse 5

If you see the ass of one who hates you lying under its burden, you shall refrain from
leaving it with him, you shall help him to lift it up.

****
Ìȯ·„
„ ˜ÂÒÙ ·Î ˜¯Ù

∫ÂÓÚ ÌȘ˙ ̘‰ Ì‰Ó ˙ÓÏÚ˙‰Â ͯ„· ÌÈÏÙ Â¯Â˘ ‡ ÍÈÁ‡ ¯ÂÓÁ ˙‡ ‰‡¯˙ ‡Ï

Deuteronomy
Chapter 22 Verse 4

You shall not watch your brother’s ass or his ox fall down by the way, and hide yourself
from them; you shall surely help him to lift them up again.

****

Ô¢·Ó¯
®±±π¥≠±≤∑∞ ¨Ï‡¯˘È ı¯‡ ≠ „¯ÙÒ© ÔÓÁ Ô· ‰˘Ó È·¯
≤≤∫¥ Ìȯ·„

˙ÂˆÓ ¨ÂÓÚ ·ÊÚ˙ ·ÊÚ ®‰ ‚Î ˙ÂÓ˘© ¯Ó‡ ‰¯Â˙· ÈÎ ¨‰˘Ú˙ ‡Ï ˙ˆӷ ‰ÈÏÚ ¯È‰Ê‰Ï ‰ÈÚˉ ˙ˆӷ ÛÈÒ‰Â
ÔÂÚËÏ Âί„˘ ¯ÂÓÁ‰ ˜¯ Ì˘ ¯ÈÎʉ ‡Ï ¨¢Â‡˘Ó ˙Á˙ ı·Â¯¢ ¯Ó‡ Ì˘ ÈÎ ¨¢Í¯„· ÌÈÏÙÂ¢ ÛÈÒ‰ „ÂÚ Ɖ˘Ú
‰ÂÁ‡‰ ¯ÂÎÊ ÔÎ ÂÓÚ ‰˘Ú˙ ¯Ó‡Ï ¨¢Í‡Â˘Â¢ ¢Í·È‡¢ Ì˘Â ¢ÍÈÁ‡¢ ԇη ¯Ó‡Â ÆÂÈ˙Á˙ ı·¯È Ï„‚ È¢Ó
∫‰‡˘‰ Á΢˙Â

Ramban
Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (Spain - Land of Israel, 1194-1270)
Deuteronomy 22:4

To the commandment to assist someone to lift up his burden, He added a warning

thereto constituting a negative commandment (Thou shalt not see they brother’s
ass or his ox fallen down by the way, etc.). For in the Torah He stated, Thou shalt
surely release it with him [i.e., by helping to unload the burden], which is a positive
commandment [and thus we learn that in failing to render assistance, one violates
both a positive and negative commandment]. He also adds [here the expression]

44
 fallen down by the way, for there He stated, lying under its burden, and He mentioned
there only the ass, because it commonly carries a great burden and, therefore, is liable
to crouch under it. Also, here it says thy brother’s and there it states thy enemy’s, and
of him that hateth thee, meaning [here] to say, “Do thus to him” [in assisting him]
and remember the brotherhood between you and forget the hatred.

****

ÈÏ˘Ó
‡Î ˜ÂÒÙ ‰Î ˜¯Ù
∫ÌÈÓ Â‰˜˘‰ ‡Óˆ ̇ ÌÁÏ Â‰Ï·‰ ͇˘ ·Ú¯ ̇

Proverbs
Chapter 25 Verse 21

If your enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to
drink.

****

˙ÂÓ˘ ‰„‚‡ ˘¯„Ó

߉‡¯˙ ÈÎß ÏÈÁ˙Ó‰ ¯Â·È„ ‚Î ˜¯Ù

‰‡¯È˘Î ÈÎ ¨®ÊÈ∫‚ ÈÏ˘Ó© ÌÂÏ˘ ‰È˙·È˙ ÏΠÌÚÂ Èί„ ‰Èί„ ·Â˙Ή ¯Ó‡˘ ‰Ê Æ͇¢ ¯ÂÓÁ ‰‡¯˙ ÈÎ
Ï·‡ ¨ÈÏ ¯ÊÂÚ ‰È‰ ‡Ï ȷȇ ‰È‰ ̇ ¨‰ÏÈÏÁ ÒÁ ¨È·È‡ ‰Ê ÈÎ È˙¯Ó‡ È‡ ·Ϸ ¯Ó‡È ¨ÂÏ ˙¯ÊÚ ˙‡· ÈÎ ·È‡‰
∫ÌÂÏ˘ ‰È˙·È˙ ÏΠ¯Ó‡ ÔÎ ÏÚ ÌÂÏ˘ ‰˘ÂÚ ÂÈχ Íω ¨ÂÒÈÈه Íχ ¨ÌÁ· ·È‡ È‡Â È·‰Â‡ ‡Â‰

Midrash Aggadah
Exodus 23

As regards “If you see the donkey of your enemy,” the Torah stated, “Its ways are ways
of pleasantness and all its paths are peace” (Prov. 3:17), for when your enemy sees
that you came and assisted him, he will say in his heart, “I said that he is my enemy,
God forbid! If he was my enemy he would not have helped me; rather, he is my friend,
and I am his enemy for nothing. I will go and appease him.” He goes to him and
makes peace, hence it states, “And all its paths are peace.”

****

45
 Summary

Not only does the Torah teach peaceful conduct between people of different
religions and backgrounds is desirable, but it also specifically relates this precept to
one’s enemies. If an enemy is hungry or thirsty, one is obligated to provide for him. The
Torah commands that one has to assist his brother’s donkey; he must help the animal
when it is overloaded. However, he is also obligated to assist his enemy’s donkey and
must not abandon him. The Torah commands man to treat as equals those with whom
he has greater affinity, as well as those with whom he has a negative relationship.The
Midrash explains that such behavior towards one’s enemy will encourage a peaceful
resolution of their conflict. When a person sees help forthcoming from someone he
has hurt, he will question their relationship: “How can we be enemies if he helps me?”
This will assist in restoring peace between two foes.

46
2.3 Ways of Peace ÌÂÏ˘ Èί„
‰È¯ÎÊ
ËÈ ˜ÂÒÙ Á ˜¯Ù

‰ÁÓ˘Ï Ô¢˘Ï ‰„Â‰È ˙È·Ï ‰È‰È È¯È˘Ú‰ ̈ ÈÚÈ·˘‰ ÌÂˆÂ È˘ÈÓÁ‰ ̈ ÈÚÈ·¯‰ ̈ ˙‡·ˆ ߉ ¯Ó‡ ‰Î
∫·‰‡ ÌÂÏ˘‰Â ˙Ó‡‰Â ÌÈ·ÂË ÌÈ„ÚÓÏÂ

Zechariah
Chapter 8 Verse 19

Thus says the Lord of Hosts: The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth,
and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall become times of joy and
gladness, and cheerful feasts to the house of Judah; therefore love truth and peace.

****

ÌÈω˙
ÂË ˜ÂÒÙ „Ï ˜¯Ù

∫‰ل¯Â ÌÂÏ˘ ˘˜· ·ÂË ‰˘ÚÂ Ú¯Ó ¯ÂÒ

Psalms
Chapter 34 Verse 15

Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.

****
ÔÈËÈ‚ ˙ÎÒÓ ‰˘Ó
Ë ≠ Á ‰˘Ó ‰ ˜¯Ù

˙È·· ÔÈ·¯ÚÓ ÌÂÏ˘ Èί„ ÈÙÓ Ï‡¯˘È ÂȯÁ‡Â ÈÂÏ ÂȯÁ‡Â Ô¢‡¯ ‡¯Â˜ ԉΠÌÂÏ˘ Èί„ ÈÙÓ Â¯Ó‡ Ìȯ·„ Âχ
˘È ÌÈ‚„ ˙ÂÙÂÚ ‰ÈÁ ˙Â„ÂˆÓ ÌÂÏ˘ Èί„ ÈÙÓ Ô¢‡¯ ‡ÏÓ˙Ó ‰Ó‡Ï ·Â¯˜ ‡Â‰˘ ¯Â· ÌÂÏ˘ Èί„ ÈÙÓ Ô˘È
ÈÙÓ ÏÊ‚ ÌÂ˘Ó Ô‰· ˘È Ô˘ ‰Ë¢ ˘¯Á ˙‡ÈˆÓ ¯ÂÓ‚ ÏÊ‚ ¯Ó‡ ÈÒÂÈ È·¯ ÆÌÂÏ˘ Èί„ ÈÙÓ ÏÊ‚ ÌÂ˘Ó Ì‰·
¯Ó‡ ÈÒÂÈ È·¯ ÌÂÏ˘ Èί„ ÈÙÓ ÏÊ‚ ÂÈ˙Á˙˘ ‰Ó ˙Èʉ ˘‡¯· Û˜Ó‰ ÈÚ ¯ÂÓ‚ ÏÊ‚ ¯Ó‡ ÈÒÂÈ È·¯ ÌÂÏ˘ Èί„
∫ÌÂÏ˘ Èί„ ÈÙÓ ‰‡Ù ‰Á΢ ˘Ϸ ÌÈ‚ ÈÈÚ „È· ÔÈÁÓÓ Ôȇ ¯ÂÓ‚ ÏÊ‚
˙˘‡ ‰ÓÚ ÔÁË˙ ‡Ï ¯Â·˙ ‡Ï Ï·‡ ¯Â˙ ÌÈÁ¯Â ‰¯·Î ‰Ù ˙ÈÚÈ·˘‰ ÏÚ ‰„¢Á‰ ‰˙¯·ÁÏ ‰˘‡ ˙χ˘Ó
Ú‚˙ ‡Ï ÌÈÓ‰ ÏÈË˙˘Ó Ï·‡ ‰ÓÚ ˙„˜¯Ó ˙ÁÂË ˙¯¯Â·Â ‰¯·Î ‰Ù ı¯‡‰ ÌÚ ˙˘‡Ï ˙χ˘Ó ¯·Á
˙ÈÚÈ·˘· ÌÈ‚ È„È ÔȘÈÊÁÓ ÌÂÏ˘ Èί„ ÈÙÓ ‡Ï‡ ¯Ӈ ‡Ï ÔÏÂΠ‰¯È·Ú ȯ·ÂÚ È„È ÔȘÈÊÁÓ Ôȇ˘ ÈÙÏ ‰ÓÚ
∫ÌÂÏ˘ Èί„ ÈÙÓ ÔÓÂÏ˘· ÔÈÏ‡Â˘Â Ï‡¯˘È È„È ‡Ï Ï·‡

Mishnah Gittin
Chapter 5 Mishnah 8-9

The following rules were laid down in the interests of peace. A priest [Cohen] is
called up first to read the law and after him a Levite and then a lay Israelite, in the
interests of peace. An ‘erub is placed in the room where it has always been placed, in

47
 the interests of peace.
The pit which is nearest the [head of the] watercourse is filled from it first, in the
interests of peace. [...the taking of] beasts, birds and fishes from snares [set by
others] is reckoned as a kind of robbery, in the interests of peace. R. Jose says that it
is actual robbery. [...to take away] anything found by a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor
is reckoned as a kind of robbery, in the interests of peace. R. Jose says it is actual
robbery. If a poor man gleans on the top of an olive tree, [to take the fruit] that is
beneath him is counted as a kind of robbery. R. Jose says it is actual robbery.The poor
of the heathen may not be prevented from gathering gleanings, forgotten sheaves,
and the corner of the field, in the interests of peace.
A woman may lend to another who is suspected of not observing the sabbatical year
a fan or a sieve or a hand mill or a stove, but she should not sift or grind with her.
The wife of a chaver [scholar] may lend to the wife of an ‘am ha-aretz [uneducated
person] a fan or a sieve and may winnow and grind and sift with her, but once she
has poured water over the flour she should not touch anything with her, because it is
not right to assist those who commit a transgression. All these rules were laid down
only in the interests of peace. Heathens may be assisted in the sabbatical year but not
Israelites, and greeting may be given to them, in the interests of peace.

****
‰‡Ù ˙ÎÒÓ ‰˘Ó
‡ ‰˘Ó ‡ ˜¯Ù

Ï· Ì„‡˘ Ìȯ·„ Âχ ‰¯Â˙ „ÂÓÏ˙ ÌÈ„ÒÁ ˙ÂÏÈÓ‚Â ÔÂȇ¯‰Â ÌȯÂη‰Â ‰‡Ù‰ ¯ÂÚÈ˘ Ì‰Ï Ôȇ˘ Ìȯ·„ Âχ
Ì„‡ ÔÈ· ÌÂÏ˘ ˙‡·‰Â ÌÈ„ÒÁ ˙ÂÏÈӂ ̇ ·‡ „·ÈÎ ‡·‰ ÌÏÂÚÏ ÂÏ ˙ÓÈȘ Ô¯˜‰Â ‰Ê‰ ÌÏÂÚ· Ô‰È˙¯ÈÙ
∫ÌÏÂÎ „‚Î ‰¯Â˙ „ÂÓÏ˙ ¯ȷÁÏ

Mishnah Pe'ah
Chapter 1 Mishnah 1

The following are the things for which no definite quantity is prescribed: the corners
[of the field]. First-fruits, [the offerings brought] on appearing [before the Lord at the
three pilgrim festivals]. The practice of loving kindness, and the study of the Torah.
The following are the things for which a man enjoys the fruits in this world while the
principal remains for him in the world to come:The honoring of his father and mother,
the practice of charity, and the making of peace between a man and his friend; but
the study of the Torah is equal to them all.

****

‰ÎÂÒ ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙

· „ÂÓÚ ‚ Û„

‰˘Â„˜· ·˙Î˘ ÈÓ˘ ∫‰¯Â˙ ‰¯Ó‡ ¨Â˙˘‡Ï ˘È‡ ÔÈ· ÌÂÏ˘ ˙¢ÚÏ ‰Ó ∫ÂÓˆÚ· ¯ÓÂÁ Ϙ ÏÙÂ˙ÈÁ‡ ‡˘
ƉÓΠ‰ÓÎ ˙Á‡ ÏÚ ≠ ÂÏÂÎ ÌÏÂÚ‰ ÏÎÏ ÌÂÏ˘ ˙¢ÚÏ ¨ÌÈÓ‰ ÏÚ ‰ÁÓÈ

48
Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Succa 53b

Whereupon Ahitophel adduced an a fortiori argument to himself: “If, for the purpose
of establishing harmony between man and wife, the Torah said, Let My name that was
written in sanctity be blotted out by the water, how much more so may it be done in
order to establish peace in the world!”

****
˙Âί· ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙
‡ „ÂÓÚ „Ò Û„
È„ÂÓÏ ÍÈ· ÏΠ®ß„ ‰ÈÚ˘È© ¯Ó‡˘ ¨ÌÏÂÚ· ÌÂÏ˘ ÌÈ·¯Ó ÌÈÓÎÁ È„ÈÓÏ˙ ∫‡ÈÁ È·¯ ¯Ó‡ ¯ÊÚχ È·¯ ¯Ó‡
ÌÈω˙© Ï¢ÎÓ ÂÓÏ Ôȇ Í˙¯Â˙ È·‰‡Ï ·¯ ÌÂÏ˘ ®ßËȘ ÌÈω˙© ÆÍÈ· ‡Ï‡ ÍÈ· ȯ˜˙ χ ¨ÍÈ· ÌÂÏ˘ ·¯Â ߉
®ß·Î˜ ÌÈω˙© Í· ÌÂÏ˘ ‡ ‰¯·„‡ Èگ ÈÁ‡ ÔÚÓÏ ®ß·Î˜ ÌÈω˙© ÍÈ˙ÂÓ¯‡· ‰ÂÏ˘ ÍÏÈÁ· ÌÂÏ˘ È‰È ®ß·Î˜
ÆÌÂÏ˘· ÂÓÚ ˙‡ ͯ·È ߉ Ô˙È ÂÓÚÏ ÊÚ ß‰ ®ßËÎ ÌÈω˙© ÍÏ ·ÂË ‰˘˜·‡ Âȉχ ߉ ˙È· ÔÚÓÏ

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Berachot 64a

R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Hanina: The disciples of the wise increase peace in
the world, as it says, And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be
the peace of thy children. Read not banayik [thy children] but bonayik [thy builders].
Great peace have they that love Thy law, and there is no stumbling for them. Peace be
within thy walls and prosperity within thy palaces. For my brethren and companions’
sake I will now say, Peace be within thee. For the sake of the house of the Lord our
G-d I will seek thy good.The Lord will give strength unto His people, the Lord will bless
His people with peace.

****
Ô˙ È·¯„ ˙·‡ ˙ÎÒÓ
·È ˜¯Ù ‡ ‡ÁÒÂ

ÌÂÏ˘ ۄ¯ Ô¯‰‡ ‰È‰˘ ͯ„Î „Á‡Â „Á‡ ÏÎ ÔÈ· χ¯˘È· ÌÂÏ˘ ۄ¯ Ì„‡ ‡‰È˘ „ÓÏÓ „ˆÈÎ ÌÂÏ˘ ۄ¯
Ô· ÔÂÚÓ˘ È·¯ ∫®ÂË ∫„Ï ÌÈω˙© ‰ل¯Â ÌÂÏ˘ ˘˜· ·ÂË ‰˘ÚÂ Ú¯Ó ¯ÂÒ ¯Ó‡˘ „Á‡Â „Á‡ ÏÎ ÔÈ· χ¯˘È·
ÂÓ˜ÓÓ ‡ˆÈ ‡Ï‡ „Á‡Â „Á‡ ÏÎ ÔÈ· χ¯˘È· ÌÂÏ˘ ۄ¯ Íȇ‰ ˜˙¢ ÂÓ˜ӷ Ì„‡ ·˘ÂÈ Ì‡ ¯Ó‡ ¯ÊÚχ
̘ÓÏ Â‰Ù„¯ ÍÓ˜ӷ ‰˘˜· „ˆÈÎ ‡‰ Ɖل¯Â ÌÂÏ˘ ˘˜· ¯Ó‡˘ χ¯˘È· ÌÂÏ˘ Û„¯È ÌÏÂÚ· ¯ÂÊÁÈÂ
∫¯Á‡

Avot d'Rabbi Nathan

Version 1 Chapter 12

Pursuing Peace.What does this mean? It teaches that a man should pursue peace in
Israel among all men in the same way that Aaron pursued peace in Israel among all
men; as it is stated, “Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.” Rabbi
Simeon Ben Eleazar said: If a man stays at home in quietude, how can he pursue
peace in Israel, as it is stated, “Seek peace, and pursue it; meaning seek peace in your
own place, and pursue it by going elsewhere.”

49
 ****
ı¯‡ ͯ„ ˙ÎÒÓ
ÊÏ ‰Îω Ê ˜¯Ù
È·¯ ‰È‰ ÔΠÆÍ·Î˘Ó ÏÚ ÁÂÈ ÌÂÏ˘ ‡·È˘ È„Î ÌÂÏ˘ ̉ÓÚ ‰˘Ú ¨‰·Òȉ· ÔÈ· ‰·È˘È· ÔÈ· ÍȯȷÁ ÍÂÏÊ‚ ̇Â
ÔÈ„·ÂÚ Ï‡¯˘È˘ ‰Ú˘· ÂÏÈÙ‡˘ ¨ÌÂÏ˘‰ Ï„‚ ¨˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ ˙‡ ‡˘Â ¨ÌÂÏ˘‰ ˙‡ ·‰‡ ¨¯Ó‡ ¯Ù˜‰ ¯ÊÚχ
Á‰ Ìȯه ÌÈ·ˆÚ ¯Â·Á ¯Ó‡˘ ¨Ô‰· Ú‚ÈÏ Èˆ¯ Ôȇ ‡Â‰ ͯ· ˘Â„˜‰ ¯Ó‡ ¨Ì‰ÈÈ· ÌÂÏ˘ ˘È ‰¯Ê ‰„·Ú
¨„ˆÈÎ Æ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ ‰‡Â˘Â ¨ÌÂÏ˘‰ Ï„‚ ¨‡‰ ¨ÂÓ˘‡È ‰˙Ú Ì·Ï ˜ÏÁ ¨¯Ó‡ Â‰Ó ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ¯·„· Ï·‡ ¨ÂÏ
‰· ˘È˘ ˙ÒΉ ˙È· ÆÌÈÓ„ ˙ÂÎÈÙ˘ ¨¯ÈÚ· ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÌÈÓÎÁ ¯Ӈ ¨·¯ÁÈÏ ‰ÙÂÒ ¨˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ‰· ˘È˘ ¯ÈÚ
È˙· È˘ ƉÓÈÊ ¨˙È·· ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÌÈÓÎÁ ¯Ӈ ¨·¯ÁÈÏ ÂÙÂÒ ¨˙˜ÂÏÁÓ Â· ˘È˘ ˙È· Æ·¯ÁÈÏ ‰ÙÂÒ ¨˙˜ÂÏÁÓ
ÆÌÏÂÚ‰ Ô·¯ÂÁ ¨ÔÈ„ ˙È·· ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÌÈÓÎÁ ¯Ӈ ¨˙ÂÓÏ ÔÙÂÒ ¨˙˜ÂÏÁÓ Ì‰ÈÈ·Â ¨˙Á‡ ¯ÈÚ· ̉ ÔÈÈ„

Tractate Derech Eretz

Chapter 7 Law 37

And if your fellows thieve from you - whether while seated or reclining - make peace
with them so that peace will come and it will rest on your resting place. And thus
would Rabbi Elazar Hakappar say, “Love peace and despise dispute; peace is so great
that when [the nation of] Israel worships idolatry yet there is peace between them,
the Holy One, blessed be He says, ‘I do not desire to touch them,’ as it states, ‘Bound
to idols is Ephraim, let him be’ (Hos. 4:17), whereas regarding a dispute, what does
He say? ‘Their heart was split, now they shall be desolate’ (Hos. 10:2). Hence, great
is peace, despised is dispute.”
How [is this expressed]? A city with [matters of] dispute therein is destined to be
destroyed, and the Sages stated, “Dispute in a city [leads to] bloodshed.” A synagogue
with [matters of] dispute therein is destined to be destroyed. A house with [matters
of] dispute therein is destined to be destroyed; and the Sages said, “Dispute in the
home [leads to] depravity.” Two courts of law in one city which are in dispute [the
members of each] are destined to die, and the Sages said, “Dispute in a court of law
[leads to] the world’s destruction.”

****

‰·¯ ‡¯˜ÈÂ
Ë ‰˘¯Ù
˙‡ ͯ·È ߉ Ô˙È ÂÓÚÏ ÊÂÚ ß‰ ®ËÎ ÌÈω˙© · ˙ÂÏÂÏÎ ˙Âί·‰ Ï΢ ÌÂÏ˘‰ Ï„‚ ȇÁÂÈ Ô· ÔÂÚÓ˘ È·¯ ¯Ó‡
¨ÌÂÏ˘· ÂÓÚ
Ìȯ·„© Ú‚Ù˙ ÈÎ ‰‡¯˙ ÈÎ ®‚Î ˙ÂÓ˘© ‰· ·È˙Î ˙ˆӉ Ï΢ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚ ¯Ó‡ ‰È˜ÊÁ È˙¯˙ ¯Ó‡ ‰È˜ÊÁ
ÌÈω˙© ‡Î‰ ̯· ‰˙¢ÚÏ ˜Â˜Ê ‰˙‡ ȇ Â‡Ï Ì‡Â ‰˙¢ÚÏ ˜Â˜Ê ‰˙‡ Í„ÈÏ ‰ÂˆÓ ˙‡· ̇ ‡¯˜È ÈÎ ®·Î
˙ÂÚÒÓ‰ Ïη˘ ÌÂÏ˘‰ Ï„‚ ȯÂÁ ¯Ó‡ ‰È˜ÊÁ ¯Á‡ ̘ÓÏ Â‰Ù„¯Â ÍÓ˜ÓÏ Â‰˘˜· ‰ل¯Â ÌÂÏ˘ ˘˜· ®„Ï
ÌÏÂΠ¢Ú ÈÈÒ ¯‰ ÈÙÏ ÌÏÂΠ‡·˘ ÔÂÈÎ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ· ÌÈÂÁ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ· ÌÈÚÒÂ ÂÁÈ ÂÚÒÈ ®‚Ï ¯·„Ó·© ·È˙Î
χ¯˘È Ì˘ ÔÁÈ ‡Ï‡ ԇΠ·È˙Î Ôȇ χ¯˘È È· Ì˘ ÂÁÈ χ¯˘È Ì˘ ÔÁÈ ®ËÈ ˙ÂÓ˘© ·È˙΄ ‡„‰ ˙Á‡ ‰ÈÈÁ
¨È·Ï ‰¯Â˙ Ô˙Â È‡˘ ‰Ú˘ ȯ‰ ‡Â‰ ͯ· ˘Â„˜‰ ¯Ó‡
ÌÂÏ˘ ÏÈË‰Ï ÏÈ·˘· ‰¯Â˙· ˙‡„· ȯ·„ ÌÈ·Â˙Ή ¯·„˘ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚ ¯Ó‡ ‡¯Ù˜ ¯· ˙Ï˙ ¯Ó‡ ‡¯Ù˜ ¯·
‡Ï ̉¯·‡Ï Ï·‡ Ô˜Ê È„‡Â ‰„Ú ÈÏ ‰˙ȉ È˙ÂÏ· ȯÁ‡ ®ÁÈ ˙È˘‡¯·© ·È˙΄ ‡Â‰ ‡„‰ ‰¯˘Ï ̉¯·‡ ÔÈ·
ÏÈË‰Ï ÏÈ·˘· Ìȇȷ· È„· ÔÂ˘Ï ÌÈ·Â˙Ή ¯·„˘ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚ ȯÂÁ ¯Ó‡ ‡¯Ù˜ ¯· È˙˜Ê È‡Â ‡Ï‡ ÔÎ ¯Ó‡
‡Ï ÁÂÓÏ Ï·‡ Ô· ˙„ÏÂÈ ˙ȯ‰Â ˙„ÏÈ ‡Ï ‰¯˜Ú ˙‡ ‡ ‰‰ ®‚È ÌÈËÙ¢© ¯Ó‡˘ Â˙˘‡Ï ˘È‡ ÔÈ· ÌÂÏ˘
ȯÂÁ ¯Ó‡ ‡¯Ù˜ ¯· ‰Îȯˆ ‡È‰ ÌÈÓÒ Ó¢Ó ¯Ó˘˙ ‰˘‡‰ χ È˙¯Ó‡ ¯˘‡ ÏÎÓ ®‚È ÌÈËÙ¢© ‡Ï‡ ÔÎ ¯Ó‡
˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ‡Ï ˙·ȯ ˙ÂˆÓ ‡Ï ˙¯Á˙ ‡Ï ‰‡˘ ‡Ï ‰‡˜ ‡Ï Ì‰Ï Ôȇ˘ ÌÈÂÈÏÚ‰ ̇ ‰Ó ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚

50
 ˙„Ӊ ÏΠ̉· ˘È˘ ÌÈÂ˙Á˙‰ ÂÈÓ¯ӷ ÌÂÏ˘ ‰˘ÂÚ ®‰Î ·Âȇ© ·È˙΄ ‡Â‰ ‡„‰ ÌÂÏ˘ ÔÈÎȯˆ ‰Ú¯ ÔÈÚ ‡ÏÂ
‰ÓΠ‰ÓÎ ˙Á‡ ÏÚ ÂÏω
‡„‰ ÂÈÁ‡Ï ÛÒÂÈ ÔÈ· ÌÂÏ˘ ÏÈË‰Ï ‰¯Â˙· ˙ÂÈ„· ÔÂ˘Ï ÌÈ·Â˙Ή ¯·„˘ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚ χÈÏÓ‚ Ô· ÔÂÚÓ˘ È·¯ ¯Ó‡
ÌÂÏÎ „˜Ù„ ·˜ÚÈ· ÔÁ΢‡ ‡Ï ‡ ‡˘ ‡‡ ÛÒÂÈÏ Ô¯Ӈ˙ ‰Î ® ˙È˘‡¯·© ·È˙΄ ‡Â‰
Ìȯ·„© ·È˙΄ ‡Â‰ ‡„‰ ÌÂÏ˘· ‡Ï‡ ÔÈÁ˙ÂÙ Ôȇ ‰ÓÁÏÓ ˙Ú˘· ÂÏÈÙ‡˘ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚ ÈÏÈÏ‚‰ ÈÒÂÈ È·¯ ¯Ó‡
¨¯Ó‚ ¯ÈÚ Ï‡ ·¯˜˙ ÈÎ ®Î
‡¯˜È ®Â ÌÈËÙ¢© ·È˙΄ ‡Â‰ ‡„‰ ÌÂÏ˘ ‡¯˜ ‡Â‰ ͯ· ˘Â„˜‰ Ï˘ ÂÓ˘˘ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚ ÈÒÂÈ ¯· Ô„ÂÈ È·¯ ¯Ó‡
ÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆ ÛÂËÓ Ì˜ӷ ¯ȷÁ ÌÂÏ˘· χ˘Ï Ì„‡Ï ÂÏ ¯ÂÒ‡˘ Ô‡ÎÓ Ô„ÂÈ ¯· ÌÂÁ˙ È·¯ ¯Ó‡ ÌÂÏ˘ ߉ ÂÏ
ÌÈÂÈÏÚ‰ ÔÈ· ÌÂÏ˘ ‰˘Ú ÂÓÏÂÚ ˙‡ ‡Â‰ ͯ· ˘Â„˜‰ ‡¯·˘Î˘ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚ ‡˙ÙÏÁ Ô· ÔÂÚÓ˘ È·¯ ¯Ó‡
‡¯· ˙È˘‡¯· ®‡ ˙È˘‡¯·© ·È˙΄ ‡Â‰ ‡„‰ ÌÈÂ˙Á˙‰ ÔÓ ÌÈÂÈÏÚ‰ ÔÓ ‡¯· Ô¢‡¯‰ ÌÂÈ· ÌÈÂ˙Á˙Ï
È˘ÈÏ˘· ÚȘ¯ È‰È Ìȉχ ¯Ó‡È ·È˙΄ ‡Â‰ ‡„‰ ÌÈÂÈÏÚ‰ ÔÓ ‡¯· È˘· ı¯‡‰ ˙‡Â ÌÈÓ˘‰ ˙‡ Ìȉχ
‡¯· È˘ÈÓÁ· ÌÈÓ˘‰ ÚȘ¯· ˙Â¯Â‡Ó È‰È ÌÈÂÈÏÚ‰ ÔÓ ÈÚÈ·¯· ÌÈÓ‰ ÂÂ˜È Ìȉχ ¯Ó‡È ÌÈÂ˙Á˙‰ ÔÓ ‡¯·
ÌÈÂÈÏÚ‰ ÔÓ Â˙‡ ‡¯Â· È‡ ̇ ¯Ó‡ Ì„‡ ˙‡¯·Ï ‡· È˘˘· ÌÈÓ‰ ˆ¯˘È Ìȉχ ¯Ó‡È ÌÈÂ˙Á˙‰ ÔÓ
ÏÚ ÌÈ·¯ ÌÈÂ˙Á˙‰ ȯ‰ ÌÈÂ˙Á˙‰ ÔÓ Â˙‡ ‡¯Â· È‡ ̇ ˙Á‡ ‰‡È¯· ÌÈÂ˙Á˙‰ ÔÓ ÌÈ·¯ ÌÈÂÈÏÚ‰ ȯ‰
߉ ¯ˆÈÈ ®· ˙È˘‡¯·© ·È˙΄ ‡Â‰ ‡„‰ ÌÈÂ˙Á˙‰ ÔÓ ÌÈÂÈÏÚ‰ ÔÓ Â‡¯· ‰˘Ú ‰Ó ˙Á‡ ‰‡È¯· ÌÈÂÈÏÚ‰
ÌÈÂÈÏÚ‰ ÔÓ ÌÈÈÁ ˙Ó˘ ÂÈÙ‡· ÁÙÈ ÌÈÂ˙Á˙‰ ÔÓ ‰Ó„‡‰ ÔÓ ¯ÙÚ Ì„‡‰ ˙‡ Ìȉχ
‡Â‰ ͯ· ˘Â„˜‰˘ ˙ÂÓÁ ˙·ÂË ˙Âί·‰ Ï΢ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚ ÈÂÏ È·¯ Ì˘· ÔÈÎÒ„ Ú˘Â‰È È·¯Â ·‡˘„ ÈÓ È·¯
ÌÈ‰Î ˙ί·· ÌÂÏ˘ ‰˘ÂÚ ‰ÏÙ˙· ÌÂÏ˘ ˙ÎÂÒ Ò¯ÂÙ ÚÓ˘ ˙‡È¯˜· ÌÂÏ˘· ÔÈÓ˙ÂÁ χ¯˘È ÏÚ Ô‡È·Ó
Ì˘‡Ï ˙‡ËÁÏ ‰ÁÓÏ ‰ÏÂÚÏ ‰¯Â˙‰ ˙‡Ê ÔÈÓ ˙Â·¯˜· ˙Âί·· ‡Ï‡ ÈÏ Ôȇ ÌÂÏ˘ ÍÏ Ì˘È ®Â ¯·„Ó·©
˙¯Â˙ ˙‡Ê ‰ÁÓ‰ ˙¯Â˙ ˙‡Ê ‰ÏÂÚ‰ ˙¯Â˙ ˙‡Ê ÔÈÓ Ë¯Ù· ÏÏη ‡Ï‡ ÈÏ Ôȇ ÌÈÓÏ˘‰ Á·ÊÏ ÌȇÂÏÓÏÂ
„ÂÓÏ˙ ÔÈÓ ¯Â·ˆ ˙Â·¯˜· „ÈÁÈ ˙Â·¯˜· ‡Ï‡ ÈÏ Ôȇ ÌÈÓÏ˘‰ Á·Ê ˙¯Â˙ ˙‡Ê Ì˘‡‰ ˙¯Â˙ ˙‡Ê ˙‡ËÁ‰
ÔÈÓ ‡·‰ ÌÏÂÚ· ‰Ê‰ ÌÏÂÚ· ‡Ï‡ ÈÏ Ôȇ ÌÈÓÏ˘· ÌÈÈÒÓ ÌÎÈ„ÚÂÓ· ß‰Ï Â˘Ú˙ ‰Ï‡ ®ËÎ ¯·„Ó·© ¯ÓÂÏ
ÌÂÏ˘ ¯‰Î ‰Èχ ‰ËÂ È‰ ®ÂÒ ‰ÈÚ˘È©
Ìȯ‰‰ ÏÚ Â‡ ‰Ó ®· ‰ÈÚ˘È© ¯Ó‡˘ ÌÂÏ˘· ‡Ï‡ Á˙ÂÙ Âȇ ‡· ÁÈ˘Ó‰ ÍÏӢ΢ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚ ¯Ӈ Ô·¯
ÆÌÂÏ˘ ÚÈÓ˘Ó ¯˘·Ó ÈÏ‚¯

Leviticus Rabbah
Portion 9

R. Simeon b.Yohai said: Great is peace, since all blessings are comprised therein, as it
is written, The Lord will give strength unto His people; the Lord will bless His people
with peace (Ps. 29:11).
Hezekiah said two things. Hezekiah said: Great is peace, for in connection with all
other precepts it is written, If thou meet, etc. (Ex. 23:4), If thou see (v. 5), If a bird’s
nest chance (Deut. 22:6), which implies: If a precept comes to your hand, you are
bound to perform it, but if not, you are not bound to perform it. In this case, however,
[it says], Seek peace, and pursue it (Ps. 34:15), [meaning], seek it for thine own
place and follow it to another place. Hezekiah said another thing: Great is peace,
for with regard to all the journeyings it is written, And the children of Israel journeyed
[plural]... and encamped [plural] (Num. 33:5), [the plural number implying that] they
journeyed in dissension, and they encamped in dissension. When, however, they all
came before Mount Sinai, they all became one encampment.This is indicated by what
is written, And there Israel encamped [sing.] before the mount (Ex. 29:2). It is written
here not “And the children of Israel encamped” [plural], but “Israel encamped” [sing.].
Said the Holy One, blessed be He: “This is the hour at which I am giving the Torah to
My children.”
Bar Kappara said three things: Bar Kappara said: Great is peace, for the Scriptures
reported in the Torah a prevarication which was used in order to maintain peace
between Abraham and Sarah. This is proved by what is written, And Sarah laughed

51
within herself, saying: ...and my master is old (Gen. 18:12); but [when He repeated
this] to Abraham, He said: [Sarah said]: And I am old (v. 13). Bar Kappara said another
thing: Great is peace, for in the Prophets, too, did Scripture report a prevarication
which was used for the purpose of maintaining peace between husband and wife,
as it is said, And the angel of the Lord appeared unto the woman, and said unto her:
Behold now, thou art barren, and hast not borne; but thou shalt conceive, and bear a
son (Judg. 13:3).When he spoke to Manoah, the angel did not say thus, but: Of all that
I said unto the woman let her beware (v. 13). For all that, she needs medicinal drugs.
Bar Kappara said yet another thing: Great is peace. If celestial beings among who
there is neither jealousy, nor hatred, nor rivalry, nor strife, nor lawsuits, nor dissension,
nor the evil eye, have need, nevertheless, of peace, as it is written, He maketh peace in
His high places (Job 25:3), how much more so then do earthly beings, among whom
all those dispositions exist, [have need of peace].
R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Great is peace, since the Scriptures have reported an
untrue statement in the Torah, the purpose of which was to maintain peace between
Joseph and his brethren, as it is written, And they sent a message to Joseph, saying:
Thy father did command before He died, saying: So shall ye say unto Joseph: Forgive I
pray thee now, the transgression of the servants of the G-d of thy father (Gen. 50:16),
though we do not find that Jacob had thus charged them.
R. Jose the Galilean said: Great is peace, since even in a time of war one should begin
with peace, as it is written,When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then
proclaim peace unto it (Deut. 20:10).
R. Judan b. R. Jose said: Great is peace, seeing that the Holy One, blessed be He, is
called Peace, as it says, And he called Him Lord, Peace! (Judg. 2:24). R. Tanhum b.
Judan said: From this we derive the rule that a person may not offer his fellow the
greeting ‘Peace’ in a place of filth...
R. Simeon b. Halafta said: Great is peace, for when the Holy One, blessed be He,
created His universe, he made peace between the upper and the lower [parts of
creation]. On the first day He created part of the upper regions and the lower ones,
as it says, In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). On the
second day, He created some of the upper portions of the universe, as it is written,
And G-d said: Let there be a firmament (v. 6). On the third day, He created some
of the lower created things, [as it is written], Let the waters under the heaven be
gathered together... Let the earth put forth grass, etc. (v. 9). On the fourth day [He
created] some of the upper objects, [as it is said], Let there be lights in the firmament
of the heavens (v. 14). On the fifth day, He created some of the lower objects, as it
is said, And G-d said: Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures (v. 20).
On the sixth day, when He came to create man, He said: If I create man as one of
the upper elements of the universe, the upper elements will outnumber the lower by
one created object, and if I create him as one of the lower created objects, the lower
will outnumber the upper by one created object. What did He do? He created man
as of the upper as well as of the lower beings; this is proved by what is written: Then
the Lord G-d formed man of the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7), i.e., out of the lower
parts of creation; And he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (ibid.), i.e., out of
the upper spheres.
R. Mani of Sheab, and R. Joshua of Siknin said in the name of R. Levi: Great is peace,
for all benedictions and prayers conclude with [an invocation for] peace. In the case
of the reading of the Shema, one concludes with: Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who
spreadest the tabernacle of peace; in the case of the tefillah, one concludes, Blessed
art Thou, O Lord, who makest peace; in the case of the Priestly Benediction, one
concludes, And give thee peace (Num. 6:26). I know [from the foregoing] only that it

52
applies to benedictions; whence do we know that this was so also in connection with
sacrifices? - [It is said],This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and
of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the consecration-offering, and of
the sacrifice of the peace-offering (Lev. 7:37). I know [from the foregoing] that this
is so in [the passage where Scripture gives] the summary [of all the sacrifices]. How
do I know that it is so also [when the Torah speaks of the sacrifices] in detail? - It
is said, This is the law of the burnt-offering, etc. (Lev. 6:2); And this is the law of the
meal-offering, etc. (v. 7);This is the law of the sin-offering (v. 18 ff.); And this is the law
of the guilt-offering (Lev. 7:1); And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings (v.
11). Now I know that this is so in the case of sacrifices offered by individuals; whence
do I know that it is so also in the case of sacrifices brought by the congregation? -
Scripture teaches us this by saying [at the end of a chapter on communal sacrifices],
These ye shall offer unto the Lord in your appointed seasons, beside your vows, and
your free-will offerings, whether they be your burnt-offerings, or your meal-offerings, or
your drink-offerings, or your peace-offerings (Num. 29:39). Now I know [that peace is
the climax of all things] in this world; whence do I know that it is to be so in the World
to Come? - It is said, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river (Isa. 66:12).
The Rabbis said: Great is peace, seeing that when the Messianic king is to come, he
will commence with peace, as it is said, How beautiful upon the mountains are the
feet of the messenger of good tidings, that announce peace (Isa. 52:7).

****

‰·¯ ¯·„Ó·
‡È ‰˘¯Ù
ÔÈ„„ˆ‰ ÔÓ Ï‡Â˘Î ÂÈÙ ÍÂ˙· ¯ȷÁ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï‡Â˘ ‰Ó„ ‡Ï Íψ‡ ÈÙÏÎ ÂÈÙ ÍÙ‰È ¯Ó‚ ÂÈ٠߉ ‡˘È ¯Á‡ ¯·‫ד‬
ÌÂÏ˘ ÌÂÏ˘ ÍÏ Ì˘È ¨È˙ȯى ÌÎÈχ È˙ÈÙ ®ÂÎ ‡¯˜È© ‡ÓÈ˙„ ‰ÓÎ Íψ‡ ÂÈÙ ÍÙ‰È ÍÈχ ÂÈ٠߉ ‡˘È ‡Ï‡
„„ ˙È· ˙ÂÎÏÓ ÌÂÏ˘ ‰Ê ÌÂÏ˘ ÌÂÏ˘ ÍÏ Ì˘È ¯Ó‡ Ô˙ È·¯ Ì„‡ ÏÎ ÌÚ ÌÂÏ˘ Í˙‡ÈˆÈ· ÌÂÏ˘ Í˙ÒÈη
Ô˙È ÂÓÚÏ ÊÂÚ ß‰ ®ËÎ ÌÈω˙© ¯Ó‡˘ ‰¯Â˙ ÌÂÏ˘ ‰Ê ¯Ó‡ È·¯ ı˜ Ôȇ ÌÂÏ˘Ï ‰¯˘Ó‰ ‰·¯ÓÏ ®Ë ‰ÈÚ˘È©
¯Ó‚Â
È‡Â „χ ÌÓ‡ Û‡‰ ®ÁÈ ˙È˘‡¯·© ¯Ó‡˘ ÌÂÏ˘‰ ÈÙÓ ¯·„· ‰È˘ ‡Â‰ ͯ· ˘Â„˜‰˘ ÌÂÏ˘‰ Ï„‚
È˙˜Ê
‡Ï ‰¯˜Ú ˙‡ ‡ ‰‰ ®‚È ÌÈËÙ¢© ¯Ó‡ ‰˘‡Ï˘ ÌÂÏ˘‰ ÈÙÓ ÁÂÓ ÌÚ ¯·„˘ ͇ÏÓ‰ ‰È˘˘ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚
¨ÁÂÓÏ ‰Ê ¯·„ ¯ÙÒ ‡Ï ˙„ÏÈ
˘È‡ ÔÈ· ÌÂÏ˘ ÏÈË‰Ï ÏÈ·˘· ÌÈÓ‰ ÏÚ ‰ÁÓÈ ‡Â‰ ͯ· ˘Â„˜‰ ¯Ó‡ ‰˘Â„˜· ·˙Î˘ Ì˘‰˘ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚
¨Â˙˘‡Ï
ÌÂÏ˘ ‡Ï‡ ˙Âȯ·‰ ÏÎ ÈÙ· Ìȇȷ‰ ÂÚË ‡Ï˘ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚ ¯Ó‡ ¯ÊÚÈχ È·¯
˙‡ ͯ·È ߉ ®ËÎ ÌÈω˙© ¯Ó‡˘ ÌÂÏ˘ ‡Ï‡ ‰Î¯· Ï·˜Ó ÈÏÎ Ôȇ˘ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚ ¯Ó‡ ‡˙ÙÏÁ Ô· ÔÂÚÓ˘ È·¯
˙ÂÏÈÚÂÓ ˙Âί·‰ Ôȇ˘ ¯ÓÂÏ ÌÂÏ˘ ÍÏ Ì˘È ÌÂÏ˘· ÔÓÈÈÒ ˙Âί· ÏÎ „Á‡ ÌÈ‰Î ˙ί·· Û‡ ÌÂÏ˘· ÂÓÚ
¨Ì‰ÓÚ ÌÂÏ˘ ÔΠ̇ ‡Ï‡ ÌÂÏÎ
‡Ï‡ ÌÈ‰Î ˙ί· Ì˙ÂÁ Ôȇ ÌÂÏ˘ ‡Ï‡ ‰ÏÙ˙‰ ÏÎ Ì˙ÂÁ Ôȇ˘ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚ ¯Ó‡ ¯Ù˜‰ ¯ÊÚÈχ È·¯
¨ÌÂÏ˘
‡Â‰˘ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚ ¨ÌÂÏ˘ ·Â¯ ÏÚ Â‚Ú˙‰Â ı¯‡ ¢¯È ÌÈÂÚ ®ÊÏ ÌÈω˙© ¯Ó‡˘ ÌÈÂÚÏ Ô˙È˘ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚
¨ÏΉ ˙‡ ‡¯Â·Â ÌÂÏ˘ ‰˘ÂÚ ÌȯÓ‡ Â‡ ÏΉ „‚ΠϘ˘
¯Ó‡ ÏÂÎȷΠ̉ÈÈ· ÌÂÏ˘Â ÌÈ·ÎÂÎ ˙„Â·Ú ÔÈ„·ÂÚ Ï‡¯˘È ÂÏÈÙ‡˘ ¯Ó‡ ¯Ù˜‰ ¯ÊÚÈχ È·¯ Ï˘ Â· ¯ÊÚχ È·¯
‰Ó ˜ÏÁ˘Ó Ï·‡ ¨ÂÏ Á‰ Ìȯه ÌÈ·ˆÚ ¯Â·Á ®„ ڢ‰© ¯Ó‡˘ ̉ÈÈ· Ú‚Â Ôˢ‰ Ôȇ ‡Â‰ ͯ· ˘Â„˜‰
‡‰ ÂÓ˘‡È ‰˙Ú Ì·Ï ˜ÏÁ ®„ ڢ‰© ̉· ¯Ó‡
·¯˜˙ ÈÎ ®Î Ìȯ·„© ¯Ó‡˘ ÌÂÏ˘ ÔÈÎȯˆ ‰ÓÁÏÓ ˙Ú˘· ÂÏÈÙ‡˘ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚ ¨˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ‰‡Â˘Â ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚
Ô‰˙‡ ‰·È˘‰ ®‡È ÌÈËÙ¢© ¯Ó‡ ¯Ó‚ ˙ÂÓ„˜ ¯·„ÓÓ ÌÈ·ÏÓ ÁÏ˘‡Â ®· Ìȯ·„© ¯Ó‡ ¯Ó‚ ¯ÈÚ Ï‡

53
 ¨ÌÂÏ˘·
¯Ó‡ ÌÂÏ˘· ÍÈ˙·‡ χ ‡·˙ ‰˙‡Â ®ÂË ˙È˘‡¯·© ¯Ó‡˘ ÌÂÏ˘ ÔÈÎȯˆ ÌÈ˙Ó‰ ÂÏÈÙ‡˘ ÌÂÏ˘‰ Ï„‚
¨˙ÂÓ˙ ÌÂÏ˘·
ÌÂÏ˘ ÌÂÏ˘ ÌÈ˙Ù˘ ·È ‡¯Â· ®Ê ‰ÈÚ˘È© ¯Ó‡˘ ‰·Â˘˙ È˘ÂÚÏ Ô˙È˘ ÌÂÏ˘‰ Ï„‚
‰Ú˘·˘ ÌȘȄˆÏ ‰˙È˘ ÌÂÏ˘‰ ÔÓ ‰ÙÈ ‰„Ó ‡Â‰ ͯ· ˘Â„˜‰ ‡¯· ‡Ï˘ ÌÂÏ˘‰ ‡Â‰ Ï„‚ ¯Ó‡ ¯È‡Ó È·¯
‡·È ®Ê ‰ÈÚ˘È© ˙¯Ó‡ ‰¢‡¯‰ ÌÂÏ˘· Â˙‡ ÔÈÓÈ„˜Ó ˙¯˘‰ È·ÏÓ Ï˘ ˙Â˙Î ˘Ï˘ ÌÏÂÚ‰ ÔÓ ¯ËÙ˘
ÔÈÈ„ ‡Ï ÂÁÂÎ Íω ®Ê ‰ÈÚ˘È© ˙¯Ó‡ ˙È˘ÈÏ˘‰Â Ì˙Â·Î˘Ó ÏÚ ÂÁÂÈ ®Ê ‰ÈÚ˘È© ˙¯Ó‡ ‰ÈÈ˘ ÌÂÏ˘
‡Â·È ÌÂÏ˘· ̉ÈÙÏ ÌÈÒÏ˜Ó˘ ‡Ï‡ ÍÙÒ‡È ß‰ „·Π®Á ‰ÈÚ˘È© ¯Ó‡˘ „·ΠȄȷ Ô˙˙ÈÓ˘ ÌȘȄˆÏ
¨ÌÂÏ˘
ÔÓ ÔȯËÙ˘ ‰Ú˘·˘ ÌÈÚ˘¯‰ ÔÓ ‰ÚÓ ÌÂÏ˘‰ ÂÓÎ ‰ÙÈ ‰„Ó ‡Â‰ ͯ· ˘Â„˜‰ ‡¯· ‡Ï˘ ÌÂÏ˘‰ Ï„‚
˙¯Ó‡ ‰È˘‰ ÌÂÏ˘ Ôȇ ®ÁÓ Â‰ÈÚ˘È© ˙¯Ó‡ ‰¢‡¯‰ Â˙‡ ˙ÂÓÈ„˜Ó ‰Ï·Á È·ÏÓ Ï˘ ˙Â˙Î ß‚ ÌÏÂÚ‰
ÌÈÏ·ÁÓ „È· Ô˙˙ÈÓ˘ ÌÈÚ˘¯Ï ÔÈÈ„ ‡Ï ¨Ô·΢˙ ‰·ˆÚÓÏ ® ‰ÈÚ˘È© ˙¯Ó‡ ˙È˘ÈÏ˘‰ ÌÈÚ˘¯Ï ߉ ¯Ó‡
®‰Ï ÌÈω˙© ¯Ó‡ ͢ÂÁÏ ¯Â‡Ó ‰ÂÙ„‰È ¯Ó‡ ¨ÌÈ˙ÈÓÓÏ Â˙ÈÈÁ ¢Ù ˙Á˘Ï ·¯˜˙ ®‚Ï ·Âȇ© ¯Ó‡˘
¨¯Ó‚ ÌÂÏ˘ Ôȇ Ì‰Ï ÌȯÓ‡ ̉ÈÙÏ ÌȯË˜˙Ó Ì‰˘ ‡Ï‡ Ìل¯ ߉ ͇ÏÓ ˙˜ϘÏÁ ͢Á Ìί„ ȉÈ
¨Ô·΢˙ ‰·ˆÚÓÏ
È·‰Â‡Ï Ô˙È˘ ÌÂÏ˘ ‰Ï„‚ ı¯‡· ÌÂÏ˘ È˙˙ ®ÂÎ ‡¯˜È© ¯Ó‡˘ ˙ˆӉ ‰¯Â˙‰ ¯Î˘ Ô˙È˘ ÌÂÏ˘‰ Ï„‚
¨Í˙¯Â˙ È·‰Â‡Ï ·¯ ÌÂÏ˘ ®ËȘ ÌÈω˙© ¯Ó‡˘ ‰¯Â˙
¨ÍÈ· ÌÂÏ˘ ·¯Â ߉ È„ÂÓÏ ÍÈ· ÏΠ®„ ‰ÈÚ˘È© ¯Ó‡˘ ‰¯Â˙ È„ÓÂÏÏ Ô˙È˘ ÌÂÏ˘‰ Ï„‚
¨ÌÂÏ˘ ‰˜„ˆ‰ ‰˘ÚÓ ‰È‰Â ®·Ï ‰ÈÚ˘È© ¯Ó‡˘ ‰˜„ˆ È˘ÂÚÏ Ô˙È˘ ÌÂÏ˘‰ Ï„‚
¨ÌÂÏ˘ ߉ ÂÏ ‡¯˜È ®Â ÌÈËÙ¢© ¯Ó‡˘ ÌÂÏ˘ ȯ˜ ÌÂ˜Ó Ï˘ ÂÓ˘˘ ÌÂÏ˘‰ Ï„‚
‰Ó ¯ÓÂÁ Ϙ Ìȯ·„ ȯ‰Â ¨ÂÈÓ¯ӷ ÌÂÏ˘ ‰˘ÂÚ ®‰Î ·Âȇ© ¯Ó‡˘ ÌÂÏ˘ ÔÈÎȯˆ ÌÈÂÈÏÚ È¯„˘ ÌÂÏ˘‰ Ï„‚
ÆÂÏω ˙„Ӊ ÏΠ· ˘È˘ ̘ÓÏ ¯ÓÂÁ Ϙ ÌÂÏ˘ ÔÈÎȯˆ ‰‡˘Â ‰·È‡ Ôȇ˘ ̘ӷ ̇

Numbers Rabbah
Portion 11

THE LORD WILL LIFT UP HIS COUNTENANCE UPON THEE - i.e., He will turn His
face towards you; as you read, And I will turn towards you and make you fruitful (Lev.
26:9). AND GIVE THEE PEACE (Num. 6:26), that is, peace when you come in, peace
when you go out, peace with all men.
R. Nathan says that in the text AND GIVE THEE PEACE, PEACE alludes to the peace
of the royal house of David; as it says,That the government may be increased, and of
peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom (Isa. 9:6).
Rabbi [Nathan] says that it alludes to the peace of the Torah; as it says,The Lord will
give strength unto His people; the Lord will bless His people with peace (Ps. 29:11).
Great is peace, since for the sake of peace the Holy One, blessed be He, altered a
statement; for it says, Shall I of a surety bear a child, who am old? (Gen. 18:13).
Great is peace, for the angel who spoke with Manoah changed his communication for
the sake of peace; for he had said to the woman, Behold now, thou art barren, and
hast not borne (Judg. 8:3), but he did not tell Manoah this.
Great is peace, for the divine name which was inscribed with all holiness was ordered
by the Holy One, blessed be He, to be blotted out in water for the sake of bringing
about peace between a man and his wife.
R. Eleazar says: Great is peace, for the prophets have implanted in the mouth of all
people naught so much as peace.
R. Simeon b. Halafta said: Great is peace, for no vessel can retain blessing so effectively
as peace; as it says,The Lord will bless His people with peace. Likewise, in the priestly
benediction, at the end of the blessings, He concludes with peace, AND GIVE THEE
PEACE. This is to tell you that blessings in themselves are of no avail unless peace

54
goes with them.
R. Eleazar Hakappar says: Great is peace, for the seal of the whole of the Prayer is
peace, and the seal of the priestly benediction is peace.
Great is peace, for it was given to the meek; as it says, But the humble shall inherit
the land, and delight themselves in the abundance of peace (Ps. 37:11).
Great is peace, for it outweighs everything. We say: He maketh peace and createth
everything. R. Eleazar, son of R. Eleazar Hakappar, says that even if Israel serve idols
and peace reigns among them, the Holy One, blessed be He, as it were, says: Satan
shall not touch them; as it says, Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone (Hos. 4:17).
On the other hand what does it say of them when they are at variance? Their heart
is divided; now shall they bear their guilt (Hos. 10:2). Thus peace is a grand thing
and quarrelsomeness is hateful. Peace is a great thing, for even during war peace
is necessary; as it says, When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then
proclaim peace unto it (Deut. 20:10), and as it says I sent messengers out of the
wilderness of Kedemoth unto Sihon... with words of peace (Deut. 2:26), and it also
says, Restore those cities peaceably (Judg. 9:13).
Great is peace, for even the dying need peace; as it says, But thou shalt go to thy
fathers in peace (Gen. 15:15), and as it says,Thou shalt die in peace (Jer. 34:5).
Great is peace, for it was given to those who are repentant; as it says, Peace, peace,
to him that is far off and to him that is near, saith the Lord that createth the fruit of
the lips (Isa. 57:19).
R. Meir says: Great is peace, for the Holy One, blessed be He, has created no fairer
attribute than that of peace, which has been given to the righteous.When a righteous
man departs from the world three groups of ministering angels welcome him with
the greeting of peace. The first says, Let him enter into peace (v. 2), the second says,
Let them rest in their beds (ibid.), and the third says, Each one that walketh in his
uprightness (ibid.). Nor is it sufficient reward for the righteous that their death is
affected by [G-d’s] glory, as it says, The glory of the Lord shall gather thee in (Isa.
58:8), but the angels eulogize them with expressions of “peace”; viz., Let him enter
into peace.
Great is peace, for the Holy One, blessed be He, has created no attribute so fair as
peace, and has withheld it from the wicked. For in the hour when one of them departs
from the world three groups of destroying demons confront him. The first says,There
is no peace (Isa. 48:22).The second says, Saith the Lord concerning the wicked (ibid.).
The third says, Ye shall lie down in sorrow (Isa. 50:11). It is not sufficient penalty for
the wicked that their death is in the hands of destroyers - as it says, Yea, his soul
draweth near unto the pit, and his life to the destroyers (Job 33:22), and as it says,
He shall be driven from light into darkness (Isa. 18:18), and as it says, Let their way
be dark and slippery, the angel of the Lord pursuing them (Ps. 35:6) - but the demons
vex them and say to them:There is no peace, etc.,Ye shall lie down in sorrow.
Great is peace, for it was given as a reward for devotion to Torah and good deeds; as
it says, And I will give peace in the land (Lev. 26:6).
Great is peace, for it was given to those who love the Torah; as it says, Great peace
have they that love Thy law (Ps. 119:165).
Great is peace, for it was given to those who study the Torah; as it says, And all thy
children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children (Isa.
54:13).
Great is peace, for it was given to those who practice charity; as it says, And the
practice of charity shall mean peace (Isa. 32:17).
Great is peace, for the name of the Omnipresent is called Peace; as it says, And he
called it:The Lord is peace (Judg. 4:24).

55
 Great is peace, for the angels that dwell on high need peace; as it says, He maketh
peace in His high places (Job 25:2). How cannot an inference be drawn a minori ad
majus? If peace is necessary in a place where there is no hatred or enmity, how much
more is this the case in a place where all these qualities are found!

****
ÌÈ˘Â„˜ ‡¯ÙÒ
Á ‰˘¯Ù ‡È ˜¯Ù

˙ÂÏÈËÓ‰ ÌÈ·‡ ®Â∫ÊÎ Ìȯ·„© Íȉχ ߉ Á·ÊÓ ˙‡ ‰·˙ ˙ÂÓÏ˘ ÌÈ·‡ ¯Ó‡ ‡Â‰ ȯ‰ ¯Ó‡ ȇÎÊ Ô· ÔÁÂÈ È·¯
˙ÂÏÈËÓ˘ È„È ÏÚ ˙¯·„Ó ‡Ï ˙ÂÚÓ¢ ‡Ï ˙‡¯ ‡Ï Ôȇ˘ ÌÈ·‡ ̇ ‰Ó ¯ÓÂÁ Ϙ Ìȯ·„ ȯ‰Â ÌÂÏ˘
Ô· Â˙˘‡Ï ˘È‡ ÔÈ· ÌÂÏ˘ ÏÈËÓ˘ Ì„‡ Ïʯ· Ô‰ÈÏÚ ÛÈ˙ ‡Ï ·Â˙Ή ¯Ó‡ ÌÈÓ˘·˘ ԉȷ‡Ï χ¯˘È ÔÈ· ÌÂÏ˘
‰‡Â·˙ ‡Ï˘ ‰ÓΠ‰ÓÎ ˙χ ÏÚ ‰˙¯·ÁÏ ‰Ó‡ ÔÈ·Â ‰È„ÓÏ ‰È„Ó ÔÈ·Â ¯ÈÚÏ ¯ÈÚ ÔÈ· ‰ÁÙ˘ÓÏ ‰ÁÙ˘Ó
∫˙ÂÚ¯ÂÙ‰

Sifra Kedoshin
Chapter 11 Portion 8

Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai says, “Lo, Scripture says, ‘With whole stones you will build
the altar of the Lord your God.’” (Deut. 27:6) These are the stones that make peace.
And behold, this yields an argument a fortiori: Concerning stones which do not see or
hear or speak, because they bring peace between Israel and their Father in heaven,
Scripture says, “You shall not raise up iron upon them.” As to a person who brings
peace between a man and his wife, between one family and another, between one
city and another, between one province and another, between one nation and another
- how much the more so that punishment should not come near him.

****

‰¢È‡¯ ˙ÏÂÚ ¯Â„ÈÒ

®±∏∂µ≠±π≥µ ¨Ï‡¯˘È ı¯‡ ≠ ‰È·ËÏ© ˜Â˜ ԉΉ ˜ÁˆÈ ̉¯·‡ ·¯‰
‡Ï˘≠Ï˘ ßÓÚ

Ìȇ¯˘Î ÔΠ̇ ¨˙ÂÂÎ˙ ˙ÂÚÈ„· „Á‡ ÔÂÈ·ˆ È„È ÏÚ Ì‡ ÈÎ ‰·È ‡Ï ÈÓÏÂÚ‰ ÌÂÏ˘‰˘ ¨ÌÈ·˘ÂÁ˘ ÌÈÚÂË ˘È
̉ ‰Ê·˘ ÌÈ·˘ÂÁ ¨˙ÂËÈ˘‰Â ÌÈ„„ˆ‰ ÌÈ·¯˙Ó ¯˜ÁÓ‰ È„È ÏÚ ¨‰¯Â˙ ˙Ú„Â ‰ÓÎÁ· Ìȯ˜ÂÁ ÌÈÓÎÁ È„ÈÓÏ˙
ÏÚ ‡˜Â„ ̇ ÈÎ ÌÏÂÚÏ ‡Â·È˘ ¯˘Ù‡ ȇ È˙ÈÓ‡‰ ÌÂÏ˘‰ ÈÎ ¨ÔÎ Âȇ ˙Ó‡·Â ÆÌÂÏ˘‰ Íى ˙˜ÂÏÁÓÏ ÌÈӯ‚
˘È ÌÏÂÎ Íȇ ¯¯·˙È ¨˙ÂËÈ˘‰ ÏΠÌÈ„„ˆ‰ ÏΠ‡¯˙È˘ ‡Â‰ ÌÂÏ˘‰ Ï˘ È·ȯ‰ ÆÌÂÏ˘‰ È·ȯ Ï˘ ͯډ È„È
ÌÈ·ÈÁ¯Ó ̉˘ ‰Ó· ÈÎ ¨ÌÂÏ˘ ÌÈ·¯Ó ÌÈÓÎÁ È„ÈÓÏ˙ ÔÎ ÏÚ ÆÆÆÂÈÚ ÂÓÂ˜Ó ÂÎ¯Ú ÈÙÏ „Á‡ ÏÎ ¨ÌÂ˜Ó Ì‰Ï
ÌÈ·¯Ó ̉ ‰Ê· ¨ÌÈÈÚ ˜ÂÏÈÁ È·ȯ ̉· ˘È˘ ¨ÌÈ¢ ÌÈÙÓ ÌÈÙ· ¨ÌÈ˘„Á ‰ÓÎÁ ȯ·„ ÌÈ„ÏÈÓ Ìȯ‡·ÓÂ
Âχ˘ ¨˙Â¢ ˙ÂËÈ˘Ó ÌÈ¢ ÌÈ„„ˆÓ ‰·˙ ÌÏÂÚ‰ ¯Â‡ Ï˘ ˙Ó‡‰Â ÆÆÆÆÆƢ߉ È„ÂÓÏ ÍÈ· Ï΢ ∫¯Ó‡˘ ¨ÌÂÏ˘
Æ ¢ÆÂίÚ ÂÓÂ˜Ó ÒÙÂ˙ „Á‡ Ï΢ ¨ÌÈ¢ ÍÂÁ ‰Î¯„‰Â ‰„Â·Ú Èί„Ó ¨ÌÈÈÁ ÌȘχ ȯ·„ ÂχÂ

56
Siddur Olot Harayah
Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (Latvia- Land of Israel, 1865-1935)

There are those who err and think that universal peace will only be based on uniform
opinions and qualities, and therefore when they see Torah scholars investigating
wisdom and Torah [teachings], and through this research the [different] approaches
and [various] opinions increase, they think that in this manner they cause dispute
and the opposite of peace. And in truth, this is not the case, for true peace can only
come to the world specifically due to the proliferation of peace.This proliferation of
peace is in order that all the sides and all the opinions are seen, and it becomes clear
that each has its own place, each in relation to its value, its place, and its matter...
Therefore, Torah scholars increase peace, for in expanding, clarifying and initiating
new words of wisdom, in many various forms, whether in further similar or [other]
dissimilar matters, in this manner they increase peace, as it states, “And all your
children will be students of God”... and the truth of the Illumination of the World will
be constructed from various aspects and differing approaches, for “these and these
are the words of the living God” (Eruvin 13b et al.) of the diverse ways of [divine]
service, guidance and education, with each assuming its place and value.

****

Summary
The value of peace is a highly prized precept in Judaism. Jewish teaching instructs
all to pursue peace. In the name of peace, practices and customs were instituted
which became part and parcel of everyday life. These ways of life were set down to
prevent friction between neighbors, friends and co-workers. As an example, the Sages
ordained the order for the reading of the Torah; first the Cohen (priest), next the
Levite (from the tribe of Levi, the priestly attendants) and then Israelites (the people).
This arrangement avoided causing rifts among community members, for it eliminated
argument, arbitrariness and insult to honor. In another example, if a certain practice
between neighbors has been established and unchanged for generations, it should not
be altered, thus potential conflict between neighbors is forestalled.
Should one suspect his friend of a transgression, he should not confront him, so
as to keep the peace. One should greet a non-Jew politely for the sake of peace. This
also applied to a non-Jewish adversary, who either has harmed or persecuted Jewish
people. Peace between peoples is considered a value without limits. Peace, which must
be strived for between people, is a boundless ideal. The verse that describes peace as
an unlimited religious precept is said in the daily prayers and was included in even the
oldest Jewish prayer books (see Machzor Vitri, 12th century).
G-d shows us by example the lengths we are supposed to go to in order to achieve
peace. In the case of a woman suspected by her husband of being with another man,
she is instructed to drink water into which G-d’s Ineffable Name (the Tetragrammaton)
written on a piece of paper has been immersed; if she is guilty she will be punished
immediately. G-d instructs us to blot out His Name in water - an act forbidden
according to Torah law - to re-instill peace between man and wife. For if she is not
immediately punished, her innocence of all accusations is proved. This example, given

57
by G-d, illustrates the importance of peace between husband and wife. How much
more so is peace between every man a principle foundation?
The commandment to pursue peace indicates the need for an active approach to
conflict resolution in our society. The Avot d’Rabbi Nathan (a commentary on Avot,
210 ce) describes how a passive attitude toward peace achieves nothing. One must go
out and seek to encourage peace between conflicting parties. Not only should people
keep the peace and promote unity their own surroundings, but they should also go
beyond their immediate context and pursue peace in the public domain.
A place immersed in conflict has no future. Its ultimate end will be destruction.
This is true for any home, house of prayer or law court plagued by conflict.The ideal
of peace is so highly valued that even if a city was populated by idol-worshippers, but
they lived in peace with each other, then G-d would refrain from punishing them for
their sins.
Peace along with truth and justice are considered the three pillars of our existence.
One cannot exist without the other.
G-d changed the words of our forefathers in order to maintain peace between man
and wife. When G-d told Sarah she would have a child, she said, “I am past childbearing
age and my husband is old.” When G-d retold the conversation, He changed her
words, saying Sarah had said, “I am old,” without mentioning Abraham. In order not to
disrupt good family relations, G-d reworded Sarah’s declaration to be less controversial
and insulting to her husband.
One of G-d’s names is Peace.This illustrates that the principle of peace is divine and
equal to the Holiest of Holies - G-d Himself.
In modern times, Israel’s first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak
Hacohen Kook analyzed the value of peace, explaining that peace cannot be achieved
through only one opinion or one understanding. Rabbi Kook says that peace is spread
throughout the world, where there are many opinions and each person’s opinion is
as true as the opinion of the next. Every opinion has a place and a value. Only when
people come to this realization, will there be true peace among them. It is for this reason
that the Sages sought to increase peace in the community. Only through differences
of opinion and a wide range of views, will peace be achieved, because then everyone
will realize that all opinions are legitimate and that all people can live together with
respect. This idea expresses the notion that pluralism promotes peace, so once people
recognize that pluralism - a wide range of differing opinions - has a place in society, only
then can true peace be achieved. When the State of Israel was established, guarantees
of due process of law in accordance with the principles of justice, honesty and peace
were enshrined in the Basic Law of Jurisprudence. Justice Menahem Elon has noted
that the uniqueness of the Jewish heritage has made peace a principle of law. In most
other legal systems, the principles of law are based on freedom, honesty and justice.

58
2.4 Ways of Pleasantness ÌÚÂ Èί„

ÈÏ˘Ó
ÊÈ ˜ÂÒÙ ‚ ˜¯Ù

∫ÌÂÏ˘ ‰È˙·È˙ ÏΠÌÚ Èί„ ‰Èί„

Proverbs
Chapter 3 Verse 17

If your enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to
drink.

****
ÔÈËÈ‚ ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙
· „ÂÓÚ Ë Û„

‰¯Â˙‰ ÏÎ ÆÌÂÏ˘ Èί„ ÈÙÓ ¨‡˙Èȯ‡„ ∫ÂÏ ¯Ó‡ °‡È‰ ‡˙Èȯ‡„ øÌÂÏ˘ Èί„ ÈÙÓ ∫ÛÒÂÈ ·¯Ï ÈÈ·‡ ÂÏ ¯Ó‡
°ÌÂÏ˘ ‰È˙·È˙ ÏΠÌÚÂ Èί„ ‰Èί„ ®‚ ÈÏ˘Ó© ∫·È˙΄ ¨‡È‰ ÌÂÏ˘ Èί„ ÈÙÓ ÈÓ ‰ÏÂÎ

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Gittin 59b

Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Is this rule [of the hierarchy of who is to be honored] only [a
rabbinical one] in the interests of peace? It derives from the Torah? - He answered: It
does derive from the Torah, but its object is to maintain peace. But the whole of the
Law is also for the purpose of promoting peace, as it is written, Her ways are ways of
pleasantness and all her paths are peace.

****
Ôȷ¯ÈÚ ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÓÏ˘Â¯È „ÂÓÏ˙
· ‰Îω „ ¯ÂË Î Û„ ‚ ˜¯Ù

‰˙¯È·ÁÏ ‰·Â·„ ‰˙ȉ˘ ˙Á‡ ‰˘‡· ‰˘ÚÓ ÆÌÂÏ˘ Èί„ ÈÙÓ ˙¯ȈÁ· ÔÈ·¯ÚÓ ‰Ó ÈÙÓ Ú˘Â‰È È·¯ ¯Ó‡
‡Ï ÈÏ ‰ÓÁ¯ ˙‰ ÔÈΉ ‰¯Ó‡ ‰ÈÓȇ ÈÓ˜ ¯Ó‡Â ‡˙‡ ‰È˙˜˘ ‰È˙ÙÙ‚Â ‰È˙Ò ‰¯· È·‚ ‰·Â¯ÈÚ ‰ÁÏ˘Â
ÆÌÂÏ˘ ‰È˙·È˙ ÏΠÌÚÂ Èί„ ‰Èί„ ·È˙΄ ‡Â‰ ‡„‰ ÌÂÏ˘ Â˘Ú ÍÎ ÍÂ˙Ó ‰Ú„È ‡ȉ

Jerusalem Talmud
Tractate Eruvin
Chapter 3 Page 20d Law 2

Said Rabbi Joshua, “On what account do they prepare a meal of commingling in a
courtyard? It is for the sake of peace.” There was the case of a woman who was on
bad terms with her neighbor. She [the neighbor] sent her meal of commingling with
her son. The other took him and hugged him and kissed him. He went and told his
mother this. She said, “Is this how she loved me, and I did not know about it!” They

59
 thus became friends once again. That is in line with the following verse of Scripture:
“Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.”

****
‰·¯ ¯·„Ó·
‡Î ‰˘¯Ù

È˙ȯ· ˙‡ ÂÏ Ô˙Â È‰ ¯ÂÓ‡ ÔÎÏ Â¯Î˘ ÏÂËÈ˘ ‡Â‰ ÔÈ„· ‡Â‰ ͯ· ˘Â„˜‰ ¯Ó‡ ԉΉ Ô¯‰‡ Ô· ¯ÊÚχ Ô· ÒÁÈÙ
ÈÏ˘Ó© ¯Ó‡˘ ÌÂÏ˘ ‰ÏÂÎ ‰¯Â˙‰Â ÌÂÏ˘· ‡Ï‡ ‚‰˙Ó ÌÏÂÚ‰ Ôȇ˘ ÒÁÙÏ Ô˙˘ ÌÂÏ˘‰ Ï„‚ ¨ÌÂÏ˘
ÌÂÏ˘ ÂÏ ÔÈÏ‡Â˘ ˙ȯÁ˘ ÔΠÌÂÏ˘ ÂÏ ÔÈÏ‡Â˘ ͯ„‰ ÔÓ Ì„‡ ‡· ̇ ÌÂÏ˘ ‰È˙·È˙ ÏΠÌÚÂ Èί„ ‰Èί„ ®‚
˙ί·· ¨ÌÂÏ˘· ÔÈÓ˙ÂÁ ‰ÏÙ˙‰ ¨ÂÓÚ ÏÚ ÌÂÏ˘ ˙ÎÂÒ Ò¯ÂÙ ÔÈÓ˙ÂÁ χ¯˘È ÚÓ˘ ¨ÌÂÏ˘· ÔÈÏ‡Â˘ ÍÎ ˘Ó‡·Â
߉ ®ËÎ ÌÈω˙© ¯Ó‡˘ ÌÂÏ˘ ‡Ï‡ ‰Î¯· ˜ÈÊÁÓ ÈÏÎ Ôȇ ‡˙ÙÏÁ Ô· ÔÂÚÓ˘ È·¯ ¯Ó‡ ¨ÌÂÏ˘· ÔÈÓ˙ÂÁ ÌÈ‰Î
ÆÌÂÏ˘· ÂÓÚ ˙‡ ͯ·È ߉ Ô˙È ÂÓÚÏ ÊÂÚ

Numbers Rabbah
Portion 21

PHINEHAS, THE SON OF ELEAZAR, THE SON OF AARON THE PRIEST (Num.
25:11).The Holy One, blessed be He, said: It is right that he should receive his reward.
WHEREFORE SAY: BEHOLD, I GIVE UNTO HIM MY COVENANT OF PEACE (v. 12).
Great is peace, the gift made to Phinehas! For the world could not be maintained
except by peace, and the Torah is wholly peace; as it says, Her ways are ways of
pleasantness, and all her paths are peace (Prov. 3:17). If a person comes from a
journey, he is received with the greeting of “Peace.” In the morning also the greeting
of “Peace” is offered, and in the evening likewise the greeting is “Peace.” The reading
of the passage Hear, O Israel (Deut. 6:4) concludes with the words: He spreadeth
the tabernacle of peace over his people.The Prayer concludes with peace.The priestly
benediction concludes with peace. R. Simeon b. Halafta observed: There is no vessel
that holds a blessing save peace; as it says,The Lord will give strength unto His people;
the Lord will bless His people with peace (Ps. 29:11).

****
˘¢‡¯‰ ˙¢Â˘
®±≤µ∞≠±≥≤∑ ¨„¯ÙÒ© χÈÁÈ Ô· ¯˘‡ Â·¯
‚ ÔÓÈÒ ÁÚ ÏÏÎ

ÂÈÏÚ ÂÈ·¯ ‰˘Ó È„È ÏÚ Ï‡¯˘È ÂÓÚÏ ‡Â‰ ͯ· ˘Â„˜‰ Ô˙ Ìȯ˘È ÌÈËÙ˘Ó ÌÈ·ÂË ÌȘÁ ˙Ó‡ ˙¯Â˙
¨‰¯˘È‰ ˘˜ÚÏ ÌÈÏÎ˙Ó‰ ¨ÌÈÚ˘ÂÙ ¨Ì· ÂÎÏÈ ÌȘȄˆ ¨ÌÂÏ˘ ‰È˙·È˙ ÏΠÌÚÂ Èί„ ‰Èί„ ¨ÌÂÏ˘‰
˜„ˆ ˜„ˆ ∫¯Ó‡ ‰Ê ÏÚ ÆÌ˙·˘ÁÓ ÏË·Ï Ì˙ˆÚ ÏÎÒÏ Ï‡¯˘È ÈÓÎÁ ÔÈ·ÈÈÁ ¨‰Ó¯Ó Èʇӷ Ϙ˘ ÏÈ„‚‰Ï
ƉÓÂ¯Ó È˜ÂÙ‡Ï ¨Â˙Ó‡Ï ˙Ó‡ ÔÈ„ ∫ÌÈÓÎÁ ¯Ӈ ¨®∫·Ï Ôȯ„‰Ò© Û„¯˙

Responsa of the Rosh

Rabbi Asher ben Jechiel (Spain, 1250-1327)
Rule 78 Chapter 3

A true Torah, good ordinances and upright laws were given by the Holy One, blessed
be He to His nation, Israel, through Moses our Teacher, of blessed memory; its ways

60
 are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace (Prov. 3:17), the righteous will
walk in them (Hos. 14:10), and regarding the evil, who conspire to pervert that
which is honest, to increase the weights in the scales of deceit, the Sages are obliged
to thwart their schemes and annul their thoughts. About this it states, “You shall
surely pursue justice” (Deut. 16:20), and our Sages said (Sanhedrin 32b), “Judge the
complete truth” - this is to exclude an instance of suspected deceit.

****

ı¢·˘˙ ˙¢Â˘
®±≥∂±≠±¥¥¥ ¨‰˜¯ÂÈÓ ≠ ¯È߂χ© Ô‡¯Â„ ÁÓˆ Ô· ÔÂÚÓ˘ È·¯
˘ ÔÓÈÒ · ˜ÏÁ

Â˙ÂÊÈ¯Ê ÏÚ ÍÂÓÒÏ ÊȯÊÏ Ôȇ˘ Ì˘‰ ˙˜ÈÁÓ ˘˘Á ÈÙÓ ÔÎ ˙¢ÚÏ ‰ÏÁ˙ÎÏ ˘˘ÂÁ È‡˘ ˙Ó‡· ‰·Â˘˙
‰Ó ÏÂÒÙÏ È„È· ÁÎ Ôȇ „·ÚÈ„· ÂÏÒÙÏ Ï·‡ ˙ȇ¯˘ ‰·Â˘˙ ‰˙‡· ‰·¯‰ È˙¯ÓÁ‰ ¯·„· ¯„‚ ˙¢ÚÏ ‰Ê·
¯ÈÓÁ‰Ï ‰˘ÚÓ ‰˘Ú ‡Ï ÔÈÓ„Ó Â‡˘ ÈÙÓ ‡È‰ ‰¯Â˙ χ¯˘È Ï˘ Ô‚‰Ó ¯·„· ‡Ï˜ ÌȯÙÂÒ‰ ‚‰˘
‰È‰È χ χ¯˘ÈÏ Ì‰Ï Á‰ „·ÚÈ„· Ï·‡ ‰ÏÁ˙ÎÏ Ì¯È‰Ê‰Ï ‡Â‰ ÂÁÎ ÏΠ‡Ï˜ ÔÈ‚‰Â ÌÈ¢‡¯‰˘ ‰Ó·
∫ÌÂÏ˘ ‰È˙·È˙ ÏΠÌÚÂ Èί„ ‰Èί„ ‰¯Â˙‰˘ ‰Ê ¯·„ ÏÈ·˘· ÌÎÈÈ· ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ

Responsa of Tashbatz
Rabbi Simeon ben Tzemach Duran (Rashbatz) (Majorca - Algeria, 1361-1444)
Part 2 Section 109

Answer: Indeed, in the first instance I am concerned with is out of concern for
erasing the [divine] Name, for even the expedient must not rely on his expedience
in this matter, and in order to make a protective fence, I was very stringent in that
responsum that you saw. However, to invalidate it ex post facto - I do not have the
power to invalidate a leniency the scribes have employed as accepted practice, for
the practice of Israel is law, and since we are [merely] contemplating this issue, we
will not perform a concrete act in order to be stringent in a matter that the earlier
[authorities] treated leniently; rather, all our power is to caution them in the first
instance. However, ex post facto, let Israel be and do not cause dispute among them
over this issue, for the Torah’s ways “are ways of pleasantness and all its pathways are
peace” (Prov. 3:17).

****

·‡Ê ÔÈÓÈ· ˙¢Â˘

®±∂≠‰ ‰‡Ó‰ ¨ÔÂÂÈ© ‰È˙˙Ó ¯· ÔÈÓÈ· ߯
·Ù˜ ÔÓÈÒ

˙ÂÈÚÏ ‰‡¯ ̉ÈÈ· ˙¢‰Ï ‡Â‰ È˙ÂÂÎ ‡Ï‡ „ÈÁÈ„ ‰¯Â˙ ¯ÙÒ „·ΠËÚÓÏ ÌÂÏ˘Â ÒÁ ÈÚ‰ È‡ È˙‡· ‡ÏÂ
ÌÈÚ·˘ ¯Â·ˆ„ ˙¯Â˙ ȯÙÒ È˘·Âª „Á‡ Ú·˘ „ÈÁÈ ‡Â‰‰ Ï˘ ‰„Â˙ ¯ÙÒ· ‡¯˜È„ ÔÙ‡‰ ‰Ê· ˙¢ÚÏ È˙Ú„
Ï˘ ÂÓÂȘ ‡Â‰ ÌÂÏ˘‰Â ÌÂÏ˘ ‰È˙·È˙ ÏΠÌÚÂ Èί„ ‰Èί„„ ÌÂÏ˘ Èί„ ÈÙÓ ÂÏÂΠ‰ÏÈÏÁ ¯ÊÁÈÂ
ÆÌÂÏ˘ Í˙‡ÈˆÈ·Â ÌÂÏ˘ Í˙ÒÈη ÌÂÏ˘ ÍÏ Ì˘È ÔȯӇ ÌÏÂÚ

61
Responsa of Binyamin Ze'ev
Rabbi Benjamin ben Mattathias (Greece, 16th century)
Section 182

And I, the impoverished, have not come to, God forbid, diminish the honor of the
individual’s Torah scroll, rather my intention is to equate between them. It seems
correct, in my humble opinion, to do the following: They should read that individual’s
Torah scroll for one week, and then the community’s Torah scrolls for two weeks, and
so forth and so on. And this entire arrangement is as a result of “It’s ways are ways of
pleasantness, and all its pathways are peace” (Prov. 3:17).
The existence of the world rests on peace, and we have stated (Sifrei Bemidbar 42
s.v. “ve-yasem lecha”) “‘And place on you peace’ - peace on your entry, peace on your
exit.”

****
˜¢È¯‰Ó ˙¢Â˘
®±¥≤∞≠±¥∏∞ ¨˙Ù¯ˆ© ÔÂϘ ÛÒÂÈ ß¯
‡Ù˜ ÔÓÈÒ

Á΢ · ¯ÂÊÁÏ ÏÂÎÈ Ì‰Ó „Á‡ Ôȇ ÔÈ˜ ‡Ï· ˙ÓÈȘ Ô˙ÓÎÒ‰˘ Û˙˙˘‰Ï ÂÓÈÎÒ‰ ¯ÈÚ‰ ÈÓ‡ Ï΢ ‡Îȉ„
‰ȇ ‡ÓÏÚ· ÔÈÙ˙¢ È˘· ‡Ï‡ ÌȘÒÂÙ‰ ¯‡˘ ÏÚ ‰˘Ó ÂÈ·¯ ‚ÈÏÙ ‡Ï ÔÎ ÏÚ„ ‡¢·˘¯‰ ·˙΄Π‰ÙÈ ÌÈ·¯‰
‰„ÂÓ Â˙Ó‡· Û˙˙˘‰Ï Â˙‰ ˙ÂÓ‡‰ È· Ï΢ ‡Îȉ Ï·‡ ¯ÈÚ‰ ‰˙‡ Ï˘ ˙ÂÓ‡‰ È· ÏÎ ˙ÓÎÒ‰
‰È˙·È˙ ÏΠÌÚÂ Èί„ ߉ Èί„ ߯‰ ˙ÓÎÒ‰˘ ÌÈȘ Ô‡˙ ̉ Ôȇ˘¯„ ‡Â‰
˙Á‡ ‰„‚‡·Â ‰ÓÎÒ‰· Âȉ ÌÏÂ΢ ÔÓÊ· ÔÈÓÈȘ ̉ȯ·„ ‡‰È˘ ¯Ӈ ÍÎÏ ÌÂÏ˘
ÆÌÂÏ˘‰Â ˙Ó‡‰ ·ˆÓ Ò¯‰Ï · ¯ÂÊÁÏ Ì‰Ó „Á‡ ÏÎÂÈ ‡ÏÂ

Responsa of Maharik
Rabbi Joseph ben Solomon Colon (France, 1420-1480)
Chapter 181

For where all the tradesmen of the city agree to participate, and their agreement
exists without the force of an acquisition [kinyan], and none may retract, as the power
of the group prevails, as the Rashba [Rabbi Shlomo b. Avraham] wrote, that Moses
our Teacher only disputes the other authorities in the case of two solitary partners,
where there is no agreement of all the tradesmen of that city. However, where all the
tradesmen stipulated that they would participate each in his trade, he concurs that
they are permitted to do so and that their stipulation stands, for agreement among
a multitude is [indicative of] the ways of God “are ways of pleasantness and all its
paths are peace” (Prov. 3:17), and therefore they stated that their words stand as long
as they are all in agreement [thus forming] one unit, thus none may retract, thereby
destroying the state of truth and peace.

****

62
 Summary

The verse in Proverbs describes G-d’s law as a way of pleasantness and peace.
This sets the tone for how man should act and understand the Torah. The law must be
explained and interpreted in pleasant ways. Many Midrashic exegeses explain that the
Torah’s teachings lead us in harmonious ways to peace and serenity.
Rabbi Shimon ben Zemach Duran presents a practical application of this biblical
verse. In a situation where he felt that everyone was behaving improperly, he explained
that he did not want to oppose the accepted practice so as not to provoke controversy
within the community. His source for refraining to rebuke the inappropriate behavior
was that the Torah is the way of pleasantness and so one should not disturb the
peace. Other responsa describe peace as integral to the existence of the world. In a
dispute over which Torah scroll should be read, the compromise solution determined
that the congregation use a different scroll each week to keep the community free of
dissension.
Achieving a consensus in the community and nurturing it constitute vital steps
toward the goal of peace. This is the basis of the Torah - that its ways are of paths of
peace, so one must be careful to maintain the consensus, and thereby peace.

63
2.5 Aaron, Pursuer of Peace ÌÂÏ˘ ۄ¯ Ô¯‰‡
˙·‡ ˙ÎÒÓ ‰˘Ó
·È ‰˘Ó ‡ ˜¯Ù

Ô·¯˜Ó ˙Âȯ·‰ ˙‡ ·‰Â‡ ÌÂÏ˘ ۄ¯ ÌÂÏ˘ ·‰Â‡ Ô¯‰‡ Ï˘ ÂÈ„ÈÓÏ˙Ó È‰ ¯Ó‡ Ïω Ì‰Ó ÂÏ·˜ È‡Ó˘Â Ïω
∫‰¯Â˙Ï
Mishnah Avot
Chapter 1 Mishnah 12

Hillel and Shammai received [the oral tradition] from them [i.e., their predecessors].
Hillel used to say: Be thou of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace,
[be thou] one who loveth [one’s fellow] creatures and bringeth them nigh to the
Torah.

****
È˙·¯ ‰ÏÎ ˙ÎÒÓ
‡ ‰Îω ‚ ˜¯Ù

È„·Ú ÔÎ ‡Ï ¯Ó‡˘ ¨‰˘Ó Á·˙˘ ‰ÏÈ·˘·Â ¨„‡Ó ÂÈÚ ‰˘Ó ˘È‡‰Â ·È˙΄ ¨Â·¯ ‰˘ÓÓ ¨ÔÈÓ ÂÈÚ Ô·¯ Â˙
¨‡Â‰ ˙‡·ˆ È¢È Í‡ÏÓ ÈΠ‰ÈÙÓ Â˘˜·È ‰¯Â˙ ˙Ú„ Â¯Ó˘È Ô‰Î È˙Ù˘ ÈÎ ·È˙΄ ¨Ô¯‰‡Ó ¨Á¯ ÏÙ˘Â ¨‰˘Ó
ÆÔÂÚÓ ·È˘‰ ÌÈ·¯Â È˙‡ Íω ¯Â˘ÈÓ·Â ÌÂÏ˘· ÂÈ˙Ù˘· ‡ˆÓ ‡Ï ‰ÏÂÚ ‰ÈÙ· ‰˙ȉ ˙Ó‡ ˙¯Â˙ ·È˙ÎÂ
‡‰ ¨Íω ÂÁ¯ ÏÈÙ˘Ó Èȇ ̇ ¨ÌÂÏ˘ ۄ¯ ‡Â‰ ͇ȉ Í˙Ú„· ·˘Á ¨ÌÂÏ˘ Û„Â¯Ó ¯˙ÂÈ Á¯ ÏÙ˘ ÍÏ ÔȇÂ
Íω ÂÁ¯ ÏÈÙ˘Ó ‡Â‰ ¨ÌÈ˘ ·¯ ̇ „ÂÚ ¨˜˙¢ ¨ÂÓÚ ·È¯Ó Ì„‡ ¨ÌÂÏ˘ ÂÏ ¯Ó‡ ¨Â‰ÏÏ˜Ó Ì„‡ ¨„ˆÈÎ
ψ‡ Íω ¨ÔÈ·È¯Ó Âȉ˘ ÌÈ˘ ÏÚ ÚÓ˘ ¨˜È„ˆ‰ Ô¯‰‡ Ï˘ Â˙ÂÓ‡ ‰˙ȉ Í΢ ¨‰ÊÏ ÔΠ¨‰Ê ÏÚ Â‰ˆ¯È ‰Ê ψ‡
ÈÂÏÙ ¯Ó‡ ‡Â‰Â ¨Ô‡Î ȯÂÓ ˘˜·È Ô‡Ó ¨È¯Ó ȷ¯ ÍÈÏÚ ÌÂÏ˘ ÂÏ ¯Ó‡ ‡Â‰Â ¨È·¯ ÍÈÏÚ ÌÂÏ˘ ÂÏ ¯Ó‡ ¨„Á‡‰
‰ÊÎ ÈΠ¨Â˙Ú„· ¯‰¯‰Ó ‰È‰ ˘È‡‰ Â˙‡ „ÈÓ ¨È¯È·Á ÏÚ È˙Á¯Ò˘ ȇ ¨¯Ó‡˘ ÈÙÓ ÍÒÈÈÙÏ ÍÈχ È¯‚˘ ͯȷÁ
̉È˘ ¢‚Ù ¨ÔÎ ÂÏ ¯Ó‡ ¯Á‡‰ ψ‡ Íω ¨ÂÈÏÚ È˙Á¯Ò˘ ‡Â‰ È‡ ¨È·¯ ¨ÂÏ ¯Ó‡ ‰È‰Â ¨ÈÒÈÈÙÏ Èχ ‡· ˜È„ˆ‰
Íω ¨‰·È¯Ó ¢ڢ Â˙˘‡Â ÏÚ· ÏÚ ÚÓ˘ ª‰ÊÏ ÔÎ ¯Ó‡ ‰Ê ¨È˙Á¯Ò È‡˘ ȯÂÓ ÈÏ ÏÂÁÓ ‰ÊÏ ¯Ó‡ ‰Ê ¨Í¯„·
‰˙ÂÓÎ ‡ˆÓ˙ ˜ÙÒ ¨‰˙‡ ˘¯‚Ó ‰˙‡ ̇ ¨Í˙˘‡ ÌÚ ˙Ȉ˙˘ ÚÓ¢ È‡˘ ÏÈ·˘· ¨ÂÏ ¯Ó‡ ÏÚ·‰ ψ‡
Ɖ¢‡¯ ‰˙Â‡Ï ˙È˘Ú ÍÎ ¨ÍÏ ˙¯Ó‡ ‡È‰ ¯·„ ˙ÏÁ˙ ¨ÍÓÚ ˙Ȉ˙Ó ¨‡ˆÂÓ ‰˙‡ ̇ „ÂÚ ¨‡ˆÓ˙ ‡Ï ˜ÙÒ
·È˙Î ‰Ó ¨ÂÈ·¯ ‰˘Ó ¯ËÙ˘ ÔÂÈ΢ ¨‡Â‰ Ô΢ ÍÏ Ú„˙ ¨Â˙‡ ÔÈ·‰Â‡ ÌÈ˘ ÌÈ˘‡ χ¯˘È ÏÎ Âȉ ˙‡Ê ÏÚÂ
ÆÌÈ˘ ÂÏÈÙ‡ ¨Ï‡¯˘È ˙È· ÏÎ ÌÂÈ ÌÈ˘Ï˘ Ô¯‰‡ ˙‡ ÂηÈ ·È˙Î Ô¯‰‡·Â ¨‰˘Ó ˙‡ χ¯˘È È· ÂηÈ ¨‰È·

Kallah Rabati
Chapter 3 Law 1

Our Rabbis taught:Whence [do we know that a disciple of the wise should be] meek?
From Moses our teacher, as it is stated, “Now the man Moses was very meek.” And
on that account Moses was praised as it is stated, “My servant Moses is not so.” [
We learn that the disciple of the wise must be] lowly of spirit from Aaron, for it is
written, “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at
his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts.” And it is written, “The law of
truth was in his mouth and unrighteousness was not found in his lips; he walked with
Me in peace and uprightness and did turn many away from inequity.”
There is no one more lowly of spirit than he who pursues peace. Consider, how can
a man pursue peace if he be not lowly of spirit? How [does he act]? If a man curse
him, he says to him, “Peace be upon you!”; should a man quarrel with him, he keeps

64
 silent; and further, if two men quarreled, he humbles his spirit, approaches them and
effects a reconciliation between them.
Such, indeed, was the procedure of Aaron, the righteous. When he heard of two men
who had quarreled, he would go to one and say to him, “So and so, peace be upon
you, my master.” And he replied, “Peace be upon you, my master and teacher! What
does my master seek here?” He then said, “So and so, your friend, sent me to you to
appease you, because he declares, ‘I have offended my friend.’” Immediately the man
reflects,“A righteous man like him has come to appease me! And exclaims,‘Master, it
was I who offended him.’ [Aaron] then went to the other man and said the same to
him.When the two meet on the way, one says to the other, “Forgive me for the offence
which I did to you.” and the other speaks likewise.
When [Aaron] heard of a husband and wife who had quarreled, he would go to the
husband and say to him, “[I have come] because I heard that you have quarreled
with your wife; should you divorce her it is doubtful whether you will find another like
her or not; and further, should you find another and quarrel with her, the first thing
she will say to you will be, ‘You must have behaved in a like manner towards your first
wife.’” In consequence of this all Israel, men and women, loved him. Know that it was
so; for what does Scripture relate when Moses our teacher died? “And the children
of Israel wept for Moses”; but of Aaron it is written, “They wept for Aaron thirty
days, even all the house of Israel.” - that is to say, even the women. Not only [did the
women mourn], but they also covered their young children with mud and dust, thereby
confirming the word ‘all’. It has been taught: Eighty thousand young men named
Aaron followed Aaron’s bier. They were the issue of those who wanted to divorce but
retracted and their wives became pregnant.

****
È˙·¯ ‰ÏÎ ˙ÎÒÓ
±‰Îω ‚ ˜¯Ù

Ɖ¯Â˙Ï Ô·¯˜Ó ¨˙Âȯ·‰ ˙‡ ·‰Â‡ ¨ÌÂÏ˘ ۄ¯ ÌÂÏ˘ ·‰Â‡ ¨Ô¯‰‡ Ï˘ ÂÈ„ÈÓÏ˙Ó È‰ ¯Ó‡ Ïω ¨Ì˙‰ Ô˙
¨˙ˆӉ ÏÎ ‡˘ ȇÓ ¨Â‰Ù„¯Â ÌÂÏ˘ ˘˜· ‡È˙„Î ¨ÈÓ„ ÈÎȉ ÌÂÏ˘ ۄ¯ ‡Ï‡ ¨Ô¯Ó‡„Î ÌÂÏ˘ ·‰Â‡ ‡ÓÏ˘·
˙È· ‰·˙ ÈÎ ¨Í‡¢ ¯ÂÓÁ ‰‡¯˙ ÈÎ ¨Í·È‡ ¯Â˘ Ú‚Ù˙ ÈÎ ·È˙΄ ¨Â„ÈÏ ‰‡· ÔΠ̇ ‡Ï‡ ·ÈÂÁÓ Ì„‡ Ôȇ˘
Ɖل¯Â ÌÂÏ˘ ˘˜· ¨ÌÂ˜Ó Ïη ÌÂÏ˘ Ï·‡ ¨˘„Á

Kallah Rabati
Chapter 3 Law 1

We have learned there: Hillel said: Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace, pursuing
peace, loving your fellow creatures and drawing them near to the Torah. It is quite
right with “loving peace” as we have already mentioned; but where [in the Torah]
is “pursuing peace” [enjoined]? As it has been taught: “Seek peace and pursue it.”
And wherein do all other precepts differ from it? A man is only under the obligation
to perform them when they come to his hand, as it is written, “If thou meet thine
enemy’s ox, if thou see the ass of him that hateth thee, if a bird’s nest chance to be
before thee, When thou buildest a new house,” But as for peace [it is written] “Seek
peace and pursue it” - everywhere.

****

65
 Summary

Aaron was the role model of one who realized the importance of peace and
constantly pursued it. The sage Hillel taught that one strive to be a student of Aaron,
one who not only loves peace but pursues it. One who respects the other tries to
bring him closer to Torah. It is told that Aaron would greet all even a sinner. The next
day when the sinner was about to do a transgression he would think, how will I look
at Aaron in the face next time when he greets me and so he would avoid doing the
transgression.
When two people would fight, Aaron would approach one and tell him that his
friend feels terrible about what happened and is embarrassed to meet you. He would
sit with the man until the anger had subsided within him and he wanted to make peace
with his friend. Then Aaron would go to other person and say the same thing to him
- that the first person feels terrible about what happened between them. He would sit
with him until he was appeased. After this reconciliation process, when they met they
would hug and kiss and make amends with each other. It was for this reason that when
Aaron died - the entire nation mourned for him.
When one would see that such a righteous leader as Aaron had come to try and
make peace with him and his friend, he would feel bad and he would say, it is my fault
and want to go and make peace with his friend. Aaron would also try and appease
husband and wife. He would approach the husband and so it is not for sure that you
will be able to find another wife like this one and should you find another one - if you
should argue with her too, she will say to you this is what happened with your first wife
as well. Therefore, when Aaron died both the men and the women mourned for him
for 30 days (unlike Moses where the text seems to refer only to the men).
With most commandments - should one chance upon them one is required to
fulfill them.Aaron taught us that peace is different and that you must pursue it and seek
it out. Peace is a commandment that we must fulfill actively and not [only] if we should
chance upon it.
Another version of Aaron’s peacemaking ways was when a man and wife would
fight - Aaron would go to the wife and say I bet you that your husband does not hit
or curse you any more. He would then go to the husband and say I bet that your wife
no longer makes you angry. He would continue to do this until they had made peace
between themselves, and so when a child was born to them, the wife would say this
son was born in the merit of Aaron and so she would name him Aaron.

66
2.6 Peace in the Home ˙È· ÌÂÏ˘
˙È˘‡¯·
‚È≠‡È∫ÁÈ ˜¯Ù

È˙Ï· ȯÁ‡ ¯Ó‡Ï ‰·¯˜· ‰¯˘ ˜Áˆ˙ ∫ÌÈ˘Î Á¯‡ ‰¯˘Ï ˙ÂÈ‰Ï Ï„Á ÌÈÓÈ· Ìȇ· ÌÈ˜Ê ‰¯˘Â ̉¯·‡Â
∫È˙˜Ê È‡Â „χ ÌÓ‡ Û‡‰ ¯Ó‡Ï ‰¯˘ ‰˜Áˆ ‰Ê ‰ÓÏ Ì‰¯·‡ χ ߉ ¯Ó‡È ∫Ô˜Ê È„‡Â ‰„Ú ÈÏ ‰˙ȉ

Genesis
Chapter 18 Verses 11-13

Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well advanced in age; and it had ceased to
be with Sarah after the manner of women. Therefore Sarah laughed within herself,
saying, After I am grown old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also? And the
Lord said to Abraham, Why did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I indeed bear a child, now
that I am old?

****
È¢˘¯
®±±∞µ≠±∞¥∞ ¨˙Ù¯ˆ© ȘÁˆÈ ‰ÓÏ˘ È·¯
‚È∫ÁÈ ˙È˘‡¯·

∫„χ ˙Ó‡ Ì‚‰ ≠ ÌÓ‡ Û‡‰

∫Ô˜Ê È„‡Â ‰¯Ó‡ ‡È‰ ȯ‰˘ ¨ÌÂÏ˘‰ ÈÙÓ ·Â˙Ή ‰È˘ ≠ È˙˜Ê È‡Â

Rashi
Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (France, 1040-1105)
Genesis 18:11-13

Shall [I] of a surety: Is it indeed true that I shall bear? Who am old: Scripture altered
[her statement] in the interests of peace; for actually she had said “and my lord is
old".

****
Ô¢·Ó¯
®±±π¥≠±≤∑∞ ¨Ï‡¯˘È ı¯‡ ≠„¯ÙÒ© ÔÓÁ Ô· ‰˘Ó È·¯
‚È∫ÁÈ ˙È˘‡¯·

¨¢Ô˜Ê È„‡Â¢ ‰¯Ó‡˘ ‰Ó ˙ÂÏ‚Ï ‰ˆ¯ ‡Ï ÌÂÏ˘‰ ÈÙÓ Í‡ ¨˙Ó‡ Âȯ·„ ÆÈ˙ÂÏ· ȯÁ‡ ˘Â¯ÈÙ ‡Â‰ ≠ È˙˜Ê È‡Â
∫˜Áˆ˙ ̉È˘· ‰¯˘ ÈÎ ¨¢ÌÈ˜Ê È„‡Â È‡Â¢ ¯Ó‡È˘ ȇ¯ ‰È‰ ÈÎ

67
Ramban
Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (Spain - Land of Israel, 1194-1270)
Genesis 18:13

I being old. This is the explanation of Sarah’s words, after I am waxed old. And God’s
words (that Sarah had said “I being old”) were true, but for the sake of peace He did
not reveal what she also said, namely, My lord being old also, for (if He were quoting
Sarah, He should have said, “I and my lord are old” as Sarah had laughed concerning
both of them.

****
‰·¯ ‡¯˜ÈÂ
Ë ‰˘¯Ù
ÏÈË‰Ï È„Î ÌÈÓ· ‰ÁÓÈ ‡Â‰ ͯ· ˘Â„˜‰ ¯Ó‡ ‰˘Â„˜· ·˙Î˘ Ï„‚‰ Ì˘˘ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚ χÚÓ˘È È·¯ È˙
‰ÈÏ ‰ÚӢ ‡·ÈˆÈ ‡˙˙ȇ ‡„Á ÔÓ˙ ‰Â‰ ‡˙·˘ ÈÏÈÏ· ˘È¯„ ·È˙È ‰Â‰ ¯È‡Ó È·¯ Â˙˘‡Ï ˘È‡ ÔÈ· ÌÂÏ˘
‰¯Ó‡ ˙ȉ Ô‡ ‰ÏÚ· ‰Ï ¯Ó‡ ÈÙË ‡Ȉ· ‡Á΢‡ ‰˙È·Ï ‰Ïʇ ˘¯„ÓÓ ÏÒÁÈ„ „Ú ˙È˙Ó‡ ‡˘¯„Ó ‡˙˙
·È˙È ‰˘Â¯„ ÈÙ‡· ˙˜Â¯Â ˙Ïʇ„ „Ú ‡Î‰Ï ˙ÏÈÈÚ‡ ‡Ï ÔΠÔÎ ‰Ï ¯Ó‡ ‰˘Â¯„ ‡ÈϘ ‰ÚӢ ‡·È˙È ‡‡ ‰ÈÏ
Ô‰˙È ÈÓÁ„ ÔÂÈÎ ‰˘Â¯„ È·‚Ï ÍÓÚ ÔÈ˙‡ Ôȷȉˆ ÔÂ˙‡ „Π‡˙¯È‚Ó ‰Ï ÔȯӇ ‡˙ÈÏ˙ ‡È˙ ‡˙ÈÈÓ˜ ‡˙·˘
„Π‡˙¯È‚Ó ‰Ï ÔȯӇ ‡ÈÚ· ˘ÁÏÈÓÏ ‡ÓÈÎÁ„ ‡˙˙ȇ ÔÂÎÓ ˙ȇ Â‰Ï ¯Ó‡ ˘„˜‰ Á¯· ‰Ùˆ ¯È‡Ó È·¯
‡ÓÈÎÁ ‡‡ ˙ÈÏ È·¯ ‰ÈÏ ‰¯Ó‡ ‰ÈÈÓ ˙ÏÈÁ„ȇ ÈÓ˜ ‡·˙È„ ÔÂÈÎ ÍÏÚ·Ï È¯˘˙ ‰ÈÙ‡· ˙˜Â¯Â ˙Ïʇ ˙‡
ȯӇ ÈÏÈÊȇ ‰Ï ¯Ó‡ ¨ÔÈΉ ‰„·Ú ÌÈ˘ÈÓ ‡‡Â ÔÈÓÈÊ Ú·˘ ÈÙ‡· Ș¯ ÈΉ ÂÏÈÙ‡ ‰Ï ¯Ó‡ ‡ÈÚ ˘ÁÏÈÓÏ
ÍÏ ‰È‰ ‡Ï ‰¯Â˙‰ ˙‡ ÔÈÊ·Ó ÍÎ È·¯ ÂÈ„ÈÓÏ˙ ÂÏ Â¯Ó‡ ÔÈÓÈÊ Ú·˘ ˙Ș¯ ‡‡Â ‡ÓÈÊ ‡„Á ˙¯Ó‡ ˙‡ ÍÈÏÚ·Ï
Ì˘˘ ÌÂÏ˘ Ï„‚ χÚÓ˘È È·¯ È˙„ ÂÂ˜Ï ‰Â˘ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ¯È‡ÓÏ ÂÈ„ ‡Ï Â‰Ï ¯Ó‡ ÍÏ ˘ÁÏÓÏ ÔÈÓ „ÁÏ ¯ÓÈÓÏ
ÆÂ˙˘‡Ï ˘È‡ ÔÈ· ÌÂÏ˘ ÏÈË‰Ï ÏÈ·˘· ÌÈÓ‰ ÏÚ ‰ÁÓÈ ‡Â‰ ͯ· ˘Â„˜‰ ¯Ó‡ ‰˘Â„˜· ·˙Î˘ Ï„‚‰

Leviticus Rabbah
Portion 9

R. Ishmael taught: Great is peace, for even of the Great Name, written though it be in
sanctity, did the Holy One, blessed be He, say that it may be blotted out in water, for
the purpose of making peace between husband and wife.
R. Meir used to deliver discourses on Sabbath evenings.There was a woman there in
the habit of listening to him. Once the discourse lasted a long time, and she waited
until the exposition was concluded. She went home and found that the candle had
gone out. Her husband asked her: “Where have you been?” She answered: “I was
sitting listening to the voice of the preacher.” Said he to her: “I swear I will not let you
enter here until you go and spit in the face of the preacher.” She stayed away one
week, a second, and a third. Said her neighbors to her: “Are you still angry one with
the other? Let us come with you to the discourse.” As soon as R. Meir saw them, he
saw by means of the Holy Spirit [what had happened], and said: “Is there a woman
among you clever at whispering a charm over an eye?” The woman’s neighbors said

68
 to her: “If you go and spit in his eye you will release your husband [from his vow].”
When she sat down before him she became afraid of him, and said to him: “Rabbi, I
am not expert at whispering an invocation over an eye.” Said he to her: “For all that,
spit in my face seven times, and I will be cured.” She did so, and he said to her: “Go
tell your husband:You told me to do it once, and I spat seven times.” Said his disciples
to him: “Should people thus abuse the Torah? Could you not have told one of us to
whisper an invocation for you?” Said he to them: “Is it not good enough for R. Meir to
be like unto his Creator?” - for R. Ishmael has taught: Great is peace, since even of the
Great Name, written though it be in sanctity, the Holy One, blessed be He, has said:
“Let it be blotted out in water for the purpose of making peace between husband
and wife.”
****

˙·Â˙Î ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙

· „ÂÓÚ ÊË Û„

‰‡ ‰ÏÎ ∫ÌȯÓ‡ Ïω ˙È·Â ¨‡È‰˘ ˙ÂÓÎ ‰ÏÎ ∫ÌȯÓ‡ È‡Ó˘ ˙È· ø‰ÏΉ ÈÙÏ ÔÈ„˜¯Ó „ˆÈÎ ∫Ô·¯ Â˙
ø‰„ÂÒÁ ‰‡ ‰ÏÎ ¨‰Ï ÌȯÓ‡ ¨‡ÓÂÒ Â‡ ˙¯‚ÈÁ ‰˙ȉ˘ ȯ‰ ∫Ïω ˙È·Ï È‡Ó˘ ˙È· Ô‰Ï Â¯Ó‡ Ɖ„ÂÒÁÂ
Á˜Ó Á˜Ï˘ ÈÓ ¨ÌÎȯ·„Ï ∫È‡Ó˘ ˙È·Ï Ïω ˙È· Ì‰Ï Â¯Ó‡ °˜Á¯˙ ¯˜˘ ¯·„Ó ®‚¢Î ˙ÂÓ˘© ∫‰¯Ó‡ ‰¯Â˙‰Â
Â˙Ú„ ‡‰˙ ÌÏÂÚÏ ∫ÌÈÓÎÁ ¯Ӈ Ô‡ÎÓ ¨ÂÈÈÚ· ÂÁ·˘È ∫¯Ó‡ ȉ øÂÈÈÚ· Â‚È Â‡ ÂÈÈÚ· ÂÁ·˘È ¨˜Â˘‰ ÔÓ Ú¯
Æ˙Âȯ·‰ ÌÚ ˙·¯ÂÚÓ Ì„‡ Ï˘

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Ketubot 16b

Our Rabbis taught: How does one dance before the bride? Beth Shammai say: The
bride as she is. And Beth Hillel say: “Beautiful and graceful bride!” Beth Shammai said
to Beth Hillel: If she was lame or blind, does one say of her: “Beautiful and graceful
bride?” Whereas the Torah said, “Keep thee far from a false matter.” Said Beth Hillel
to Beth Shammai: “According to your words, if one has made a bad purchase in the
market, should one praise it in his eyes or depreciate it? Surely, one should praise it in
his eyes.”Therefore, the Sages said: Always should the disposition of man be pleasant
with people.

****
‡¢·Ëȯ‰ È˘Â„ÈÁ
® ±≤µ∞≠±≥≤∞ ¨‰ÈÏÈ·ÈÒ© ÈÏÈ·˘‡ ̉¯·‡ Ô· ·ÂË ÌÂÈ È·¯
‡ „ÂÓÚ ÊÈ Û„ ˙·Â˙Î ˙ÎÒÓ

ƘÁ¯˙ ¯˜˘ ¯·„Ó ÌÂ˘Ó Â· Ôȇ ÌÂÏ˘ Èί„ ÈÙÓ ‡Â‰˘ Ï΄ ˘Â¯ÈÙ ÆÂÈÈÚ· Â‚È Â‡ ÂÈÈÚ· ÂÁ·˘È

Chidushei Haritba
Rabbi Yom Tov ben Abraham Ishbili (Seville, 1250-1320)
Ketubot 17a

Shall he praise it or shame it in his eyes - meaning that whatever is done for the sake
of peace is not included in the commandment of “Distance yourself from a matter of
falsehood” (Ex. 23:7).

69
 ı¯‡ ͯ„ ˙ÎÒÓ
‰ ‰Îω ÌÂÏ˘ ˜¯Ù

¯Ó‡ Ô˙ Ô΢ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÏÚ· ÏÚ Ú¯‰ ÔÂ˘Ï ¯ÓÂÏ ¯˙ÂÓ Æ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÏÚ· ‰È‰˘ ÏÈ·˘· ‡Ï‡ ‚¯‰ ‡Ï ‰È„‡
ÏÈË‰Ï ÏÈ·˘· ¯˜˘Ï ¯˙ÂÓ ¨ÔȯÂÒ‡ Ìȯ˜˘‰ ÏÎ È·¯ ¯Ó‡Â ÆÍȯ·„ ˙‡ È˙‡ÏÓ ÍȯÁ‡ ‡Â·‡ È‡Â Ú·˘ ˙·Ï
Ư·ÁÏ Ì„‡ ÔÈ· ÌÂÏ˘
Tractate Derech Eretz
Perek Hashalom Law 5

Adonijah was slain only because he was a quarrelsome person, and it is permissible
to slander a quarrelsome person; for thus did Nathan the Prophet say to Bathsheba, I
also will come in after thee, and confirm thy words.And Rabbi [Judah the Prince] said;
All falsehoods are prohibited, but it is permissible to utter a falsehood for the purpose
of making peace between a man and his fellow.

****
ı¯‡ ͯ„ ˙ÎÒÓ
· ‰Îω  ˜¯Ù

¯Á‡ ¨¯˜˘‰ ¯Á‡ ‡Ï ˙Ó‡‰ ¯Á‡ ۄ¯ ¨Ìȇ‰ ÂÈί„· ÌÒ¯ÂÙÓ ¨ÂÈ˘ÚÓ· ÚÂˆ ‡‰È˘ Íȯˆ ÌÎÁ „ÈÓÏ˙ ÍÎ
ÌÈ˜Ê ˙ˆÚ ¯Á‡ ¨˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ ¯Á‡ ‡Ï ÌÂÏ˘‰ ¯Á‡ ¨˙ÂÒ‚‰ ¯Á‡ ‡Ï ‰ÂÚ‰ ¯Á‡ ¨ÏÊ‚‰ ¯Á‡ ‡Ï ‰ÂÓ‡‰
Ɖ˘‡‰ ¯Á‡ ‡Ï ȯ‡‰ ¯Á‡ ¨ÌÈ„ÏÈ ˙ˆÚ ¯Á‡ ‡ÏÂ

Tractate Derech Eretz, 6:2

...so too must a Torah Sage be modest in his deeds, famous for his pleasant ways, one
who pursues truth and not falsehood, faith and not theft, humility and not arrogance,
peace and not dispute, the counsel of the elderly and not the counsel of children, the
lion and not the woman.

****
ÌȘȄˆ ˙ÂÁ¯Â‡ ¯ÙÒ
¯˜˘‰ ¯Ú˘

‰ÏΉ Á·˘Ï ¯˙Ó ÔΠƮ· ‰Ò ˙ÂÓ·È© ¯ȷÁÏ Ì„‡ ÔÈ· ÌÂÏ˘ ˙¢ÚÏ Ô‚Π¨¯˜˘Ï ÌÈÓÎÁ ¯È˙‰˘ ÌÈÓÚÙÂ
Æ®ÆÊÈ ˙·Â˙Ω ÆÔÎ ‰ȇ˘ ÈÙ ÏÚ Û‡Â ¨‰„ÂÒÁ ‰‡ ‡È‰˘ Ô˙Á‰ ÈÙÏ

Pathways of the Righteous

Gate to Falsehood

But there are times when the Sages permitted one to lie, for example, in order to
make peace between one man and another (Yebamot 65b). Similarly, one may praise
a bride in the presence of the bridegroom and say that she is lovely and charming,
even though she really is not (Ketubot 17a).

70
 ÌȘȄˆ ˙ÂÁ¯Â‡ ¯ÙÒ
˙ÂÙÈÁ‰ ¯Ú˘

Æ˙È· ÌÂÏ˘ ÌÂ˘Ó Â˙˘‡Ï Ì„‡ ÛÈÁÈ

Pathways of the Righteous

Gate to Flattery

And a man may flatter his wife for the sake of peace in his home.

****
‰ÎÂÁ ‰ÏÈ‚Ó ˙ÂÎω ≠ ‰¯Â˙ ‰˘Ó
®±±≥∏≠±≤∞¥ ¨ÌȯˆÓ≠„¯ÙÒ© ÔÂÓÈÓ Ô· ‰˘Ó È·¯ ≠ Ìßß·Ó¯
„È ‰Îω „ ˜¯Ù

‫ גדול‬,‫היה לפניו נר ביתו ונר חנוכה או נר ביתו וקדוש היום נר ביתו קודם משום שלום ביתו שהרי השם הנמחק לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו‬
.‫השלום שכל התורה ניתנה לעשות שלום בעולם שנאמר )משלי ג( דרכיה דרכי נעם וכל נתיבותיה שלום‬

Mishneh Torah Laws of Scroll of Esther and Hanukkah

Maimonides - Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Spain - Egypt, 1138-1204)
Chapter 4 Law 14

If such a poor man needs oil for both a Sabbath lamp and a Hanukkah lamp, or oil
for a Sabbath lamp and wine for the sanctification benediction, the Sabbath lamp
should have priority for the sake of peace in the household, seeing that even a Divine
Name might be erased to make peace between husband and wife. Great indeed is
peace, forasmuch as the purpose for which the whole of the Law was given is to bring
peace upon the world, as it is said, Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her
paths are peace (Prov. 3:17).

****
˙Â˘È‡ ˙ÂÎω ≠ ‰¯Â˙ ‰˘Ó
®±±≥∏≠±≤∞¥ ¨ÌȯˆÓ≠„¯ÙÒ© ÔÂÓÈÓ Ô· ‰˘Ó È·¯ ≠ Ìßß·Ó¯
Ë ‰Îω ‡Î ˜¯Ù

Ôȇ ̇˘ ¨‰˜˙ ‡Ï‡ ÔÈ„‰ ÔÓ ‰Ê Ôȇ ¨‰¯ÂËÙ ‰˙È· ÍÂ˙· ‰È˙·ÏÓ ‰˘ÂÚ˘ ˙Ú· ÌÈÏÎ ‰¯·˘˘ ‰˘‡‰
‰Ë˘ ˙‡ˆÓ ˙·ÏÓ‰ ·Â¯Ó ˙ÚÓ ˙¯‰Ê ˙‡ˆÓ ‡Ï‡ ÌÏÂÚÏ ˙È·‰ ÍÂ˙· ÌÂÏ˘ Ôȇ ÔÎ ¯Ó‡ ‰˙‡
Æ̉ÈÈ·

71
Mishneh Torah Laws of Marriage
Maimonides - Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Spain - Egypt, 1138-1204)
Chapter 21 Law 9

When a woman breaks utensils while performing household tasks, she is not held
liable.This ruling does not reflect the dictates of the law, but is instead an enactment
[of our Sages]. For if this were not the case, there would never be peace in a household.
For a woman would be overly cautious and would refrain from performing many
tasks, and there would thus be strife between [the couple].

****
‰˘Ó ˙¯‚‡ ˙¢Â˘
®±∏πµ≠±π∏∂ ¨˙ȯ·‰ ˙ˆ¯‡≠‰ÈÒ¯© ÔÈÈˢÈÈÙ ‰˘Ó ‘¯
ÂÒ˜ ÔÓÈÒ · ‰Ú„ ‰¯ÂÈ ˜ÏÁ

Ì¢Ó ¨Â· ‡ ÂÈ·‡ ‡Â‰ ‰ÏÂÁ‰˘Î Ï„‚‰ ¯ڈ ÈÙÓ Ô‚Π·¯˜ ‰ÏÂÁ ¯˜·Ï Ô‰ÎÏ ¯È˙‰Ï ˘È Ï„‚ Í¯ÂˆÏ ÔÎÏÂ
Æ ˙È· ÌÂÏ˘ ÔÈÚ ‡Â‰˘ ‰ÏÂÁ Â˙˘‡˘Î Ô΢ ÏΠÂ˙˘‡ ȷ¯˜ ̉˘Î ‰ÁÙ˘Ó‰ ÌÂÏ˘
Iggerot Moshe
Rabbi Moses Feinstein (Russia-USA, 1895-1986)
Yoreh Deah 2:166

And thus, in a case of a great necessity, a priest [cohen] may be permitted to visit a
sick relative, for instance, when his anguish is great when the sick relative is his father
or son, and for the sake of peace in the family, when they are his wife’s family. And
even more so when his wife is ill, it is a matter of peace in the home.

****

Summary

One aspect of peace is tranquility in the home. Judaism stresses the importance of
domestic peace and marital accord. As mentioned earlier, G-d changed Sarah’s words
to maintain peace between Abraham and Sarah.The Prophets also changed the words
of Manoah when he was talking about his wife. Although he mentioned that she was
barren, the Torah did not repeat this part of his sentence.This shows the importance of
peace, which sometimes overrides the value of truth. Bar Kappara learned from these
examples that, although lying is forbidden, it is permissible to lie for the sake of peace
between two people.
The story is told of a woman who came home late to her husband because she
stayed to hear Rabbi Meir’s sermon. Her husband, on hearing her reason for being late,

72
was so angry that he refused to let her back into his house unless she spat in Rabbi
Meir’s face. She was banished from coming home for three weeks until Rabbi Meir
heard of the story. He found the woman and asked her to spit in his eye, because there
was a speck in it. He said to her, “Now go back to your husband and tell him you spat
in my eye seven times.”
Rabbi Meir’s students were shocked at the shame brought on the Torah by allowing
the woman to spit in his eye just to appease a man who had no respect for the law.
Rabbi Meir explained that he took his cue from G-d. Just as G-d allowed his Singular
Name to be erased for the sake of peace between husband and wife (in the case of a
suspected adulterous woman), so Rabbi Meir would allow his honor to be shamed as
means to restoring peace between husband and wife.
The Talmud records a dispute between Hillel and Shammai, concerning praise
of a bride’s beauty though she is not beautiful. Shammai claims one has to tell the
truth because lying is forbidden. Hillel explains that one should say she is beautiful to
preserve the peace and not to cause insult or derision. He bases his opinion on the
requirement to keep a pleasant disposition toward other people, a duty that overrules
the law against lying. The Ritba (Rabbi Yom Tov ben Abraham Ishbili) explains that the
ways of peace override the requisite not to lie.
The Rambam presents Halachic ramifications concerning the value of domestic
peace. If one does not have enough money to buy Sabbath candles, wine for sanctifying
the Sabbath and Hanukah candles, he must first buy the Sabbath candles. Lighting
Sabbath candles is essential that there should be light in the home, thus the family will
not quarrel because it is dark and they cannot see (cf. in Tractate Shabbat 23). The
first fundamental the Torah speaks of is peace, so kindling the Sabbath candles takes
precedence over all other commandments because their light enhances peace in the
family circle. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein notes a Halachic ramification of the importance of
peace in the home. Normally, a Cohen (descendent of the priestly class) is not allowed
in a hospital, because that might place him under the same roof as a corpse, which
Halachah forbids. However, if a relative of his wife’s family is hospitalized, he may visit
the patient thus maintaining peaceful family relations. So too, he may visit his wife in
hospital, because otherwise it could bring about a rift in their household.

73
2.7 Manner of Speaking ¯Â·È„ ÔÂ‚Ò
˙ÂÓ·È ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙
· „ÂÓÚ ‰Ò Û„

Ì„‡ ÏÚ ‰ÂˆÓ ÍÎ ¨ÚÓ˘‰ ¯·„ ¯ÓÂÏ Ì„‡ ÏÚ ‰ÂˆÓ˘ Ì˘Î ∫ÔÂÚÓ˘ È·¯· ¯ÊÚχ È·¯ ÌÂ˘Ó ‡ÚÏȇ È·¯ ¯Ó‡Â
ÌÎÁÏ ÁΉ ͇˘È ÔÙ ıÏ ÁÎÂ˙ χ ®Ë ÈÏ˘Ó© ∫¯Ó‡˘ ¨‰·ÂÁ ∫¯Ó‡ ‡·‡ È·¯ ÆÚÓ˘ Âȇ˘ ¯·„ ¯ÓÂÏ ‡Ï˘
∫¯Ó‡˘ ¨ÌÂÏ˘‰ ¯·„· ˙Â˘Ï Ì„‡Ï ÂÏ ¯˙ÂÓ ∫ÔÂÚÓ˘ È·¯· ¯ÊÚχ È·¯ ÌÂ˘Ó ‡ÚÏȇ È·¯ ¯Ó‡Â ÆÍ·‰‡ÈÂ
χÂÓ˘© ∫¯Ó‡˘ ¨‰ÂˆÓ ∫¯Ó‡ Ô˙ È·¯ ƯÓ‚ ‡ ‡˘ ‡‡ ÛÒÂÈÏ Â¯Ó‡˙ ‰Î ¯Ó‚ ‰Âˆ ÍÈ·‡ ® ˙È˘‡¯·©
˘Â„˜‰ Û‡˘ ¨ÌÂÏ˘‰ Ï„‚ ∫‡˙ χÚÓ˘È È·¯ È·„ ƯÓ‚ È‚¯‰Â χ˘ ÚӢ Íχ Íȇ χÂÓ˘ ¯Ó‡È ®ÊË∫‡
ÆÈ˙˜Ê È‡Â ∫·È˙Î ÛÂÒ·Ï ¨Ô˜Ê È„‡Â ®ÁÈ ˙È˘‡¯·© ∫·È˙Î ‡¯˜ÈÚÓ„ ¨Â· ‰È˘ ‡Â‰ ͯ·

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Yebamot 65b

R. Ile’a further stated in the name of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon:As one is commanded
to say that which will be obeyed, so is one commanded not to say that which will not
be obeyed. R. Abba stated: It is a duty; for it is said in Scripture, Reprove not a scorner,
lest he hate thee; reprove a wise man and he will love thee.
R. Ile’a further stated in the name of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon: One may modify a
statement in the interests of peace; for it is said in Scripture.Thy father did command,
etc., so shall ye say unto Joseph: Forgive, I pray thee now, etc. R. Nathan said: It is a
commandment; for it is stated in Scripture, And Samuel said: How can I go? If Saul
hear it, he will kill me, etc. At the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: Great is the
cause of peace. Seeing that for its sake even the Holy One, blessed be He, modified
a statement; for at first it is written, My lord being old, while afterwards it is written,
And I am old.

****
‰‡Ù ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÓÏ˘Â¯È „ÂÓÏ˙
‡ ‰Îω ‡ ¯ÂË ÊË Û„ ‡ ˜¯Ù

ÔÈ· ÌÂÏ˘ ÏÈË‰Ï ÏÈ·˘· ȇ„· ȯ·„ ÌÈ·Â˙Ή ¯·„˘ Ú¯‰ ÔÂ˘Ï ˜·‡ ‡Â‰ ‰˘˜ ‰ÓÎ ‰‡¯Â ‡Â· ‡ÈÁ È·¯ ¯Ó‡
‡Ï‡ ÔÎ ¯Ó‡ Âȇ ̉¯·‡ÏÂ Ô˜Ê È„‡Â ‰„Ú ÈÏ ‰˙ȉ È˙ÂÏ· ȯÁ‡ ¯Ó‡Ï ‰·¯˜· ‰¯˘ ˜Áˆ˙ ‰¯˘Ï ̉¯·‡
Ô·¯ ¯Ó‡ È˙˜Ê È‡Â ‡Ï‡ ԇΠ·È˙Î Ôȇ Ô˜Ê È„‡Â È˙˜Ê È‡Â „χ ÌÓ‡ Û‡‰ ¯Ó‡Ï ‰¯˘ ‰˜Áˆ ‰Ê ‰ÓÏ
ÌÂÏ˘ ÏÈË‰Ï È„Î È‡„· ȯ·„ ÌÈ·Â˙Ή ¯·È„˘ Ú¯‰ ÔÂ˘Ï ˜·‡ ‰˘˜ ‡Â‰ ‰ÓÎ ‰‡¯Â ‡Â· χÈÏÓ‚ Ô· ÔÂÚÓ˘
‡Ï ß‚ ‡ ‡˘ ‡‡ ÛÒÂÈÏ Â¯Ó‡˙ ‰Î ¯Ó‡Ï Â˙ÂÓ ÈÙÏ ‰Âˆ ÍÈ·‡ ¯Ó‡Ï ÛÒÂÈ ˙‡ ˆȠ„¢‰‰ ÂÈÁ‡Ï ÛÒÂÈ ÔÈ·
ÌÚË ‰Ó ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÈÏÚ· ÏÚ Ú¯‰ ÔÂ˘Ï ¯ÓÂÏ ¯˙ÂÓ Ô˙ÂÈ È·¯ Ì˘· ÔÓÁ ¯· χÂÓ˘ È·¯ ÌÂÏÎ „˜Ù„ ÔÁ΢‡
ÆÍȯ·„ ˙‡ È˙‡ÏÓ ÍȯÁ‡ ‡Â·‡ È‡Â

Jerusalem Talmud
Tractate Pe'ah
Chapter 1 Page 16a Law 1

Rabbi Chanina said: Come and see how severe the dust of “the evil tongue” [lashon
ha-ra] is, such that the verses spoke fabrications in order to place peace between

74
 Abraham and Sarah. “And Sarah laughed to herself saying, ‘Now that I am old shall
I regain my youth, and my master is old’” (Gen. 18:12). Yet it does not state this to
Abraham, rather, “Why did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Will I indeed give birth, for I am old?’”
(v. 13). It does not state, “for my master is old,” but rather “for I am old.”
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Come and see how severe the dust of “the evil
tongue” is, such that the verses spoke fabrications in order to place peace between
Joseph and his brothers, as the verse states, “And they instructed Joseph saying, ‘Prior
to his death, your father instructed saying, Speak thus to Joseph, Please...’” (Gen.
50:16, 17), and we do not find [Jacob] giving any instructions.
Rabbi Shemuel bar Nachman stated in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: One may speak
lashon ha-ra of those involved in a dispute. What is the reason? [The verse states]
“And I will come after you and I will endorse your words” (I Kings 1:14).

****
‰·¯ ˙È˘‡¯·
‚ ‰˜ÒÙ „ ‰˘¯Ù

®Ë ÈÏ˘Ó© ¯Ó‡˘ ‰·‰‡ È„ÈÏ ‰‡È·Ó ˙ÁÎÂ˙‰ ‡ÈÁ ¯· ÈÒÂÈ ·¯ ¯Ó‡ ƯÓ‚ ÍÏÓÈ·‡ ˙‡ ̉¯·‡ ÁÈΉÂ
¯Ó‡ ‰·‰‡ ‰ȇ ‰ÁÎÂ˙ ‰ÓÚ Ôȇ˘ ‰·‰‡ ÏÎ ¯Ó‡„ ‡ÈÁ ¯· ÈÒÂÈ È·¯„ ‰È˙Ú„ ‡È‰ Í·‰‡È ÌÎÁÏ ÁΉ
ÂÓÚ Ôȇ˘ ÌÂÏ˘ ÏÎ ¯Ó‡„ ‰È˙Ú„ ‡È‰ ÍÏÓÈ·‡ ˙‡ ̉¯·‡ ÁÈΉ ÌÂÏ˘ È„ÈÏ ‰‡È·Ó ‰ÁÎÂ˙ ˘È˜Ï ˘È¯
ÆÌÂÏ˘ Âȇ ‰ÁÎÂ˙

Genesis Rabbah
Portion 54 Verse 3

AND ABRAHAM REPROVED ABIMELECH, etc. (Gen. 21:25). R. Jose b. R. Hanina said:
Reproof leads to love, as it says, Reprove a wise man, and he will love thee (Prov. 9:8).
Such indeed is R. Jose b. Hanina’s view, for he said: Love unaccompanied by reproof is
not love. Resh Lakish said: Reproof leads to peace; hence, AND ABRAHAM REPROVED
ABIMELECH. Such is his view, for he said: Peace unaccompanied by reproof is not
peace.

****

Summary

The Rabbis realized that speech is often a cause or cure for conflict.The way people
speak to each other can be a source of conflict. Sometimes it is a mitzvah to rebuke a
friend and tell him he has done wrong. But if this will cause him to hate you, then it is
best to refrain from saying anything. The Rabbis even allow one to massage the truth
a little in the name of peace, if in so doing it will preserve stable relationships between
people.
An alternate opinion presents the positive side of rebuke. Criticism spoken in truth
and openness can bring about an understanding between people, which demonstrates

75
true peace. If people hide their feelings and do not speak honestly with each other,
then deep-seated animosity can build up and cause more hatred and conflict than
speaking candidly and truthfully would have. Only a delicate balance between speaking
one’s mind and sensitivity toward the other person hearing what you have to say can
achieve a healthy, open relationship between friends and adversaries.

76
2.8 Respect for one’s fellows ˙Âȯ·‰ „·Î
ÌÈÈÁ Á¯Â‡ ÍÂ¯Ú ÔÁÏ¢
®±¥∏∏≠±µ∑µ ¨Ï‡¯˘È ı¯‡ ≠„¯ÙÒ© ¯‡˜ Ìȯه Ô· ÛÒÂÈ ·¯
„ ÛÈÚÒ ËÏ˘ ÔÓÈÒ

ۇ ȯ˘ ‰ÙÂÁÏ ‰ÒÈΉ ÔÈ„‰ ‡Â‰„ ¯˘Ù‡Â ÆÌÈ·Â ‰˘‡ ÂÏ Ôȇ„ ‡Îȉ ˘„˜Ï ÔȯÈ˙Ó ˘È ∫‰‚‰ ÆÔÈ˘„˜Ó ‡ÏÂ
ÔÈÏÈ‚¯˘ ÂÓÎ ª˙Âȯ·‰ „·ΠÏ„‚ ÈÎ Ì‚ ¨˜Á„‰ ˙Ú˘· ‰Ê ÏÚ ÔÈÎÓÂÒ ÌÂ˜Ó ÏÎÓ ¨ÈΉ ÔÏ ‡ÓÈȘ ‡Ï„ ·‚ ÏÚ
¨˙·˘ ÏÈÏ· ÔÈ˘Â„È˜‰Â ‰ÙÂÁ‰ ÔÈ˘ÂÚ„ ¨‰ÏÈω „Ú ß ÌÂÈ· ‡È„‰ ÌÚ ˙¢‰Ï ÌÈÏÂÎÈ Âȉ ‡Ï˘ ÌÈÓÚÙÏ˘
¯‰ÊÈÏ ˘È ‰ÏÁ˙ÎÏ ÌÂ˜Ó ÏÎÓ ªÊ‡ ÒÂÎÈ ‡Ï ̇ Ô˙ÁÏ ‰ÏÎÏ ˘ÂÈ· ȉ ÔÈ‡Â˘Ï ‰„ÂÚÒÏ ÂÈΉ ¯·Î Ïȇ‰
ÆÍÎ È„ÈÏ ‡·È ‡Ï˘

Shulchan Aruch
Rabbi Joseph ben Ephraim Caro (Spain - Land of Israel, 1488-1575)
Orach Chaim Chapter 139 Section 4

One may not perform kidushin (on Sabbath). Gloss: There [are authorities] who
permit one to perform kidushin even if he does not have a wife and children. And it
may be that [in such a case] it is also permitted to perform the chupah. Even though
we do not rule [in accordance with] this [opinion], we nevertheless rely on it when
there is a pressing [need to do so] and we also [take into account] the importance
of human dignity. For example, it is usual, when it occasionally [happens] that [the
two sides] could not come to terms about the dowry on Friday before nightfall, [to
allow the bridegroom] to perform the chuppah and the kidushin on the Sabbath eve,
because they already prepared a feast and a wedding and it would be embarrassing
to the bride and bridegroom if [the bridegroom] would not marry [the bride] then.
[However], one should nevertheless take care in the first instance that it should not
come to that.

****

‰¯Â¯· ‰˘Ó
®±∏≥π≠±π≥≥ ¨ÔÈÏÂÙ© ԉΉ ¯È‡Ó χ¯˘È ·¯
ÁÈ Ô˘ ÔÓÈÒ ËÏ˘ ÔÓÈÒ

‰ÙÂÁ‰ ۇ ÔÈ˘Â„˜„ ÌÈ¢‡¯ ȯ‡˘Â È¢˘¯ ˙ËÈ˘Î ÔÏ ‡ÓÈȘ ÔÈ„‰ ¯˜ÈÚÓ„ ¯ÓÂÏ Âˆ¯ ≠ ÈΉ ÔÏ ‡ÓÈȘ ‡Ï„
∫·ÂË ÌÂÈ ˙·˘· ¯ÂÒ‡
Mishnah Berurah
Rabbi Israel Meir Ha-Kohen (Poland, 1839-1933)
Chapter 339 Sub-Section 18

We do not rule [in accordance with] this [opinion]. [The Rema] means by this that
the actual Halachic ruling is in accordance with the view of Rashi and other Rishonim
that [to perform] kidushin or even the chuppah is forbidden on the Sabbath and
festivals.

77
 ****
‰˘Ó ˙¯‚‡ ˙¢Â˘
®±∏πµ≠±π∏∂ ¨˙ȯ·‰ ˙ˆ¯‡≠‰ÈÒ¯© ÔÈÈˢÈÈÙ ‰˘Ó ‘¯
ˆ˜ ÔÓÈÒ ‡ ˜ÏÁ ‰Ú„ ‰¯ÂÈ
„·Î ˙˘Â· ‰Ê· ‰È‰È ̉ȯÈÎÓÏ ˙ÂÓʉ ÂÁÏ˘ÂÆÆÆ ·¯Ú ˙ÚÏ ÌÈ˘Ï˘ ÌÂÈ· Ô·‰ ÔÂÈ„ÙÏ Ìȇ¯˜ ÂÈÓʉ ÂÚË·
¯·Î ‰È‰È˘ ÌÈ·ÎÂΉ ˙‡ˆ ¯Á‡ ÔÂÈ„Ù‰ ˙¢ÚÏ ÌÈÏÂÎÈ ‰ÊÎ ÔÙ‡· È˙Ú„ ˙ÂÈÚÏ˘ È˙·˘‰Â Æ¢ÚÈ ‰Ó ˙Âȯ·‰
„·ΠÏ„‚„ ÔÈ‚‰Â˘ ÂÓÎ ‡Ï˘ ‡Â‰˘ Û‡ ÔÂÈ„Ù‰ ˙¢ÚÏ ˘È ˙Âȯ·‰ „·ΠÏ„‚ ˙˘Â· ̘ӷÆÆÆ Æ‡¢Ï ÌÂÈ·
ƯÂÒ˙ ‡Ï ‰Á„˘ ˙Âȯ·‰

Iggerot Moshe
Rabbi Moses Feinstein (Russia-USA, 1895-1986)
Yoreh Deah 1:196

In the case where they erred and invited the guests to the ceremony for redeeming
the firstborn on the evening of the thirtieth day... and they sent invitations to their
acquaintances, and it would be an embarrassment and cause them dishonor. What
should they do? I answered that, in my humble opinion, in this case they can perform
the redemption [of the child] after the stars are seen [tzeit ha-kochavim] which will
already be the thirty-first day... In a case of shame and people’s dignity, the redemption
should be performed [then] despite its being contrary to our customary behavior, for
[so] great is [the concept of] human dignity that it sets aside the prohibition of “lo
tasur” (Deut. 17:11 - “Do not turn right or left...” - the prohibition of disobeying the
Sages).

****
Summary

Jewish law attaches great value to mutual respect and human dignity, and sometimes
special allowances are made that stretch or somewhat ignore the letter of the law for
the sake of maintaining respect. For example, the Shulchan Aruch describes a situation,
where even though a Jewish wedding ceremony (huppa) does not normally take
place on the Sabbath, in special cases where there is a risk that one of the sides will
renege, in order to avoid embarrassment and humiliation, the law allows the wedding
to be officiated on the day of rest. Normally, Jewish law forbids such a wedding but in
special circumstances, e.g., the personal status of the couple or the consequences if the
wedding did not take place, can void the strict letter of the law.
In the past generation, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein used these grounds when he ruled
on a flawed Redeeming of the (Firstborn) Son ceremony (Pidyon HaBen), which takes
place on the 31st day after the birth. At the last moment, the family realized that
the planned ceremony was to be held on the wrong day (i.e., not on the 31st day
as prescribed). Nevertheless, Rabbi Feinstein ruled that they could hold it on the
planned day, even though it was the wrong day. He argued that it is better not to bring
shame on the family and to preserve their self-respect than to cancel the occasion and

78
have to make excuses why they had erred. He explains that the value of respect for
the individual and the avoidance of shaming people outweighs the commandment to
uphold rabbinical rulings in the name of mainstream Halachic decision-making.
Taking into consideration personal feelings and standing in the community is of great
importance. Ignoring people’s emotions and sense of self-esteem can cause conflict and
hostility brought on by embarrassment and wounded pride. Also, understanding of and
consideration for other people’s perceptions and feelings are of utmost importance
when dealing with personal issues, which if not sensitively dealt with, can lead to
interpersonal conflict.

79
2.9 Baseless hatred ÌÈÁ ˙‡˘

‡ÓÂÈ ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙

· „ÂÓÚ Ë Û„

ÆÌÁ ˙‡˘ · ‰˙ȉ˘ ÈÙÓ ø·¯Á ‰Ó ÈÙÓ ÌÈ„ÒÁ ˙ÂÏÈÓ‚Â ˙ˆӷ ‰¯Â˙· ÔȘÒÂÚ Âȉ˘ ¨È˘ ˘„˜Ó Ï·‡
ÆÌÈÓ„ ˙ÂÎÈÙ˘Â ¨˙ÂÈ¯Ú ÈÂÏ‚ ¨‰¯Ê ‰„Â·Ú ∫˙Â¯È·Ú ˘Ï˘ „‚Î ÌÁ ˙‡˘ ‰Ï˜˘˘ Í„ÓÏÏ

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Yoma 9b

But why was the second Temple destroyed, seeing that in its time they were occupying
themselves with Torah, [observance of] precepts and the practice of charity? Because
therein prevailed hatred without cause. That teaches you that senseless hatred is
considered as of equal gravity with the three cardinal sins of idolatry, immorality, and
bloodshed together.
****
ÔÈËÈ‚ ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙
‡ „ÂÓÚ Â Û„

¯Ó‡ ¨‡˙„ÂÚÒ „·Ú ¨‡ˆÓ˜ ¯· ‰È··„ ÏÚ·Â ‡ˆÓ˜ ‰ÈÓÁ¯„ ‡¯·‚ ‡Â‰‰„ ¨ÌÈÏ˘Â¯È ·Â¯Á ‡ˆÓ˜ ¯·Â ‡ˆÓ˜‡
‡Â‰‰ È„ÎÓ ∫‰ÈÏ ¯Ó‡ ¨·È˙È ‰Â‰„ ‰ÈÁ΢‡ ‡˙‡ ƇˆÓ˜ ¯· ‰ÈÏ È˙Èȇ Ïʇ ¨‡ˆÓ˜ ÈÏ È˙Èȇ ÏÈÊ ∫‰ÈÚÓ˘Ï ‰ÈÏ
ÈÓ„ ÍÏ ‡·È‰È ¨Ô˜·˘ ȇ˙‡Â Ïȇ‰ ∫‰ÈÏ ¯Ó‡ °˜Â٠̘ ø‡Î‰ ˙ÈÚ· È‡Ó ¨‡Â‰ ‡¯·‚ ‡Â‰‰„ ‡··„ ÏÚ· ‡¯·‚
∫‰ÈÏ ¯Ó‡ Æ‡Ï ∫‰ÈÏ ¯Ó‡ °ÍÈ˙„ÂÚÒ„ ‡‚ÏÙ ÈÓ„ ÍÏ ‡·È‰È ∫‰ÈÏ ¯Ó‡ Æ‡Ï ∫‰ÈÏ ¯Ó‡ ¨‡È˙˘Â ‡ÏÈ·„ ‰Ó
‡Ï Ô·¯ È·˙È Â‰ Ïȇ‰ ∫¯Ó‡ ƉȘه ‰ÈӘ‡ ‰È„È· ‰È˘ Æ‡Ï ∫‰ÈÏ ¯Ó‡ °ÍÈ˙„ÂÚÒ ‰ÏÂÎ ÈÓ„ ÍÏ ‡·È‰È
°È‡„Â‰È Í· „¯Ó ∫¯ÒÈ˜Ï ‰ÈÏ ¯Ó‡ Ïʇ ƇÎÏÓ È· ‡ˆ¯Â˜ ‰· ÏÂÎȇ ÏÈÊȇ ¨Â‰Ï ‡ÁÈ ‡˜ ‰ÈÓ ‡Ó˘ ¨‰È· ÂÁÓ
È„‰· Ƈ˙Ï˙ ‡Ï‚Ú ‰È„È· ¯„˘ Ïʇ ƉÈÏ ÔÈ·¯˜Ó ȇ ˙ÈÊÁ ¨‡·¯Â˜ Â‰Ï ¯„˘ ∫‰ÈÏ ¯Ó‡ ø¯ÓÈÈ ÈÓ ∫‰ÈÏ ¯Ó‡
‡ÓÂÓ Â‡Ï Â‰„È„Ï ‡ÓÂÓ ‰Â‰ Ô„È„Ï„ ‡˙΄ ¨ÔÈÚ·˘ ÔȘ„· ‰Ï ȯӇ ¨ÌÈ˙Ù˘ ·È· ‡ÓÂÓ ‰È· ‡„˘ È˙‡˜„
Ôȷȯ˜ ÔÈÓÂÓ ÈÏÚ· ∫Â¯Ó‡È ¨ÒϘ·‡ Ô· ‰È¯ÎÊ È·¯ Â‰Ï ¯Ó‡ ¨˙ÂÎÏÓ ÌÂÏ˘ ÌÂ˘Ó ‰È·Â¯˜Ï Ô·¯ ¯Â·Ò Ƈ‰
¯Ó‡ °‚¯‰È ÌÈ˘„˜· ÌÂÓ ÏÈËÓ ∫Â¯Ó‡È ¨‰È¯ÎÊ È·¯ Â‰Ï ¯Ó‡ ¨‡ÓÈÏ ÏÈÊÈÏ ‡Ï„ ¨‰ÈÏ˘ÈÓÏ ¯Â·Ò °Á·ÊÓ È·‚Ï
ÆÂˆ¯‡Ó Â˙ÈÏ‚‰Â ¨ÂÏÎȉ ˙‡ ‰Ù¯˘Â ¨Â˙È· ˙‡ ‰·È¯Á‰ ¨ÒϘ·‡ Ô· ‰È¯ÎÊ È·¯ Ï˘ Â˙Â˙ÂÂÚ ∫ÔÁÂÈ È·¯
ƯÒȘ Ô¯ÈÏ Â‰ÈÈÂÏÚ ¯„˘

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Gittin 56a

The destruction of Jerusalem came through a Kamza and a Bar Kamza in this way.
A certain man had a friend Kamza and an enemy Bar Kamza. He once made a
party and said to his servant, Go and bring Kamza. The man went and brought Bar
Kamza. When the man [who gave the party] found him there he said, See, you tell
tales about me; what are you doing here? Get out. Said the other: Since I am here, let
me stay and I will pay you for whatever I eat and drink. He said, I won’t.Then let me
give you half the cost of the party. No, said the other. Then let me pay for the whole
party. He still said, No, and he took him by the hand and put him out. Said the other,
Since the Rabbis were sitting there and did not stop him, this shows that they agreed
with him. I will go and inform against them, to the Government. He went and said to
the Emperor, The Jews are rebelling against you. He said, How can I tell? He said to

80
 him: Send them an offering and see whether they will offer it [on the altar]. So he sent
with him a fine calf.While on the way, he made a blemish on its upper lip, or as some
say on the white of its eye, in a place where we [Jews] count it a blemish but they do
not.The Rabbis were inclined to offer it in order not to offend the Government. Said R.
Zechariah b. Abkulas to them: People will say that blemished animals are offered on
the altar. They then proposed to kill Bar Kamza so that he should not go and inform
against them, but R. Zechariah b. Abkulas said to them, Is one who makes a blemish
on consecrated animals to be put to death? R. Johanan thereupon remarked:Through
the scrupulousness of R. Zechariah b. Abkulas our House has been destroyed, our
Temple burnt and we ourselves exiled from our land.

****
Ô˙ È·¯„ ˙·‡ ˙ÎÒÓ
·È ˜¯Ù ‡ ‡ÁÒÂ

È˘‡· ÂÈˆÓ Ô΢ ˙Âȯ·‰ ˙‡ ‡¢ ‡‰È ‡Ï ˙Âȯ·‰ ˙‡ ·‰Â‡ Ì„‡ ‡‰È˘ „ÓÏÓ „ˆÈÎ ˙Âȯ·‰ ˙‡ ·‰Â‡
˙ÂÁ¯ Ú·¯‡· ̯ÊÙ ‡Ï‡ ÌÏÂÚ‰ ÔÓ Ô„·‡Ï ‰¢·˜‰ ‰ˆ¯ ‡Ï ‰Ê ˙‡ ‰Ê ÔÈ·‰Â‡ ˛Âȉ˘¸ ÍÂ˙Ó˘ ‰‚ÏÙ‰ ¯Â„
¯Ó‡˘ ‡·‰ ÌÏÂÚ‰ ÔÓ ‰Ê‰ ÌÏÂÚ‰ ÔÓ ‰¢·˜‰ Ì„·‡ ‰Ê ˙‡ ‰Ê Ôȇ¢ Âȉ˘ ÍÂ˙Ó ÌÂ„Ò È˘‡ Ï·‡ ÆÌÏÂÚ‰
ÏÂÏÈÁ ‰Ê ß‰Ï Æ˙ÂÈ¯Ú ÈÂÏ‚ ‰Ê ÌȇËÁÂ Æ˛‰Ê ÌÚ ‰Ê ÌÈÚ¯¸ Æ®‚È∫‚È ˙È˘‡¯·© „‡Ó ß‰Ï ÌȇËÁ ÌÈÚ¯ ÌÂ„Ò È˘‡Â
ÌÏÂÚ‰ ÔÓ ‰Ê‰ ÌÏÂÚ‰ ÔÓ ‰¢·˜‰ Ô„·‡ ‰Ê ˙‡ ‰Ê Ôȇ¢˘ ÍÂ˙Ó ˙„ÓÏ ‡‰ ÆÌȇËÂÁ ÔÈÂÂÎ˙Ó˘ „‡Ó ÆÌ˘‰
∫‡·‰

Avot D'Rabbi Nathan

Version 1 Chapter 12

Loving mankind. What does this mean? It teaches that a man should love his fellow
creatures and not hate them, for so we find it among the men of the generation of
the Dispersion. Because they loved one another, the Holy One, blessed be He did not
wish to destroy them, but dispersed them to the four corners of the earth. Because
the men of Sodom, on the other hand, hated one another, the Holy One, blessed
be He destroyed them from this world and the World to Come as it is stated, “The
men of Sodom were wicked and sinners against the Lord exceedingly” (Gen. 13:13).
[Wickedness signifies that they hated one another];sinners,that they offended against
morality; against the Lord, that they profaned the Name; exceedingly, that they sinned
with premeditation. Hence, you learn that because they hated one another, the Holy
One, blessed be He destroyed them from this world and from the World to Come.

****

81
 Summary

Interpersonal conflicts are often caused by senseless hatred or hatred without

basis. Jewish tradition generally accepts that the Second Temple was destroyed as a
punishment on account of hatred among the people. Such people carefully observed
the detailed laws prescribed in Halachah and learned the sources, but they lacked
respect for their fellow man. The Talmud cites the destructive nature of hatred in that
it equals the three cardinal transgressions that caused the destruction of the First
Temple. The Talmud relates the story of Kamza and Bar Kamza, wherein Bar Kamza
was mistakenly invited to a prestigious party instead of Kamza. The host was so irate
at seeing Bar Kamza that he demanded his unwanted guest leave immediately. Bar
Kamza, embarrassed by the scene his presence caused, pleaded with the host to stay.
The host spurned his request and insisted that he leave. Bar Kamza offered to cover
the cost of his meal or indeed the expense of the entire party, just that he should not
suffer such embarrassment to himself in so extreme a public manner. The host refused
and Bar Kamza left in utter disgrace. Many community notables including leading Torah
scholars of the day had come to the gathering and none of them protested against
the treatment meted out to Bar Kamza and the shameful injustice he endured. This
story is cited as one of the causes of the Temple’s destruction.This instance stresses the
importance of respect and understanding in interpersonal relationships. Maintaining
the dignity and recognizing the feelings of one’s fellow beings, as well as their rights and
status is so important that when these precepts are flouted, it justifies the destruction
of the most precious and holiest site in Jewish life.
Respect and genuineness are the source of human dignity. When these values are
diminished in importance in society, then both physical and emotional destruction
result - which could have been avoided.

82
3. METHODS FOR RESOLVING CONFLICT
ÍÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈÈÏ ÌÈÏÎ

3.1 Violence ˙ÂÓÈχ

˙È˘‡¯·
Á ˜ÂÒÙ „ ˜¯Ù

∫‰‚¯‰È ÂÈÁ‡ Ï·‰ χ ÔȘ ̘È ‰„˘· Ì˙Âȉ· ȉÈ ÂÈÁ‡ Ï·‰ χ ÔȘ ¯Ó‡ÈÂ

Genesis
Chapter 4 Verse 8
ֿ
And Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the
field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

****
È¢˘¯
®±±∞µ≠±∞¥∞ ¨˙Ù¯ˆ© ȘÁˆÈ ‰ÓÏ˘ È·¯
Á∫„ ˙È˘‡¯·

Â·Â˘È ‰Ê ͇ ‰„‚‡ È˘¯„Ó ‰Ê· ˘È ¨Â‚¯‰Ï ÂÈÏÚ ÏÏ‚˙‰Ï ‰ˆÓ ·È¯ ȯ·„· ÂÓÚ ÒÎ ≠ Ï·‰ χ ÔȘ ¯Ó‡ÈÂ
∫‡¯˜Ó Ï˘

Rashi
Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (France, 1040-1105)
Genesis 4:8

And Cain spoke to Abel: he entered with him into a conversation [which would lead to]
argument and contention to seek a pretext against him to kill him. And on this there
are many Aggadic interpretations, but this is the plain meaning of the passage.

****

Summary

The Bible contains many examples of internecine feuding and describes how
these conflicts are dealt with. Commentators throughout the ages have analyzed
these examples, and now we are going to study their different approaches to and
perceptions of conflict through their interpretations of the text.The story of Cain and
Abel is the first occurrence of violent strife in the Bible.The brothers argued and Cain
killed Abel.

83
3.2 Separation ‰„¯Ù‰
˙È˘‡¯·
Ë ≠ Ê ÌȘÂÒÙ ‚È ˜¯Ù

‡ χ ËÂÏ Ï‡ ̯·‡ ¯Ó‡È ∫ı¯‡· ·˘È ʇ Èʯى ÈÚΉ ËÂÏ ‰˜Ó ÈÚ¯ Ôȷ ̯·‡ ‰˜Ó ÈÚ¯ ÔÈ· ·È¯ ȉÈÂ
̇ ÈÏÚÓ ‡ „¯Ù‰ ÍÈÙÏ ı¯‡‰ ÏÎ ‡Ï‰ ∫ÂÁ‡ ÌÈÁ‡ ÌÈ˘‡ ÈÎ ÍÈÚ¯ ÔÈ·Â ÈÚ¯ ÔÈ·Â ÍÈÈ·Â ÈÈ· ‰·È¯Ó ȉ˙
∫‰ÏÈ‡Ó˘‡Â ÔÈÓȉ ̇ ‰ÓÈ‡Â Ï‡Ó˘‰

Genesis
Chapter 13 Verses 7-9

And there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram’s cattle and the herdsmen of
Lot’s cattle; and the Canaanite and the Perizzite lived then in the land. And Abram
said to Lot, Let there be no strife, I beg you, between me and you, and between my
herdsmen and your herdsmen; for we are brothers. Is not the whole land before you?
Separate yourself, I beg you, from me; if you will take the left hand, then I will go to
the right; or if you depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.

****

Summary

This occurrence recounts the first non-violent resolution of conflict, as told in

the Bible. In the dispute between Abraham and his nephew Lot, Abraham resorts to
conflict avoidance to solve the problem. His shepherds cannot live peacefully with Lot’s
shepherds and so Abraham says to Lot, “Choose your path and I will go the other way.”
Instead of directly resolving the conflict between the shepherds, Abraham suggests
bypassing the issues of the conflict itself by avoiding contact between the feuding
sides.

84
3.3 Follow the Majority ˙ÂË‰Ï ÌÈ·¯ ȯÁ‡
˙ÂÓ˘
· ˜ÂÒÙ ‚Î ˜¯Ù

∫˙Ë‰Ï ÌÈ·¯ ȯÁ‡ ˙ËÏ ·¯ ÏÚ ‰Ú˙ ‡Ï ˙Ú¯Ï ÌÈ·¯ ȯÁ‡ ‰È‰˙ ‡Ï

Exodus
Chapter 23 Verse 2

You shall not follow a multitude to do evil; nor shall you speak in a cause to incline a
multitude to pervert justice;

****
Ôȯ„‰Ò ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙
‡ „ÂÓÚ · Û„
‰È‰‡˘ È‡ ÚÓ¢ ≠ ®·∫‚Î ˙ÂÓ˘© ¢˙Ú¯Ï ÌÈ·¯ ȯÁ‡ ‰È‰˙ ‡Ï¢ ¯Ó‡˘ ÚÓ˘ÓÓ ≠ ‰˘Ï˘ „ÂÚ ‡È·‰Ï ÔÈÓÂ
‰·ÂËÏ Í˙ÈÈˉ ¨‰Ú¯Ï Í˙ÈÈˉ ‰·ÂËÏ Í˙ÈÈˉΠ‡Ï ≠ ø˙Ë‰Ï ÌÈ·¯ ȯÁ‡ ¯Ó‡ ‰ÓÏ ÔΠ̇ ¨‰·ÂËÏ Ì‰ÓÚ
Ìȯ˘Ú ԇΠȯ‰ ¨„Á‡ „ÂÚ Ì‰ÈÏÚ ÔÈÙÈÒÂÓ ≠ Ϙ˘ ÔÈ„ ˙È· Ôȇ¨ÌÈ˘ ÈÙ ÏÚ ≠ ‰Ú¯Ï Í˙ÈÈˉ ¨„Á‡ ÈÙ ÏÚ ≠
Ɖ˘Ï˘Â

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Sanhedrin 2a

And whence do we derive the additional three [judges]? — by the implications of the
text, thou shalt not follow a majority for evil, I infer that I may follow them for good;
if so, why is it said, to incline after the majority? To teach that the majority to “incline
after” for good [i.e., for a favorable decision] is not the one to “incline after” for evil
[i.e., for an adverse decision] since for good, a majority of one suffices; whereas for
evil, a majority of two is required and as a court cannot consist of an even number
another one is added, making a total of twenty three.

****

‡ÚÈˆÓ ‡·· ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙

· „ÂÓÚ Ë Û„
Ɖ‡ÓË ¨ÂÊ ‡ÎÚÎ Ìȯ·„ ÂÙȘ‰˘ ∫χÂÓ˘ ¯Ó‡ ‰„Â‰È ·¯ ¯Ó‡ ≠ øȇÎÚ È‡Ó ÆȇÎÚ Ï˘ ¯Â˙ ‡Â‰ ‰ÊÂ
ÆÂÓȉ ÂϷȘ ‡Ï ÌÏÂÚ·˘ ˙·¢˙ ÏÎ ¯ÊÚÈχ È·¯ ·È˘‰ ÌÂȉ Â˙‡· ∫‡˙
˙Â‡Ó Ú·¯‡ ∫‰Ï ȯӇ ¨‰Ó‡ ‰‡Ó ÂÓ˜ÓÓ ·Â¯Á ¯˜Ú ÆÁÈÎÂÈ ‰Ê ·Â¯Á ≠ È˙ÂÓÎ ‰Îω ̇ ∫Ì‰Ï ¯Ó‡
∫‰Ó‡
Ʒ¯Á‰ ÔÓ ‰È‡¯ ÔÈ‡È·Ó Ôȇ ∫ÂÏ Â¯Ó‡
Æ̉ȯÂÁ‡Ï ÌÈÓ‰ ˙Ó‡ ¯ÊÁ ÆÂÁÈÎÂÈ ÌÈÓ‰ ˙Ó‡ ≠ È˙ÂÓÎ ‰Îω ̇ ∫Ì‰Ï ¯Ó‡Â ¯ÊÁ
ÆÌÈÓ‰ ˙Ó‡Ó ‰È‡¯ ÔÈ‡È·Ó Ôȇ ∫ÂÏ Â¯Ó‡
ÆÏÂÙÈÏ ˘¯„Ó‰ ˙È· ÈÏ˙ÂÎ Âˉ ÆÂÁÈÎÂÈ ˘¯„Ó‰ ˙È· ÈÏ˙ÂÎ ≠ È˙ÂÓÎ ‰Îω ̇ ∫Ì‰Ï ¯Ó‡Â ¯ÊÁ

85
 ÂÏÙ ‡Ï øÌηÈË ‰Ó Ì˙‡ ≠ ‰Îω· ‰Ê ˙‡ ‰Ê ÌÈÁˆÓ ÌÈÓÎÁ È„ÈÓÏ˙ ̇ ∫Ì‰Ï ¯Ó‡ ¨Ú˘Â‰È È·¯ ̉· ¯Ú‚
ÆÔÈ„ÓÂÚ ÔÈËÓ ÔÈ„Ú ¨¯ÊÚÈχ È·¯ Ï˘ „·ΠÈÙÓ ÂÙ˜Ê ‡Ï ¨Ú˘Â‰È È·¯ Ï˘ „·ΠÈÙÓ
¯ÊÚÈχ È·¯ ψ‡ ÌÎÏ ‰Ó ∫‰¯Ó‡Â Ϙ ˙· ‰˙‡ˆÈ ÆÂÁÈÎÂÈ ÌÈÓ˘‰ ÔÓ ≠ È˙ÂÓÎ ‰Îω ̇ ∫Ì‰Ï ¯Ó‡Â ¯ÊÁ
°ÌÂ˜Ó Ïη Â˙ÂÓÎ ‰Îω˘
ø‡È‰ ÌÈÓ˘· ‡Ï ®ßÏ Ìȯ·„© È‡Ó ≠ Ƈȉ ÌÈÓ˘· ‡Ï ∫¯Ó‡Â ÂÈÏ‚¯ ÏÚ Ú˘Â‰È È·¯ „ÓÚ
‰¯Â˙· ÈÈÒ ¯‰· ˙·˙Î ¯·Î˘ ¨Ï˜ ˙·· ÔÈÁÈ‚˘Ó Â‡ Ôȇ ¨ÈÈÒ ¯‰Ó ‰¯Â˙ ‰˙ ¯·Î˘ ∫‰ÈÓ¯È È·¯ ¯Ó‡
Æ˙Ë‰Ï ÌÈ·¯ ȯÁ‡ ®‚¢Î ˙ÂÓ˘©
¯Ó‡Â ÍÈÈÁ ‡˜ ∫‰ÈÏ ¯Ó‡ ≠ ø‡˙Ú˘ ‡È‰‰· ‡Â‰ Íȯ· ‡˘„˜ „È·Ú È‡Ó ∫‰ÈÏ ¯Ó‡ ¨Â‰ÈÏ‡Ï Ô˙ È·¯ ‰ÈÁ΢‡
ÆÈ· ÈÂÁˆ ¨È· ÈÂÁˆ

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Baba Metzia 59b

And this was the oven of ‘Aknai. Why [the oven of] ‘Aknai? — Said Rab Judah in
Samuel’s name: [It means] that they encompassed it with arguments as a snake, and
proved it unclean.
It has been taught: On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument,
but they did not accept them. Said he to them: “If the Halachah agrees with me, let
this carob-tree prove it!” Thereupon the carob-tree was torn a hundred cubits out of
its place — others affirm, four hundred cubits.
“No proof can be brought from a carob-tree,” they retorted.
Again he said to them: “If the Halachah agrees with me, let the stream of water prove
it!”Whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards.
“No proof can be brought from a stream of water,” they rejoined.
Again he urged: “If the Halachah agrees with me, let the walls of the schoolhouse
prove it,” whereupon the walls inclined to fall.
But R. Joshua rebuked them, saying: “When scholars are engaged in a Halachic
dispute, what have ye to interfere?” Hence, they did not fall, in honor of R. Joshua, nor
did they resume the upright, in honor of R. Eliezer; and they are still standing thus
inclined. Again, he said to them: “If the Halachah agrees with me, let it be proved from
Heaven!”
Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out:“Why do ye dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that
in all matters the Halachah agrees with him!”
But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: “It is not in heaven.” What did he mean by this?
Said R. Jeremiah: “That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no
attention to a Heavenly Voice, because Thou hast long since written in the Torah at
Mount Sinai, after the majority must one incline.”
R. Nathan met Elijah and asked him: “What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do in
that hour?” — He laughed [with joy], he replied, saying, “My sons have defeated Me,
My sons have defeated Me.”

****

Ôȯ„‰Ò ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÓÏ˘Â¯È „ÂÓÏ˙

‡ ¯ÂË ·Î Û„ „ ˜¯Ù
˙ÂË‰Ï ÌÈ·¯ ȯÁ‡ ÂÏ ¯Ó‡ ßÎω‰ ‡È‰ ͇ȉ ÈÈÚȄ‰ ÌÏÂÚ Ï˘ Â·¯ ÂÈÙÏ ¯Ó‡ ‰˘Ó χ ßÈÈ ¯·„È ÌÚË ‰Ó
¢ς„ ÔÈÈÈÓ ¯Â‰Ë ÌÈ٠ˢÓ ‡ÓË ÌÈÙ Ë¢Ó ˙˘¯„ ‰¯Â˙‰ ‡‰˙˘ ȄΠ·ÈÈÁ ÔÈ·ÈÈÁÓ‰ ·¯ ÂÎÊ ÔÈÎÊÓ‰ ·¯
ÆÍ·‰‡ Ìȯ˘ÈÓ ¯Ó‡ ÌÈ˙Ú·˘ ˜˜ÂÊÓ ı¯‡Ï ÏÈÏÚ· Û¯ˆ ÛÒÎ ˙Â¯Â‰Ë ˙¯Ӈ ßÈÈ ˙¯Ӈ ¯Ó‡ ‡Â‰ ÔÎÂ

86
Jerusalem Talmud
Tractate Sanhedrin
Chapter 4 Page 22a
What is the Scriptural basis for that statement? “And the Lord spoke to Moses...”
[telling him the diverse arguments relevant to each law]. [Moses] said to Him, “Lord
of the World! Teach me the [practical] law [so that there will be no doubts about it].
He said to him, “Follow the majority to incline the law” [to a decision, that is, make
a decision in the law by a majority of the judges’ opinions]. [If] those who declare
the accused innocent form the majority, declare the accused innocent. [If] those who
declare the accused to be guilty, declare him to be guilty. [This is] so that the Torah
may be expounded in forty-nine ways on the side of a decision of uncleanness, and in
forty-nine ways in favor of a decision of cleanness.

****

Summary

In Exodus, the Bible sets down a guideline for resolving differences of opinion: that
the decision should be made by the majority. )Note that this is not the literal meaning
of the verse in the Bible but rather an understanding learned from this verse.)
A well-known Talmudic story tells of a Halachic dispute between leading Sages
of the time. Rabbi Eliezer disagreed with the majority of his colleagues on a Halachic
decision. He was so certain that he was right he called on G-d to prove that his
position was correct by causing miracles to happen in their midst. For example, he
called on the carob tree to move from its place if his position was correct and it did. He
called on the walls to shake and they did. He asked G-d to prove it and the voice of G-
d came out and said that his position was correct. Even so, the head of the majority of
Sages, Rabbi Yehoshua, refused to accept Rabbi Eliezer’s stand. He replied that the laws
given to mankind do not apply in Heaven. The laws G-d gave at Mt. Sinai comprised
the principle that decisions are arrived at by majority opinion. Even if G-d moved walls
and called out that Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion was correct, the decision still lay with the
majority who had ruled differently. With this answer, Rabbi Eliezer could not argue.This
story illustrates the power of the rule of law even in the face of revealed miracles from
heaven. Despite the miracles and the strength of conviction that Rabbi Eliezer had,
nothing could overcome the legally enshrined process of decision-making among the
Sages.

87
3.4 Compromise ‰¯˘Ù
Ìȯ·„
ÁÈ ˜ÂÒÙ Â ˜¯Ù
∫ÍÈ˙·‡Ï ߉ Ú·˘ ¯˘‡ ‰·Ë‰ ı¯‡‰ ˙‡ ˙˘¯È ˙‡·Â ÍÏ ·ËÈÈ ÔÚÓÏ ß‰ ÈÈÚ· ·Âˉ ¯˘È‰ ˙È˘ÚÂ

Deuteronomy
Chapter 6 Verse 18

And you shall do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord; that it may
be well with you, and that you may go in and possess the good land which the Lord
swore to your fathers.

****
È¢˘¯
®±±∞µ≠±∞¥∞ ¨˙Ù¯ˆ© ȘÁˆÈ ‰ÓÏ˘ È·¯
ÁÈ∫ Ìȯ·„

∫ÔÈ„‰ ˙¯Â˘Ó ÌÈÙÏ ¨‰¯˘Ù ÂÊ ≠ ·Âˉ ¯˘È‰

Rashi
Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (France, 1040-1105)
Deuteronomy 6:18

That which is right and good: This [refers to] compromise inside the line of law [i.e.,
equity].
****
Ô¢·Ó¯
®±±π¥≠±≤∑∞ ¨Ï‡¯˘È ı¯‡ ≠„¯ÙÒ© ÔÓÁ Ô· ‰˘Ó È·¯
ÁÈ∫ Ìȯ·„

Ô˙ÈÈ˘Ú· ÔÈÂÎ˙ ÂÈ˙˜Á ÂÈ˙„ÚÂ Ì˘‰ ˙ÂˆÓ Â¯Ó˘˙ ¯Ó‡È Ë˘Ù‰ ͯ„ ÏÚ ≠ ߉ ÈÈÚ· ·Âˉ ¯˘È‰ ˙È˘ÚÂ
Ì˘‰ ÈÎ ¨ÍÏ ·ËÈÈ ÂÈÈÚ· ·Âˉ Í˙¢ڷ ÈÎ ¯Ó‡È ¨‰ÁË·‰ ≠ ÍÏ ·ËÈÈ ÔÚÓÏ Ƅ·Ï· ÂÈÈÚ· ¯˘È‰Â ·Âˉ ˙¢ÚÏ
ÆÌ˙·Ϸ Ìȯ˘ÈÏ ÌÈ·ÂËÏ ·ÈËÓ
¯ÂÓ˘˙˘ ¯Ó‡ ‰ÏÁ˙Ó ÈÎ ¨‰Ê· ‰ÂÂΉ ÆÔÈ„‰ ˙¯Â˘Ó ÌÈÙÏ ‰¯˘Ù ÂÊ Â¯Ó‡ ¨‰ÙÈ ˘¯„Ó ‰Ê· ÂÈ˙·¯ÏÂ
·‰Â‡ ‡Â‰ ÈÎ ¨ÂÈÈÚ· ¯˘È‰Â ·Âˉ ˙¢ÚÏ Í˙Ú„ Ô˙ ͈ ‡Ï ¯˘‡· Ì‚ ¯Ó‡È ‰˙Ú ¨Íˆ ¯˘‡ ÂÈ˙„Ú ÂÈ˙˜Á
‡˘Ó ÏΠÂÈگ ÂÈ΢ ÌÚ Ì„‡‰ ˙‚‰‰ ÏÎ ‰¯Â˙· ¯ÈÎÊ‰Ï ¯˘Ù‡ ȇ˘ ÈÙÏ ¨Ï„‚ ÔÈÚ ‰Ê ∫¯˘È‰Â ·Âˉ
‡Ï ¨®ÊË ËÈ ‡¯˜È© ÏÈί ÍÏ˙ ‡Ï Ô‚Π¨‰·¯‰ Ì‰Ó ¯ÈÎʉ˘ ȯÁ‡ Ï·‡ ¨ÌÏÎ ˙ÂȄӉ ·Â˘È‰ È˜˙ Â˙ÓÂ
ÈÙÓ ¨®„È ˜ÂÒÙ Ì˘© ˘¯Á ÏϘ˙ ‡Ï ¨®ÊË ˜ÂÒÙ Ì˘© ÍÚ¯ Ì„ ÏÚ „ÂÓÚ˙ ‡Ï ¨®ÁÈ ˜ÂÒÙ Ì˘© ¯ÂË˙ ‡Ï Ì˜˙
‰Ê· ÒÎÈ˘ „Ú ¨¯·„ Ïη ¯˘È‰Â ·Âˉ ‰˘ÚÈ˘ ÏÏΠͯ„· ¯ÓÂÏ ¯ÊÁ ¨Ô‰· ‡ˆÂÈΠ¨®·Ï ˜ÂÒÙ Ì˘© ̘˙ ‰·È˘
¯Ӈ˘ ‰Ó ÂÏÈه ¨®‡ Á˜ ‡ÚÈˆÓ ‡··© ‡¯ˆÓ ¯·„ ‡È„· ¯ÈÎʉ˘ ‰Ó ԂΠ¨ÔÈ„‰ ˙¯Â˘Ó ÌÈÙÏ ‰¯˘Ù‰
∫¯˘È Ì˙ ÔÈÚ Ïη ‡¯˜È˘ „Ú ¨˙Âȯ·‰ ÌÚ ˙Á· ¯·„ ‰‡ ˜¯Ù ®‡ ÂÙ ‡ÓÂÈ©

Ramban
Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (Spain - Land of Israel , 1194-1270)
Deuteronomy 6:18

88
 AND THOU SHALT DO THAT WHICH IS RIGHT AND GOOD IN THE SIGHT OF
THE ETERNAL. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture the verse says, “Keep the
commandments of God, His testimonies, and His statutes, and in observing them,
intend to do what is right and good in His sight only.” And [the expression in the verse
before us] that it may be well with thee is a promise, stating that, when you will do
that which is good in His eyes, it will be well with you, for God does good unto the
good, and to them that are upright in their hearts.
Our Rabbis have a beautiful Midrash on this verse. They have said: “[That which is
right and good] refers to a compromise and going beyond the requirement of the
letter of the law.” The intent of this is as follows: At first he [Moses] stated that you
are to keep His statues and His testimonies which He commanded you, and now he
is stating that even where He has not commanded you, give thought, as well, to do
what is good and right in His eyes, for He loves the good and the right. Now this is a
great principle, for it is impossible to mention in the Torah all aspects of man’s conduct
with his neighbors and friends, and all his various transactions, and the ordinances
of all societies and countries. But because He mentioned many of them - such as, “Thou
shalt not go up and down as a talebearer; thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear
any grudge; neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor; thou shalt not
curse the deaf; thou shalt rise up before the hoary head” and the like - He reverted
to state in a general way that, in all matters, one should do what is good and right,
including even compromise, and going beyond the requirements of the law. Other
examples are the Rabbis’ ordinances concerning the prerogative of a neighbor, and
even what they said [concerning the desirability] that one’s youthful reputation be
unblemished, and that one’s conversation with people be pleasant. Thus [a person
must seek to refine his behavior] in every form of activity, until he is worthy of being
called “good and upright.”

****
‰È¯ÎÊ
ÊË ˜ÂÒÙ Á ˜¯Ù

∫ÌÎÈ¯Ú˘· ÂËÙ˘ ÌÂÏ˘ ËÙ˘Ó ˙Ó‡ ‰گ ˙‡ ˘È‡ ˙Ó‡ ¯·„ ¢Ú˙ ¯˘‡ Ìȯ·„‰ ‰Ï‡

Zechariah
Chapter 8 Verse 16
These are the things that you shall do; Speak every man the truth to his neighbor;
execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates.

****
È¢˘¯
®±∞¥∞≠±±∞µ ¨˙Ù¯ˆ© ȘÁˆÈ ‰ÓÏ˘ È·¯
ÊË∫Á ‰È¯ÎÊ

∫‰¯˘Ù‰ ‡È‰ ≠ ÌÂÏ˘ ËÙ˘ÓÂ

89
Rashi
Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (France, 1040-1105)
Zechariah 8:16
...and judgment of peace, i.e., compromise.
****
„„ ˙„ˆÓ
®±∑≠‰ ‰‡Ó‰ ÛÂÒ ¨‚‡¯Ù© ¯Ï¢Ëχ „„ ߯
ÊË∫Á ‰È¯ÎÊ

ÔÈ· ÌÂÏ˘‰ ÍÂÂ˙Ó˘ ‰¯˘Ù‰ ‰Ê ÌÂÏ˘ ËÙ˘Ó Â‡ ˙Ó‡ ËÙ˘Ó ≠ ÌÎÈ¯Ú˘· ÂËÙ˘ ¯Ó‚ ÌÂÏ˘ ËÙ˘Ó ˙Ó‡
∫ÌÂÏ˘ ‡Ï ˙Ó‡ ‡Ï ‰Ê Ôȇ˘ ËÙ˘Ó‰ ÂË˙ ‡Ï Ï·‡ ÔÈ„‰ ÈÏÚ·

Metzudat David
Rabbi David Hillel Altschuler (Prague, end 17th century)
Zechariah 8:16

Truth and the judgment of peace... execute in your gates - judgment of truth or
judgment of peace, and this is compromise which arbitrates peace between litigants,
yet do not sway the judgment, for that is neither truth nor peace.

****

‰ÏÈ‚Ó ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÓÏ˘Â¯È „ÂÓÏ˙

‚ ¯ÂË ‚Ú Û„ ‚ ˜¯Ù

¯·„ Ô˙˘Ï˘Â ÌÂÏ˘‰ ÏÚ ˙Ó‡‰ ÏÚ ÔÈ„‰ ÏÚ „ÓÂÚ ÌÏÂÚ‰ Ìȯ·„ ‰˘Ï˘ ÏÚ ¯Ó‡ χÈÏÓ‚ Ô· ÔÂÚÓ˘ Ô·¯
˙Ó‡ „Á‡ ˜ÂÒÙ· Ô˙˘Ï˘Â ‡Ó È·¯ ¯Ó‡ ÌÂÏ˘‰ ‰˘Ú ˙Ó‡ ‰˘Ú ˙Ó‡ ‰˘Ú ÔÈ„‰ ‰˘Ú Ô‰ „Á‡
ÆÌÎÈ¯Ú˘· ÂËÙ˘ ÌÂÏ˘ ËÙ˘ÓÂ

Jerusalem Talmud
Tractate Megillah
Chapter 3 Page 73c

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, “The world exists on three principles: justice, truth
and peace, and all three are one: If justice is served, truth is achieved and peace is
attained.”
Rabbi Mana said, “And all three appear in one verse: ‘Execute the judgment of truth
and peace in your gates’” (Zech. 8:16).

****
˙Âί· ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙
‡ „ÂÓÚ È Û„

˙¢ÚÏ Ú„ÂÈ˘ ‡Â‰ ͯ· ˘Â„˜‰Î ÈÓ ø¯·„ ¯˘Ù Ú„ÂÈ ÈÓ ÌÎÁ‰Î ÈÓ ®Á ˙ω˜© ∫·È˙΄ È‡Ó ∫‡ÂÓ‰ ·¯ ¯Ó‡
Ïʇ„ ‰Èχ· ÔÁ΢‡ ÈΉ„ ¨È‡·‚ ‰ÈÚ˘È È˙ÈÏ ∫¯Ó‡ ‰ȘÊÁ ƉÈÚ˘ÈÏ Â‰È˜ÊÁ ÔÈ· ¨ÌȘȄˆ È˘ ÔÈ· ‰¯˘Ù
ÈΉ„ ¨È‡·‚ ‰ȘÊÁ È˙ÈÏ ∫¯Ó‡ ‰ÈÚ˘È Æ®·‡Á‡ χ ˙‡¯‰Ï ‰Èχ ÍÏÈ ®ÁÈ∫‡ ÌÈÎÏÓ© ∫¯Ó‡˘© ·‡Á‡ È·‚Ï
¯Ó‡Â ¨Â‰È˜ÊÁ ÏÚ ÌȯÂÒÈ ‡È·‰ ≠ ‡Â‰ ͯ· ˘Â„˜‰ ‰˘Ú ‰Ó ÆÚ˘Èχ È·‚Ï Ïʇ„ ·‡Á‡ Ô· ̯‰ȷ ÔÁ΢‡

90
 ‡·È ˙ÂÓÏ Â‰È˜ÊÁ ‰ÏÁ ̉‰ ÌÈÓÈ· ®ÁÏ Â‰ÈÚ˘È© ¨®Î · ÌÈÎÏÓ© ∫¯Ó‡˘ ∫‰ÏÂÁ‰ ˙‡ ¯˜·Â ÍÏ ∫‰ÈÚ˘ÈÏ ÂÏ
Ƈȷ‰ ıÂÓ‡ Ô· ‰ÈÚ˘È ÂÈχ

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Berachot 10a

R. Hamnuna said: What is the meaning of the verse, Who is as the wise man? And
who knoweth the interpretation [pesher] of a thing? Who is like the Holy One, blessed
be He, who knew how to effect reconciliation [pesharah] between two righteous men,
Hezekiah and Isaiah? Hezekiah said: Let Isaiah come to me, for so we find that Elijah
went to Ahab, as it says, And Elijah went to show himself unto Ahab. Isaiah said: Let
Hezekiah come to me, for so we find that Jehoram son of Ahab went to Elisha.What
did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He brought sufferings upon Hezekiah and then
said to Isaiah, Go visit the sick. For so it says, In those days Hezekiah was sick unto
death. And Isaiah the Prophet, son of Amoz, came to him.

****
Ìȯ·„
Î ˜ÂÒÙ ÊË ˜¯Ù

∫ÍÏ Ô˙ Íȉχ ߉ ¯˘‡ ı¯‡‰ ˙‡ ˙˘¯È ‰ÈÁ˙ ÔÚÓÏ Û„¯˙ ˜„ˆ ˜„ˆ

Deuteronomy
Chapter 16 Verse 20

Justice, only justice shall you pursue, that you may live, and inherit the land which the
L-rd your G-d gives you.

****

Ôȯ„‰Ò ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙

· „ÂÓÚ ·Ï Û„

̇ ¨‰Ê· ‰Ê ÂÚ‚Ù ¯‰· ˙¯·ÂÚ ˙ÂÈÙÒ È˙˘ ø„ˆÈΠƉ¯˘ÙÏ „Á‡Â ÔÈ„Ï „Á‡ ≠ Û„¯˙ ˜„ˆ ˜„ˆ ∫‡È˙„Î
˙È· ˙ÂÏÚÓ· ÌÈÏÂÚ Âȉ˘ ÌÈÏÓ‚ È˘ ÔΠÆ˙¯·ÂÚ Ô‰È˙˘ ≠ ‰Ê ¯Á‡ ‰Ê· ¨˙ÂÚ·ÂË Ô‰È˙˘ ≠ Ô‰È˙˘ ˙¯·ÂÚ
‰ȇ˘Â ‰ÂÚË ø„ˆÈÎ ‡‰ ÆÔÈÏÂÚ Ô‰È˘ ≠ ‰Ê ¯Á‡ ‰Ê· ¨ÔÈÏÙÂ Ô‰È˘ ≠ Ô‰È˘ ÂÏÚ Ì‡ ¨‰Ê· ‰Ê ÂÚ‚Ù Ô¯ÂÁ
Âȉ Ɖ·Â¯˜ ‰ȇ˘ ÈÙÓ ‰·Â¯˜ ‰Á„È˙ ≠ ‰·Â¯˜ ‰ȇ˘Â ‰·Â¯˜ ƉÂÚË ÈÙÓ ‰ÂÚË ‰ȇ˘ ‰Á„È˙ ≠ ‰ÂÚË
ÆÂÊÏ ÂÊ ¯Î˘ ˙ÂÏÚÓ ¨Ô‰ÈÈ· ‰¯˘Ù Ïˉ ≠ ˙˜ÂÁ¯ Ô‰È˙˘ ¨˙·¯˜ Ô‰È˙˘

91
Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Sanhedrin 32b

As it has been taught: Justice, justice shalt thou follow; the first [mention of justice]
refers to a decision based on strict law; the second, to a compromise. How so? — E.g.,
where two boats sailing on a river meet; if both attempt to pass simultaneously, both
will sink, whereas, if one makes way for the other, both can pass [without mishap].
Likewise, if two camels met each other while on the ascent to Beth-Horon; if they
both ascend [at the same time] both may tumble down [into the valley]; but if [they
ascend] one after the other, both can go up [safely]. How then should they act? If
one is laden and the other unladen, the latter should give way to the former. If one is
nearer [to its destination] than the other, the former should give way to the latter. If
both are [equally] near or far [from their destination], make a compromise between
them, the one [which is to go forward] compensating the other [which has to give
way].

****
‡Ó˜ ‡·· ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙
‡ „ÂÓÚ Î Û„
ÈÏÈÓ È‡Ó ∫¯Ó‡ Ƈ˙ÈÈÏÚÓ ÈÏÈÓ ÔÏ ‡Èڷȇ„ ¨‡ÓÂÁ˙· ‡˙¯Â‡· Ô·‚ ˙ȉ ‡Ï ∫‡ÓÁ ¯· ÈÓ¯Ï ‡„ÒÁ ·¯ ÂÏ ¯Ó‡
‡ÓÈÏȇ øÈÓ„ ÈÎȉ øÍȯˆ Ôȇ ‡ ¯Î˘ ÂÏ ˙ÂÏÚ‰Ï Íȯˆ ¨Â˙Ú„Ó ‡Ï˘ ¯ȷÁ ¯ˆÁ· ¯„‰ ∫ÂÏ ¯Ó‡ ø‡˙ÈÈÏÚÓ
‡¯‚‡Ï ‡ÓÈȘ„ ¯ˆÁ· ‡Ï‡ °¯ÒÁ ‡Ï ‰Ê ‰‰ ‡Ï ‰Ê ¨¯‚ÈÓÏ „È·Ú ‡Ï„ ‡¯·‚ ‡¯‚‡Ï ‡ÓÈȘ ‡Ï„ ¯ˆÁ·
Ư‚ÈÓÏ „È·Ú„ ‡¯·‚ ‡¯‚‡Ï ‡ÓÈȘ ‡Ï„ ¯ˆÁ· ¨‡Îȯˆ ‡Ï °¯ÒÁ ‰Ê ‰‰ ‰Ê ¨¯‚ÈÓÏ „È·Ú„ ‡¯·‚Â

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Baba Kama 20a
R.Hisda said to Rami b. Hama:You were not with us yesterday in the house of study
where some specially interesting matters were discussed. The other thereupon asked
him: What were the specially interesting matters? He answered: [The discussion was
whether] one who occupied his neighbor’s premises unbeknown to him would have to
pay rent or not. But under what circumstances? It could hardly be supposed that the
premises were not for hire, and he [the one who occupied them] was similarly a man
who was not in the habit of hiring any, for [what liability could there be attached to a
case where] the defendant derived no benefit and the plaintiff sustained no loss? If
on the other hand the premises were for hire and he was a man whose wont it was
to hire premises, [why should no liability be attached since] the defendant derived a
benefit and the plaintiff sustained a loss? — No: the problem arises in a case where
the premises were not for hire, but his wont was to hire premises.

****
Ôȯ„‰Ò ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙
· „ÂÓÚ Â Û„

‡Ï‰Â ÆÌÎÈ¯Ú˘· ÂËÙ˘ ÌÂÏ˘ ËÙ˘Ó ˙Ó‡ ®Á ‰È¯ÎÊ© ∫¯Ó‡˘ ¨Úˆ·Ï ‰ÂˆÓ ∫¯Ó‡ ‰Á¯˜ Ô· Ú˘Â‰È È·¯
ȉ ≠ ÌÂÏ˘ · ˘È˘ ËÙ˘Ó Â‰Êȇ ‡Ï‡ ÆËÙ˘Ó Ôȇ ≠ ÌÂÏ˘ ˘È˘ ̘ӷ ¨ÌÂÏ˘ Ôȇ ≠ ËÙ˘Ó ˘È˘ ̘ӷ
ËÙ˘Ó ˘È˘ ÌÂ˜Ó ÏÎ ‡Ï‰Â ¨‰˜„ˆÂ ËÙ˘Ó ‰˘ÂÚ „„ ȉÈ ®Á · χÂÓ˘© ¯Ó‡ ‡Â‰ „„· ÔΠÆÚˆȷ ‰Ê ∫¯Ó‡
‡˙Ï Ô‡˙‡ ¨Úˆȷ ‰Ê ∫¯Ó‡ ȉ ≠ ‰˜„ˆ · ˘È˘ ËÙ˘Ó Â‰Êȇ ‡Ï‡ ¨ËÙ˘Ó Ôȇ ≠ ‰˜„ˆÂ ¨‰˜„ˆ Ôȇ ≠
ƇӘ

92
Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Sanhedrin 6b

R. Joshua b. Korha says: Settlement by compromise is a meritorious act, for it is

written, “Execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates; and let none of you
devise evil in your hearts against his neighbor” (Zech. 8:16-17). Surely where there is
strict justice there is no peace, and where there is peace, there is no strict justice! But
what is that kind of justice with which peace abides? We must say: Arbitration.
So it was in the case of David, as we read, “And David executed justice and
righteousness [charity] towards all his people” (II Sam. 8:15). Surely where there is
strict justice there is no charity, and where there is charity, there is no justice! But what
is the kind of justice with which abides charity? We must say: Arbitration.

****
‰˘Ó‰ ˘Â¯ÈÙÏ ‰Ó„˜‰
®±±≥∏≠±≤∞¥ ¨ÌȯˆÓ≠„¯ÙÒ© ÔÂÓÈÓ Ô· ‰˘Ó È·¯ ≠ Ì¢·Ó¯

ÏÎÂÈ Ì‡Â Æ‰¯˘Ù‰ ¯Á‡ ÂÈÈ„ Ïη ¯„‰Ó ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ÍȯˆÂ ¨„¢Á ‰È‰È ‡Ó˘ ¨˙ÂÈÈ„· ÒÎÈ‰Ï ÂÓˆÚ ıÁÏÈ Ï‡Â
ʇ ¨ÏÂÎÈ Âȇ ̇ ÆÌÈÚ ‰Ó ·ÂË ‰Ó ‰‰ ¨ÌȷȯӉ È˘ ÔÈ· ‰¯˘Ù ‰˘ÚÈ˘ Ï·‡ ¨ÂÈÓÈ Ïη ÔÈ„ ˜ÂÒÙÈ ‡Ï˘
ÈÙ ÏÚ Û‡Â ¨ÌÂȉ ÏΠ¢Ù ÏÚ ˘˜·Ï ‰ÁÈÈ ¨·È¯‰ ÏÚ·Ï ÌÈί‡ ÌÈÓÊ Ô˙ÈÈ Ï·‡ ¨ÁȯËÈ Ï‡Â ÔÈ„‰ ÍÂ˙ÁÈ
ÂÓÎ Æ„ÈÓ ÔÈ„‰ ¯ÂÊ‚È ¨Ì˙ÂÚË· ‰‡¯È˘ ‰Ó ÈÙÏ ¨‰Ê ¯˘Ù‡ ȇ ̇ Æ˙ÂÏÎÒ ˙ÂÏω ¯·„È Ìȯ·„ ‰·¯È˘
˙Úȯ˜Â ¨ÌÈ„‚·‰ Ë˘Ù‰Â ¨˘ÂÚÏ ˙˜ÏÏ Ë¢‰ ˙‡Î‰Â ¨ÌÈȄȉ ˙¯È˘˜ ÔÈÈÚ· ¨ÌÈ˘ÂÚ ÂÈ˙·¯ Ìȇ¯ Â‡˘
ÌȯÓ‡ ‰ÂˆӉ ÂÊÏ ‰Ó„Π¨‰Ê ÂÓÎ ‰·¯‰Â Æ‰Ê ˙¢ÚÏ ·ÈÈÁÈ˘ ‰Ó ̉· ‡ˆÓÈ˘Î ¨˙ÂÓÈȘ‰ ˙Â¯Ë˘‰
ÆÆÆÆÆƯ‰‰ ˙‡ ÔÈ„‰ ·Â˜È ¨®·¨Â Ôȯ„‰Ò©

Introduction to the Commentary on the Mishnah

Maimonides - Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Spain - Egypt, 1138-1204)
And he should not pressure himself to enter into the judiciary, lest it be suspicious, and
he must seek to achieve settlements in all his cases. And if he can refrain from passing
judgment throughout his days, instead mediating between the two parties, how good
and how pleasant this is. And if he is unable to do so, he must decide the case and
not impede, yet he must allow lengthy time periods to the defendant, allowing him to
plead for himself the entire day, even though he will speak much and he will speak
words of coarseness and folly. And if this is impossible, based on what he perceives
of their claims, he must decide the case immediately. As we witness with our Sages
regarding binding the hands, striking the whip, punishing... and so on. In a similar
vein to this commandment they state (Sanhedrin 6b), “Let the law bore through the
mountain...”

Reflections of the Rav: The Torah Way of Justice

Rabbi Yosef Ber Soloveitchik (Belarus - USA, 1903-1993)
Volume I Pages 55-57

The Talmud [Sanhedrin 6b] justifies the institution of pesharah on the basis of
two Biblical verses. Both verses are needed because each contributes a different
consideration....The first verse reads:“Execute the judgment of truth and peace in your
gates” (Zech. 8:16). The Talmud explains: “Surely where there is strict justice [mishpat]

93
there is no peace. And where there is peace, there is no strict justice! But when
do justice and peace coincide? Only in pesharah...” Where there is strict adherence
to din, there is justice but no shalom, because one of the parties is humiliated and
antagonized. The immediate issue is resolved but the conflict persists, with ensuing
social discord. The secular judge is seemingly indifferent to this failure since justice, not
harmony, was his objective. Shalom is for social workers and psychologists to attain;
it is beyond his jurisdiction. The Torah, however, wants the dayyan [judge] to be not
a magistrate but a teacher and a healer. He should seek to persuade both parties
to retreat from their presumed points of advantage, and he should preach to them
about the corrosive personal and social effects of sustained rancor. His responsibility
is primarily to enlighten, rather than to render decisions on points of law. The first
verse, therefore projects the social welfare of society and the happiness of individuals
as primary ideals, as being truly a higher form of justice. Pesharah, is socially and
morally preferred, even if the strict din is neutralized. In its highest sense,
justice obtains when people are reconciled.
The second verse states: “And David executed justice and righteousness toward
his people” (II Sam. 8:15). The Talmud explains: “Surely, where there is strict justice
[mishpat] there is no righteousness [tzedek], and where there is righteousness there
is no justice. But when do justice and righteousness coincide? Only in pesharah!” This
verse is concerned with the attainment of tzedek. In Aristotelian logic, there is a
law of contradiction which states that a thesis and its antithesis cannot
both be valid... It follows from this logic that, when two litigants present opposing
claims, only one can be right. Strict logic demands the application of din whereby the
claim of the righteous party will be vindicated while the other party will be discredited.
The Halakhah, however, believes that absolute right and wrong can be realized only in
heaven. In dealing with imperfect man, we posit that no man is totally wrong or right
and that, in a case of the litigants, both are partially right and wrong. The application of
din can only take account of obvious surface conditions; it fails to perceive subtleties
underneath, which dilute our certainty about the right and the wrong of the litigants. Each
has some responsibility for the situation and is partially guilty of the misunderstanding,
for misleading innuendoes, and for contributing indirectly to a climate in society which
places others at a disadvantage. Strict justice deals with plain facts and salient reality;
real responsibility however goes much deeper and is obscured from the scrutiny of
the court. Metaphysically, no one is entirely absolved in situations of conflict. Tzedek,
therefore, is truly realized only through peshara, which declares the
parties both winners and losers. Thus, pesharah is not only socially desirable, as
the first verse claims, but it is also morally just. The principle of tzedek demands that
mishpat reflect the existential condition of man’s inevitable imperfection.

****

94
 Summary

The Torah commands us to act in an honest and good way in the eyes of G-d. Rashi
explains that compromise is the way. Compromise means going beyond the letter of
the law. The Torah outlines the foundations of honest behavior and gives guidelines for
interpersonal relationships. Then it adds the general precept of always acting honestly
and decently. The essence of honesty is compromise where both sides give in and no
side wins over the other. Compromise results in both sides receiving something but
at the same time giving up something, so that no settlement amounts to a complete
victory.
The Book of Zechariah advises man to speak truth to his fellow man and let the law
be guided by the principles of truth and peace.The commentaries explain that mishpat
shalom means compromise. In other words, the use of compromise mediates peace
between adversaries, for there can be no winner.
Biblical sources establish the foundations of the rule of law and the basis by which
disputes should be arbitrated. The foundation of the world is justice, truth and peace.
When justice is achieved, there is truth and peace.
G-d showed by example how compromise can achieve peace. Hezekiah and Isaiah
had reached a stalemate; each waited for the other to take the initiative and approach
the other. In order to break the impasse and restore relations between them, G-d
made Hezekiah ill and told Isaiah to go and visit him. In this way, Isaiah did not have to
give in, but using the excuse of visiting the sick, he allowed himself to make the first
move without losing his dignity.
The Torah commands us to pursue righteousness. It uses the word righteousness
twice and commentaries note that the first instance refers to justice and the second
refers to compromise. The Talmud describes a case which can be either a win-win or
lose-lose situation, depending on how it is dealt with. If only justice is the ruling factor,
the result could be a loss for both parties. For example, if two boats approaching each
other in a river at the same time were to continue without changing course, as may be
the just way, both boats would collide and sink. The compromise or correct solution is
for one to give way and the other to pass, so both boats reach the other side safely.
The Rabbis discussed whether compromise is the obligatory mode of resolving
dispute or an optional mode. According to the opinion that compromise (bitzua) is a
mode of resolution which we are commanded to try first, law cannot achieve justice
and peace without appealing to compromise. So too, charity cannot be achieved with
justice unless the parties use compromise.
The Rambam states that parties should strive for compromise as this is the best
legal solution to a dispute. If the disputing parties cannot reach a compromise, then the
sides must be allowed to voice their opinions and give their versions of the conflict,
even if this means sometimes listening to gripes and complaining not directly connected
to the dispute. The Rambam realizes that a person’s narrative is very important to
understanding the conflict. In addition, a person’s need to vent his feelings and voice his

95
version of the dispute can sometimes be just as important as the verdict, if not more
so.
Rabbi Soloveitchik examines the difference between compromise and justice. He
explains that compromise can enable both sides of a conflict to feel that they have
succeeded in reaching some of their goals and justifying some of their claims. At the
same time, both sides realize that they have in part lost the dispute and have had
to concede points to the other side. Pure justice with only one victor can only be
achieved in the heavenly court and not in an earthly court.

96
3.5 Laws of Compromise ‰¯˘Ù ÈÈ„
Ôȯ„‰Ò ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙
‡ „ÂÓÚ Â Û„
ÆÔÈ„Ï ‰¯˘Ù ÔÈ˘˜Ó ‡ÓÏÚ ÈÏÂÎÏ ∫‰Â¯·Ò Æ„ÈÁÈ· ‰¯˘Ù ∫ÌȯÓ‡ ÌÈÓÎÁ ¨¯È‡Ó È·¯ ȯ·„ ¨‰˘Ï˘· Úˆȷ
‡Î‰Â ¨‰˘Ï˘· ÔÈ„ ‡ÓÏÚ ÈÏÂ΄ ¨‡Ï ≠ øÌÈ˘· ÔÈ„ ∫¯·Ò ¯Ó ¨‰˘Ï˘· ÔÈ„ ∫¯·Ò ¯Ó„ ¨È‚ÏÙÈÓ˜ ‡‰· Â‡Ï È‡Ó
¨‰¯˘Ù· ȇ˙ ‡˙Ï˙ ‡ÓÈÏ ÆÔÈ„Ï ‰¯˘Ù ÔÈ˘˜Ó ‡Ï ∫¯·Ò ¯Ó ¨ÔÈ„Ï ‰¯˘Ù ÔÈ˘˜Ó ∫¯·Ò ¯Ó„ ªÈ‚ÏÙÈÓ˜ ‡‰·
¯· ¯ÓÈÈ È·¯ ‡ÓÈ˙ȇ ¨‡˜È‡ ·¯„ ‰È¯· ‡Á‡ ·¯ ¯Ó‡ ø„ÈÁÈ· ¯·Ò ¯Ó ¨ÌÈ˘· ∫¯·Ò ¯Ó ¨‰˘Ï˘· ∫¯·Ò ¯Ó„
ÚÓ˘ ∫È˘‡ ·¯ ¯Ó‡ ÆÈ„‰Ò ‰ÈÏÚ Â‰ÈÏ„ ÈÎȉ ÈÎ ≠ ȯ˙ ¯Ó‡˜„ ȇ‰Â ¨ÈÓ „Á ÂÏÈÙ‡ ≠ ȯ˙ ¯Ó‡„ Ô‡Ó ∫‡ÈÓÏ˘
È‚Ò˙ øÈÏ ‰ÓÏ ‡˙Ï˙ ¨‰Îȯˆ ¯Ó‡„ Ô‡ÓÏ ≠ ÔÈ˜ ‰Îȯˆ Í˙Ú„ ‡˜ÏÒ È‡„ ¨ÔÈ˜ ‰Îȯˆ ‰ȇ ‰¯˘Ù ‰ÈÓ
ÆÔÈ˜ ‰Îȯˆ ‰¯˘Ù ∫‡˙Îω ≠ °‰ÈÈÓ È˜ÈÏ ¨È¯˙·
Ï˘ Â· ¯ÊÚÈχ È·¯ ÆÚˆ·Ï ȇ˘¯ ‰˙‡ ȇ ≠ ÔÈ„‰ ¯Ó‚ ¨‰˘Ï˘· Úˆȷ ÍÎ ‰˘Ï˘· ÔÈ„‰˘ Ì˘Î ∫Ô·¯ Â˙
ÏÚ ¨ı‡Ó ‰Ê ȯ‰ ≠ ڈ·‰ ˙‡ ͯ·Ó‰ ÏΠ¨‡ËÂÁ ‰Ê ȯ‰ ≠ ڈ·‰ ÏΠ¨Úˆ·Ï ¯ÂÒ‡ ∫¯Ó‡ ÈÏÈÏ‚‰ ÈÒÂÈ È·¯
¨‡Â‰ ÌÈ‰Ï‡Ï ËÙ˘Ó‰ ÈÎ ®‡ Ìȯ·„© ¯Ó‡˘ ¨¯‰‰ ˙‡ ÔÈ„‰ ·Â˜È ∫‡Ï‡ ¨ß‰ ı‡ ͯ· Úˆ· ®È ÌÈω˙© ¯Ó‡ ‰Ê
¨Â¯È·ÁÏ Ì„‡ ÔÈ· ÌÂÏ˘ ÌÈ˘Ó ¨ÌÂÏ˘ ۄ¯ ÌÂÏ˘ ·‰Â‡ Ô¯‰‡ Ï·‡ ¨¯‰‰ ˙‡ ÔÈ„‰ ·Â˜È ¯Ó‡ ‰È‰ ‰˘Ó ÔÎÂ
·È˘‰ ÌÈ·¯Â È˙‡ Íω ¯Â˘ÈÓ·Â ÌÂÏ˘· ÂÈ˙Ù˘· ‡ˆÓ ‡Ï ‰ÏÂÚ ‰ÈÙ· ‰˙ȉ ˙Ó‡ ˙¯Â˙ ®· È·ÏÓ© ¯Ó‡˘
ÆÔÂÚÓ

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Sanhedrin 6a

Arbitration is by three, so says R. Meir. The Sages say that one is sufficient. Now the
Schoolmen presumed that all agree that the force of arbitration is equal to that of
legal decision; their point of difference would accordingly resolve itself into one holding
that three are required for legal decision and the other holding that two are enough.
— No, all [both R. Meir and the Sages] agree that legal decision is by three, and
the point in which they differ is this: One [R. Meir] holds that the force of arbitration
should be regarded as equal to that of legal decision, while the other disputes it.
May it be assumed then that there are three views held by the Tannaim with regard
to arbitration, viz., one [R. Meir] holds that three are needed; another [R. Simeon b.
Gamaliel] holds that two are sufficient, while the Sages hold that one is enough? — R.
Aha the son of R. Ika, or according to others R.Yemar b. Salomi, said: The Tanna who
says two are necessary is really of the opinion that a single one is sufficient. And the
reason he requires two is that they might act as witnesses in the case, if required.
R. Ashi said: We may infer from this that no kinyan is needed for arbitration, for if
it be thought necessary, why does the Tanna in question require three? Surely two
should suffice, the two parties being bound by kinyan! The adopted law, however,
is that arbitration requires kinyan [even when made by three]. Our Rabbis taught:
Just as for legal judgment three are required, so are three required for settlement by
arbitration. After a case has been decided by legal judgment, thou must not attempt
a settlement.
R. Eliezer, the son of R. Jose the Galilean, used to say: It is prohibited to mediate, and
he who should do so sins; and he who praises the mediators despises the law, as it is
written (Ps. 10:3): “The robber blesseth himself when he hath despised the Lord.” But
it may be taken as a rule that the strict law shall bore the mountain, as it is written
(Deut.1:17): “The judgment belongs to G-d.” And so was it said by Moses our Master.
But Aaron (his brother) loved peace, ran after it, and used to make peace among the
people, as it is written (Mal. 2:6): “The law of truth was in his mouth, and falsehood

97
 was not found on his lips; in peace and equity he walked with me, and many did he
turn away from iniquity.“

****
Ôȯ„‰Ò ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙
· „ÂÓÚ Â Û„
‰˙‡ ȇ ԉȯ·„ ÚÓ˘˙˘Ó ‡ ¨Ô‰È¯·„ ÚÓ˘˙ ‡Ï˘ „Ú ¨ÔÈ„Ï ÍÈÙÏ Â‡·˘ ÌÈ˘ ∫¯Ó‡ ‡ÈÒÓ Ô· ÔÂÚÓ˘ È·¯
ȇ ≠ ‰ËÂ ÔÈ„‰ ÔÎÈ‰Ï Ú„ÂÈ ‰˙‡Â ԉȯ·„ ÚÓ˘˙˘Ó ÆÂÚˆ·Â ‡ˆ ∫Ô‰Ï ¯ÓÂÏ È‡˘¯ ‰˙‡ ≠ ‰ËÂ ÔÈ„ ÔÎÈ‰Ï Ú„ÂÈ
̄˜ ¨˘ÂË ·È¯‰ ÚÏ‚˙‰ ÈÙÏ ÔÂ„Ó ˙È˘‡¯ ÌÈÓ ¯ËÂÙ ®ÊÈ ÈÏ˘Ó© ¯Ó‡˘ ÆÂÚˆ·Â ‡ˆ ∫Ô‰Ï ¯ÓÂÏ È‡˘¯ ‰˙‡
Æ¢ËÏ ÏÂÎÈ ‰˙‡ ȇ ≠ ·È¯‰ ÚÏ‚˙˘Ó ¨Â˘ËÏ ÏÂÎÈ ‰˙‡ ≠ ·È¯‰ ÚÏ‚˙˘

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Sanhedrin 6b

R. Simeon b. Manasya says:When two come before you for judgment, before you have
heard their case, or even afterwards, if you have not made up your mind whither
judgment is inclining, you may suggest to them that they should go and settle the
dispute amongst themselves. But if you have already heard their case and have made
up your mind in whose favor the verdict inclines, you are not at liberty to suggest
a settlement, for it is written: The beginning of strife is as one that lets out water.
Therefore, leave off contention before the quarrel break out. Before the case has been
laid bare, you may leave off [give up] the contention; after the case has been laid
bare, you cannot leave it off.

****
Ôȯ„‰Ò ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙
Ê≠  ۄ

¨‡‰ ·¯„ ‰ÈÓ˜Ï Â˙‡ ‰Â‰ ÈÎ ¨‰Â‰ ·¯„ ‰È„ÈÓÏ˙ ‡‰ ·¯ ‡‰Â øÈȇ ≠ ƉÁ¯˜ Ô· Ú˘Â‰È È·¯Î ‰Îω ∫·¯ ¯Ó‡
‡¯ÓÈÓÏ ‰ÂˆÓ ≠ ‰Á¯˜ Ô· Ú˘Â‰È È·¯ ¯Ó‡˜„ ÈÓ ‰ÂˆÓ È‡Ó ≠ ÆÂ˙ÈÚ· ‰¯˘Ù ȇ Â˙ÈÚ· ‡È„ ȇ ∫Â‰Ï ¯Ó‡
∫¯·Ò ‰Á¯˜ Ô· Ú˘Â‰È È·¯ Æ‰ÂˆÓ Â‰ÈÈÈ· ‡Îȇ ≠ °‡Ó˜ ‡˙ ÂÈȉ ≠ ÆÂ˙ÈÚ· ‰¯˘Ù ȇ ¨Â˙ÈÚ· ‡È„ ȇ ∫‰Ï
Ú„ÂÈ ‰˙‡Â ԉȯ·„ ÚÓ˘˙˘Ó ‰ÈÈÈ· ‡Îȇ ≠ °‡ÈÒÓ Ô· ÔÂÚÓ˘ È·¯„ ÂÈȉ ≠ Æ˙¢¯ ∫¯·Ò ‡Ó˜ ‡˙ ¨‰ÂˆÓ
ÆÂÚˆ·Â ‡ˆ Ô‰Ï ¯ÓÂÏ È‡˘¯ ‰˙‡ ȇ ¨‰ËÂ ÔÈ„‰ ÔÎȉÏ
Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Sanhedrin 5-6

Rab says: the Halachah is in agreement with R. Joshua b. Korha [who holds arbitration
to be a meritorious act]. How can this be? Was not R. Huna a disciple of Rab, and
yet, when a case was brought to him, he would ask the litigants whether they desired
to resort to law or to a settlement? As to the expression “meritorious act,” which R.
Joshua b. Korha uses, he means that it is a meritorious act to ask the litigants whether
they wish to resort to law or to a settlement. If so, this agrees with the opinion of
the first Tanna.There is this difference, however: R. Joshua b. Korha regards this as a
moral obligation; the first Tanna merely as a permissible act. But this would make the
first Tanna express the same opinion as R. Simeon b. Manasya? — The difference
centers round the latter part of R. Simeon’s statement: “If you have already heard the
case and know in whose favor the verdict inclines, you are not at liberty to suggest a
settlement” [a distinction which the first Tanna does not admit].

98
 ****

Ôȯ„‰Ò ˙ÂÎω ≠ ‰¯Â˙ ‰˘Ó

®±±≥∏≠±≤∞¥ ¨ÌȯˆÓ≠„¯ÙÒ© ÔÂÓÈÓ Ô· ‰˘Ó È·¯ ≠ Ìßß·Ó¯
 ≠ „ ‰Îω ·Î ˜¯Ù

˙È· ÏΠ¨‰¯˘Ù Ô‰ÈÈ· ÔÈ˘ÂÚ ‰¯˘Ù· ˆ¯ ̇ ¨‰¯˘Ù· ‡ ÌȈ¯ Ì˙‡ ÔÈ„· ‰ÏÈÁ˙· ÌÈÈ„ ÈÏÚ·Ï ¯ÓÂÏ ‰Âˆ
ÂÓÚ ˘È˘ ËÙ˘Ó Â‰Ê È‡ ÌÎÈ¯Ú˘· ÂËÙ˘ ÌÂÏ˘ ËÙ˘Ó ¯Ó‡ ÂÈÏÚ Á·Â˘Ó ‰Ê ȯ‰ „ÈÓ˙ ‰¯˘Ù ÔÈ˘ÂÚ˘ ÔÈ„
ÂÓÚ ˘È˘ ËÙ˘Ó Â‰Êȇ ÂÓÚ ÏÎÏ ‰˜„ˆÂ ËÙ˘Ó ‰˘ÂÚ „„ ȉÈ ¯Ó‡ ‡Â‰ „„· ÔΠ¨Úˆȷ ‰Ê ¯Ó‡ ȉ ÌÂÏ˘
Ú„È ̉ȯ·„ ÚÓ˘˘ ÈÙ ÏÚ Û‡ ÔÈ„ ¯Ó‚ ̄˜ ÌȯÂÓ‡ Ìȯ·„ ‰Ó· ¨‰¯˘Ù‰ ‡È‰Â Úˆȷ Â‰Ê ¯Ó‡ ȉ ‰˜„ˆ
Âȇ ·ÈÈÁ ‰˙‡ ÈÂÏÙ ˘È‡ ȇÎÊ ‰˙‡ ÈÂÏÙ ˘È‡ ¯Ó‡Â ÔÈ„‰ ¯Ó‚˘ ȯÁ‡ Ï·‡ Úˆ·Ï ‰ÂˆÓ ‰ËÂ ÔÈ„‰ ÔÎȉÏ
Ì‰Ï ˘È ÔÈ„ ˙È·· ‰¯˘Ù· ÔÈ„‰ ÈÏÚ· ˆ¯˘ ÈÙ ÏÚ Û‡ Ư‰‰ ˙‡ ÔÈ„‰ ·Â˜È ‡Ï‡ Ô‰ÈÈ· ‰¯˘Ù ˙¢ÚÏ È‡˘¯
ÔÈ„ Ô‰ÈÈ„ Ôȇ Â„˘ ˙ÂËÂÈ„‰ È˘˘ ÔÈ„‰ ÁÎÓ ‰¯˘Ù ÁÎ ‰ÙÈ Æ̉È˘ „ÈÓ Â˜È˘ „Ú ÔÈ„‰ ˙‡ Ú·˙Ï ¯ÂÊÁÏ
ÆÔ‰· ¯ÂÊÁÏ ÔÈÏÂÎÈ Ôȇ Ô„ÈÓ Â˜Â ‰¯˘Ù Â˘Ú Ì‡Â Ô‰· ¯ÂÊÁÏ ÔÈÈ„ ÈÏÚ·Ï ˘ÈÂ

Mishneh Torah Laws of Sanhedrin

Maimonides - Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Spain - Egypt, 1138-1204)
Chapter 22 Laws 4-6

At the outset, it is a mitzvah to ask the litigants, “Do you desire a judgment or
a compromise?” If they desire a compromise, a compromise is negotiated. Any
court that continuously negotiates a compromise is praiseworthy. Concerning [this
approach, Zech. 8:16] states: “Adjudicate a judgment of peace in your gates.” Which
judgment involves peace? A compromise. Similarly, with regard to King David it is
stated: “And David carried out justice and charity for his entire people.” When does
justice involve charity? When a compromise [is made]. When does the above apply?
Before a judgment is rendered. Even though [the judge] has already heard their
arguments and knows the direction in which the judgment is heading, it is a mitzvah
to negotiate a compromise. Once the judgment is rendered and he declares: “So-and-
so, your claim is vindicated and so-and-so, you are liable,” he may not negotiate a
compromise. Instead, let the judgment pierce the mountain.
Although the litigants agreed to a compromise in court, [the judges] have the
authority to demand a judgment until the litigants confirm their commitment [to the
compromise] with a kinyan.
A compromise has greater legal power than a judgment. If two ordinary people
rendered a judgment, their judgment is not binding and the litigants need not accept
it. If, however, [such individuals] negotiated a compromise and the litigants affirmed
[their agreement] with a kinyan, they may not retract.

****

Ôȯ„‰Ò ˙ÂÙÒÂ˙
®±¥≠‰ ‰‡Ó‰ „Ú ±≤≠‰ ‰‡Ó‰© ˙Ù¯ˆÂ Ê΢‡ ÈÓÎÁ
®ß¯Ó‚ß ÏÈÁ˙Ó‰ ¯Â·È„© · „ÂÓÚ Â Û„
˘È‡ ‡Ï‡ ¯ÒÁÓ ‡Ï„ ÔÈ„‰ ˙‡ ¯ӂ ÂÓΠ·ÈËȉ ÔÈ„· ˜„˜„ ¯·Î˘ Ô‚ΠßÚˆ·Ï ȇ˘¯ ‰˙‡ ȇ ÔÈ„‰ ¯Ó‚ß
‡Ï ˙ÂÎÊÏ ÂÈ„ ¯¯·˙˘ Ú„ÂÈ ‰È‰ ‡ÏÓχ˘ ‰¯˘Ù ˙¢ÚÏ Â˙ÂÚË‰Ï Ôȇ ÍÎ ÏÎ ¯¯·˙„ ÔÂÈ΄ ·ÈÈÁ ‰˙‡ ÈÂÏÙ

99
 ȇÎÊ ‰˙‡ ÈÂÏÙ ˘È‡ ·ÈÈÁ ‰˙‡ ÈÂÏÙ ˘È‡ ¯Ӈ ¯·Î˘ Ò¯Ë˜· ˘¯ÈÙ ÆÔÈÚ Ì¢· ‰¯˘Ù· ‰ˆ¯˙Ó ‰È‰
˜Á„· ¯ÓÂÏ ˘È ÆÈ¯Ó‚Ï ÔÈ„‰ ˜ÒÙ˘ ¯Á‡ ‡˙˘‰ ÍÈÈ˘ Úˆȷ È‡Ó ‰˘˜ Ï·‡ ȇ„· ÔÎ ÁÎÂÓ „ÂÓÏ˙‰ Ô¢ÏÂ
Â‰Ï ¯ÓÈÓÏ È¯˘ ‰Ê ‡ ‰Ê ‰Ú·˘ ÌÈ·ÈÈÁ˙ӢΠ‰ÈÓ ÆÔÈ„· ÂÈÚË ‡Ó˘ Â‡ Ìȇ¯È ÂÏ ¯ÓÂÏ Â˙‡ ÂÚËÈ ‡Ï˘
ƉÚ·˘ ˘ÂÚÓ ¯ËÙÈÏ È„Î Úˆȷ‰ ˙¢ÚÏ

Tosafot Sanhedrin 6b
French and German Talmudists (12th - 14th century)

Once the case has concluded, you are not permitted to mediate. For instance, if they
have already thoroughly investigated the case and they have concluded it, and all
that is lacking is [to announce] “You are guilty,” since [the case] has already been so
elucidated, it must not be swayed to reach a compromise. For if he knows that his
claim will be upheld, he will not accept any compromise of any sort... However, if [the
outcome is such that] either is obligated to take an oath, it is permitted to tell them
to reach a compromise in order to avoid penalty as result of an oath.

****
ËÙ˘Ó Ô˘ÂÁ ÍÂ¯Ú ÔÁÏ¢
(1488-1575 ,‫ ארץ ישראל‬-‫רב יוסף בן אפרים קארו )ספרד‬
· ÛÈÚÒ ·È ÔÓÈÒ

ÌÈ˘ÂÚ ¨‰¯˘Ù· ˆ¯ ̇ ª‰¯˘Ù‰ ‡ ÌȈ¯ Ì˙‡ ÔÈ„‰ ∫‰ÏÁ˙· ÌÈÈ„ ÈÏÚ·Ï ¯ÓÂÏ ‰ÂˆÓ
ÏΠƯȷÁÓ ¯˙ÂÈ „Á‡Ï ‰¯˘Ù‰ ‰ËÈ ‡Ï˘ ¯‰ÊÂÓ ÍÎ ¨ÔÈ„‰ ˙ÂË‰Ï ‡Ï˘ ¯‰ÊÂÓ˘ Ì˘Î Ɖ¯˘Ù ̉ÈÈ·
̉ȯ·„ ÚÓ˘˘ ÈÙ ÏÚ Û‡ ¨ÔÈ„ ¯Ó‚ ̄˜ ¨ÌȯÂÓ‡ Ìȯ·„ ‰Ó· ÆÁ·Â˘Ó ‰Ê ȯ‰ „ÈÓ˙ ‰¯˘Ù ‰˘ÂÚ˘ ÔÈ„ ˙È·
‰˙‡ ÈÂÏÙ ˘È‡ ¨È‡ÎÊ ‰˙‡ ÈÂÏÙ ˘È‡ ∫¯Ó‡Â ÔÈ„‰ ¯Ó‚˘ ¯Á‡ Ï·‡ ÆÚˆ·Ï ‰ÂˆÓ ¨‰ËÂ ÔÈ„‰ ÔÎÈ‰Ï Ú„ÂÈÂ
̉ÈÈ· ‰¯˘Ù ˙¢ÚÏ È‡˘¯ ¨ÔÈÈ„ Âȇ˘ ¨¯Á‡ Ï·‡ Æ̉ÈÈ· ‰¯˘Ù ˙¢ÚÏ È‡˘¯ Âȇ ¨·ÈÈÁ
ȇ˘¯¨Ì‰Ó „Á‡Ï ‰Ú·˘ ÔÈ„ ˙È· ·ÈÈÁ ̇ ÆËÙ˘ÓÏ Ú·˜‰ ÔÈ„ ·˘ÂÓ· ‡Ï˘
ÛÂÎÏ ÔÈÏÂÎÈ ÔÈ„ ˙È· Ôȇ© .‰Ú·˘ ˘ÂÚÓ ¯ËÙÈÏ È„Î Ì‰ÈÈ· ‰¯˘Ù ˙¢ÚÏ ÔÈ„ ˙È·‰
ÆÌȘÏÂÁ ˘È ®È‡¯‰ ÔÓ ‡Â‰˘ Ì‰Ï ‰‡¯˘ ÈÙ ÏÚ Û‡ ¨ÔÈ„‰ ˙¯Â˘Ó ÌÈÙÏ ÒÎÈÏ
„ ÛÈÚÒ
ÆÂÏÈ„‚È˘Î ˙ÂÁÓÏ ÌÈÓÂ˙ȉ ÂÏÎÂÈ ‡Ï˘Â ¨‰¯˘Ù‰ ÌÈȘ˙˙˘ ÌȯÁ‰Ï ¯ÂÊ‚Ï ÔÈ„ ˙È· „È· ÁÎ ˘È
‰ ÛÈÚÒ
˜ÂÏÁ ÔÈ„‰ ‡ÈˆÂ‰Ï ȇ˘¯ Âȇ Ư¯·˙‰Ï ÏÂÎÈ ¯·„‰ Ôȇ˘ ̘ӷ ¨‰¯˘Ù‰ ÔÈÚÎ ÔÈ„ ˙¢ÚÏ ÔÈÈ„Ï ÁÎ ˘È
Ưӂ ÈÏ· Â„È ˙Á˙Ó
 ÛÈÚÒ
‰¯˘Ù ÂÓÚ ˙¢ÚÏ ‰Ï‰ ‰ˆ¯˙È˘ È„Î ËÓ˘‰Ï ÌÈ„„ˆ ˘˜·Ï ¯ÂÒ‡ ¨Â· ˜ÊÁÂÓ ‡Â‰˘ ÔÂÓÓ Â˙‡ ÌÈÚ·Â˙˘ ÈÓ
ÆÂÏ˘ ˙‡ ÂÏ Ô˙È˘ „Ú ÌÈÓ˘ È„È ‡ˆÂÈ Âȇ ¨‰˘Ú ¯·Ú ̇ ∫‰‚‰ Ư‡˘‰ ÏÚ ÂÏ ÏÂÁÓÈÂ
Ê ÛÈÚÒ
‰Îȯˆ ‰¯˘Ù‰ ÆÌ„ÈÓ Â˜ ‡Ï˘ ÔÓÊ ÏΠ̉· ¯ÂÊÁÏ ÌÈÏÂÎÈ ¨ÔÈ„ ˙È·· ‰¯˘Ù· ÔÈÈ„ ÈÏÚ·‰ ˆ¯˙˘ ÈÙ ÏÚ Û‡
ÆÌÈ˘· ‡˜Â„„ ÌȯÓ‡ ˘È ª„ÈÁÈ· ÂÏÈÙ‡ ̉· ¯ÂÊÁÏ ÌÈÏÂÎÈ Ôȇ ¨Ì„ÈÓ Â˜ ̇ Ï·‡ ª‰˘Ï˘· ÂÏÈÙ‡ ¨ÔÈ˜
Ï·˜Ó˘Î ÌȯÓ‡ ˘È ƉÈ˜‰ Èί„ ¯‡˘Ó „Á‡ ‡ ¨ÂÈÏÚ ¯Ë˘ Ô˙ ̇ ÔÈ„‰ ‡Â‰ ‡Ï‡ ¨‡˜Â„ Â‡Ï ÔÈ˜Â ∫‰‚‰
ÆÌȯ·„ ÔÈ˜ ‡‰È ‡Ï˘ ¨ıÙÁ‰ ÂÏ ˙Â˜‰Ï Íȯˆ ‰¯˘Ù‰ ÏÚ ÔÈ˜
ÁÈ ÛÈÚÒ
ÆÌÏÂÎ ÂÓÈÎÒÈ˘ ‰Î Íȯˆ ‡Ï‡ ·Â¯‰ ¯Á‡ ÌÈÎω Ôȇ˘ ÌȯÓ‡ ˘È ¨ÌÈ¯˘Ù‰ ̉ ÌÈ·¯ ̇

100
Shulchan Aruch
Rabbi Joseph ben Ephraim Caro (Spain - Land of Israel, 1488-1575)
Choshen Mishpat Chapter 12

2. It is a religious duty to say to the litigants at the outset, “Do you wish [to resort to]
law or [to submit to] arbitration?” If they consented [to submit to] arbitration, they
bring about a settlement between them. And just as [the judge] is cautioned not to
pervert judgment, so too, is he cautioned not to direct the arbitration [in favor of]
one party over the other. Every court of law that always brings about a settlement is
considered praiseworthy.When does this apply? Before the conclusion of the trial, even
though one has heard their pleas and knows which way the judgment will incline. It is
a religious duty to attempt a settlement; but after the judge concluded the trial and
made the pronouncement, “So-and-so, you are guilty,” he is not permitted to attempt
a settlement between them. However, another person who is not a judge is permitted
to attempt a settlement between them, [provided] that this is not [attempted] in a
court sitting that is appointed for the purpose [of holding] legal [sessions]. If the court
of law imposed an oath upon one of them, the court of law is permitted to bring a
settlement between them [even after the conclusion of the trial], so that [the one who
is bound to take an oath] should be exempt from the responsibility thereof.The court
of law cannot compel one to fall in with [the principle of equity, i.e., acting] beyond
the requirements of the line of justice, although that would appear to them to be the
proper thing [to do]. However, some differ with [this opinion].
4. The court of law has the power to issue a decree and to pronounce the ban so
that the settlement be carried out and that the orphans should not be able to protest
[against the settlement] when they reach their majority.
5.The judge has the power to adjudicate a lawsuit [in a manner] similar to a settlement
where the matter cannot be [otherwise] determined [according to strict law] and he
is not permitted to allow the verdict to pass out of his hand [only] in part without
[bringing the proceedings to] a [complete] close.
6. One against whom there is a monetary claim regarding aught of which he [the
defendant] is [illegally] the possessor, is forbidden to seek means to evade [the
claim] in order that the person concerned [the plaintiff] should consent to make a
settlement with him and forgo the balance [of the claim]. Gloss: And if he violated
[this law] and employed [evasive means], he does not comply with the requirements
of Heaven until he restores to him [the plaintiff] what rightfully belongs to him.
7. Even though the litigants consented [to submit their case] to arbitration before the
court of law, they can retract so long as a formal agreement was not made with them
by means of a kinyan, for [the law is that] arbitration requires a kinyan even if made
before three. However, if a formal agreement was made with them by means of a
kinyan, they cannot retract even if made before one. And some say that [they cannot
retract] only if made [at least] before two. Gloss: [And this has reference] not only to
a formal agreement made by means of a kinyan, but likewise, if he [the defendant]
gave a note of indebtedness [thus] obligating himself [to carry out the settlement],
or ]by any] one of the other modes of transference of rights. Some say that when he
assumes [liability by means of] a kinyan relative to the arbitration, he must give him
acquisition rights to the article so that it should not be a [mere] verbal agreement.
18. If the arbitrators are many, some say that we do not follow the majority, but it is
required that they all unanimously agree [in their decision].

****

101
 ÍÂÈÁ‰ ¯ÙÒ
®±≥≠‰ ‰‡Ó‰ ¨‰Âψ¯·© ®‰¢‡¯© ÈÂω Ô¯‰‡ È·¯Ï ÒÁÂÈÓ
‚ϯ ‰ÂˆÓ
˙Ó‡ ˛ÊË ∫Á ‰È¯Îʸ ¯Ó‡ ÂÈÏÚ ¨·È¯‰ ÈÏÚ· ÔÈ· ‰¯˘Ù ÏÈË‰Ï ÏÂÎÈ˘ ÈÓ ‰·¯‰ ÂÁ·È˘ ÔÈ„‰ ¯ÓÂÁ ÈÙÓÂ
ËÙ˘Ó ‰˘ÂÚ „„ ȉÈ ˛ÂË∫Á · χÂÓ˘¸ ¯Ó‡ ‡Â‰ „„· ÔΠ¨ÌÂÏ˘ Ï˘ ËÙ˘Ó Â‰Ê˘ ¨ÂËÙ˘ ÌÂÏ˘ ËÙ˘ÓÂ
ÆÚˆȷ ‰Ê ¯Ó‡ ȉ ¨‰˜„ˆ ÂÓÚ ˘È˘ ËÙ˘Ó Â‰Ê È‡ ¨ÂÓÚ ÏÎÏ ‰˜„ˆÂ

Sefer Hachinuch
Attributed to Rabbi Aharon Ha-Levi (Ra'ah) (Barcelona, 13th Century)
Commandment 333

Then because of the serious nature of a trial, they greatly praised a person who can
achieve a compromise between the parties to the controversy [who with the trial] to
him the verse applies “render truth and a judgment of peace” (Zech. 8:16) because
this is a judgment of peace. So is it stated of David “and David rendered judgment
and righteousness to all his people” (II Sam. 8:15); what is judgment with which there
is righteousness? - You must say a compromise settlement.

****
ÍÂ¯Ú ÔÁÏ¢ ¯ÂˆÈ˜
(1804-1884 ,‫רבי שלמה גנצפריד )הונגריה‬
Á ÛÈÚÒ ‡Ù˜ ÔÓÈÒ
¨ÔÈ„ ˙È·· ‡Ï˘ ‡ ÔÈ„ ˙È·‰ Û¯Ȉ· ̇ ¨Ì‰ÈÈ· ‰¯˘Ù ¢ÚÈ˘ ÌÈ˘‡ Ì‰Ï Ìȯ¯Â· ÌÈÈ„ ÈÏÚ·‰ ÌÈÓÚÙÏ
ͯ„· „„ˆÏ ‡˜Â„ ¨È‡¯Î ¯˘Ù‰ ‡ˆÈ ¯Á· ¯˘‡ ‰Ê Ï˘ Â˙ÂÎÊ· „„ˆÓ ‡Â‰ „Á‡ Ï΢ ¨‡Â‰ Ô‚‰ ‰Ê ¯·„Â
˙ÂË‰Ï ‡Ï˘ Ôȯ‰ÊÂÓ ÍÎ ¨ÔÈ„‰ ˙‡ ˙ÂË‰Ï ‡Ï˘ Ôȯ‰ÊÂÓ˘ Ì˘Î˘ ¨¯˘Ù‰ ˙‡ ˙ÂÂÚÏ ÂÏ ‰ÏÈÏÁ Ï·‡ ¨¯˘È‰
Ư˘Ù‰ ˙‡

Kitzur Shulchan Aruch

Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried (Hungary, 1804-1884)
Chapter 181 Section 8

Occasionally, the litigants choose men to arbitrate between them jointly with the
court of law or apart from court. This is a proper course to pursue, for each one
advocates the merits of the one who had selected him and the compromise will be
properly effected, provided the arbitration be conducted in a just manner. But Heaven
forbid that the compromise should be effected in a perverse way! For just as they are
warned not to wrest a judgment so are they warned not to wrest a compromise.

****

102
 ‰¢È‡¯‰ ˙¯‚‡
®±∏∂µ≠±π≥µ ¨Ï‡¯˘È ı¯‡ ≠‰È·ËÏ© ˜Â˜ ˜ÁˆÈ ̉¯·‡ ·¯‰
¢ژ
„ÂÁÈ· ¨ÔÈ„‰ ÈÏÚ· Ï˘ Ìˆ¯ ÈÙ ÏÚ ¨‰¯˘Ù· ÒÎ‰Ï ¨¯·„Ï ˙¯˘Ù‡ ˘È˘Î ¨Í¯Âˆ‰ ˙Ú Ïη ÌÈÏ„˙˘Ó Â‡ ÔÎ
ÏÚ ‰„·Î ‡È‰˘Î ‰Ê Ì‚ ÔÓ„ÊÈ˘ ÂÓÎ Ô΢ ÏÎÓ ¨„ˆ ‰ÊÈ‡Ï È‡„Ó ¯˙ÂÈ ‰ÙȯÁ ‡È‰ ËÙ˘Ó‰ ˙„Ó˘ ̘ӷ
ËÂÚ·Ï ÂÏ ÈÏÈÏÁ Ï·‡ Æ¢‰¯˘ÙÏ „Á‡Â ÔÈ„Ï „Á‡ Û„¯˙ ˜„ˆ ˜„ˆ¢ Ìȇ¯Â˜ Â‡ ‰Ê ÏÚ ¨„ÁÈ ÌÈ„„ˆ‰ È˘
ÆÆÆÆÆÂÏ˘ ËÙ˘Ó· ‰Ê ÏÈ·˘·
Iggerot Rayah
Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (Latvia - Land of Israel, 1865-1935)
Number 176

We endeavor thus, whenever the need arises, when the possibility exists to enter
[into] a compromise at the behest of the litigants, specifically in an instance where
the [pure] quality of justice will be too severe for one party, and even more so if it will
be severe for both parties. It is in this regard that we state: “You shall surely pursue
justice - this applies both to judgment and to mediation.” However, God forbid, we
should use this to detract from our jurisprudence...

****

Summary

A Talmudic discussion took place debating if compromise has the same legal validity
as a judgment rendered in court. Is a compromise equal to a judicial decision, or
does it require another legal apparatus like a kinyan (symbolic act of agreement) to
make it binding? The Rabbis concluded that in order to make a compromise binding
it is necessary to perform a kinyan, which obligates both parties to uphold to their
compromise. An opposite view maintains that the resolution of a dispute through
compromise is not preferential, and even detrimental, to the achievement of justice.
Compromise, so the opponents argue, does not find one side right and the other
wrong, and in some cases a legal decision is necessary in order to conclude the dispute.
This view is often cited with regard to criminal cases where a compromise can be
detrimental to the victim, because it gives legitimacy to the perpetrator.
If a court case has not yet begun, then the judge can advise the sides to go to
mediation or arbitration, i.e., enter into a process of compromise. Such is the case even
if the judge knows that one side is right and the other wrong.This discussion recognizes
the fact that compromise can sometimes circumvent justice, especially when one side’s
claims are justified.Thus, not all cases are appropriate for mediation or arbitration, and
it is better that the court should rule on the conflict.
The Talmud’s discussion not only asks whether a form of compromise is allowed,
but also questions if it is preferable or just permitted. The discussion concludes that
compromise is permitted but not always a preferable process.
The Rambam describes how the judges should first offer the sides an opportunity

103
for compromise. If they accept, then the judges will decide on a compromise for the
sides, thereby not a ruling in favor of one side or the other. A court that undertakes
to find a compromise is praised and said to be following the law of peace. Once a
compromise has been determined, the sides cannot go back on the decision and ask
for a standard court ruling.
In Halachah, as we have seen, the sides in dispute should be offered a compromise
solution as an alternative to the courts. In such cases a kinyan is required as sign of
good will, and so that the sides cannot renege on the outcome. However, if the kinyan
has not yet been accepted by both sides, that is, before the compromise agreement
has been validated, then the compromise procedure can be cancelled. The judge must
take care to make a fair and lasting compromise that does not favor either side. For
example, some studies have claimed that in male-female mediation procedures, the
female side can be at a disadvantage and agree to an unfair compromise or, on the
contrary, she may have received a fairer decision in court. In such cases, the judge must
make every effort to be impartial so that the compromise will be fair to both sides.
A compromise decision must be unanimous and not a majority decision as other
court decisions. The mediator in a compromise process does not have to be a court
judge, but can be any person that the sides agree on.

104
3.6 Reconciliation ˙ÂÒÈÈÙ˙‰
˙È˘‡¯·
‚Î ˜ÂÒÙ ÁÈ ˜¯Ù
∫Ú˘¯ ÌÚ ˜È„ˆ ‰ÙÒ˙ Û‡‰ ¯Ó‡È ̉¯·‡ ˘‚ÈÂ

Genesis
Chapter 18 Verse 23
And Abraham drew near, and said, Will you also destroy the righteous with the
wicked?

****
È¢˘¯
®±∞¥∞≠±±∞µ ¨˙Ù¯ˆ© ȘÁˆÈ ‰ÓÏ˘ È·¯
‚Î∫ÁÈ ˙È˘‡¯·
‰˘‚‰Â ¨‰„Â‰È ÂÈχ ˘‚È ÒÂÈÙÏ ‰˘‚‰ ¨¯Ó‚ ·‡ÂÈ ˘‚È ®‚È∫È ß· χӢ© ‰ÓÁÏÓÏ ‰˘‚‰ ÂÈˆÓ ≠ ̉¯·‡ ˘‚ÈÂ
∫‰ÏÙ˙Ï ÒÂÈÙÏ ¨˙¢˜ ¯·„Ï ¨Ì‰¯·‡ ÒÎ ‰Ï‡ ÏÎÏ ¨‡È·‰ ‰Èχ ˘‚È ®ÂÏ∫ÁÈ ß‡ ÌÈÎÏÓ© ‰ÏÙ˙Ï

Rashi
Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (France, 1040-1105)
Genesis 18:23

And Abraham drew near. We find [the expression] drawing near regarding war “and
Joab drew near” (II Sam. 10:13) and “drawing near” regarding conciliation. “And
Judah drew near to him” (Gen. 44:18) and “drawing near” regarding prayer. “And
Elijah the Prophet drew near” (I Kings 18:36) and for all these Abraham entered: [was
prepared] to speak harshly, and for conciliation and for prayer.

****
˙È˘‡¯·
ÂÈ≠„ ÌȘÂÒÙ ‚Ï ˜¯Ù

¯Ó‡È ÌÈ„Ïȉ ˙‡Â ÌÈ˘‰ ˙‡ ‡¯È ÂÈÈÚ ˙‡ ‡˘È ∫ÂηÈ ‰˜˘È ¯‡Âˆ ÏÚ ÏÙÈ ‰˜·ÁÈ Â˙‡¯˜Ï Â˘Ú ı¯È
‰‡Ï Ì‚ ˘‚˙ ∫ÔÈÂÁ˙˘˙ ԉȄÏÈ ‰‰ ˙ÂÁÙ˘‰ Ô˘‚˙ ∫Í„·Ú ˙‡ Ìȉχ ÔÁ ¯˘‡ ÌÈ„Ïȉ ¯Ó‡È ÍÏ ‰Ï‡ ÈÓ
ÔÁ ‡ˆÓÏ ¯Ó‡È È˙˘‚Ù ¯˘‡ ‰Ê‰ ‰ÁÓ‰ ÏÎ ÍÏ ÈÓ ¯Ó‡È ∫ÂÂÁ˙˘È ÏÁ¯Â ÛÒÂÈ ˘‚ ¯Á‡Â ÂÂÁ˙˘È ‰È„ÏÈÂ
˙Á˜Ï ÍÈÈÚ· ÔÁ È˙‡ˆÓ ‡ ̇ ‡ χ ·˜ÚÈ ¯Ó‡È ∫ÍÏ ¯˘‡ ÍÏ È‰È ÈÁ‡ ·¯ ÈÏ ˘È Â˘Ú ¯Ó‡È ∫È„‡ ÈÈÚ·
∫Èˆ¯˙ Ìȉχ ÈÙ ˙‡¯Î ÍÈÙ È˙ȇ¯ ÔÎ ÏÚ ÈÎ È„ÈÓ È˙ÁÓ

Genesis
Chapter 33 Verses 4-10

And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him;
and they wept. And he lifted up his eyes, and saw the women and the children; and
said, Who are those with you? And he said, The children whom G-d has graciously
given your servant. Then the maidservants came near, they and their children, and
they bowed down. And Leah also with her children came near, and bowed themselves;

105
 and after came Joseph near and Rachel, and they bowed down. And he said, What
do you mean by all this drove which I met? And he said, These are to find grace in
the sight of my lord. And Esau said, I have enough, my brother; keep what you have
to yourself. And Jacob said, No, I beg you, if now I have found grace in your sight, then
receive my present from my hand; for therefore I have seen your face, as though I had
seen the face of G-d, and you were pleased with me .
****
È¢˘¯
®±±∞µ≠±∞¥∞ ¨˙Ù¯ˆ© ȘÁˆÈ ‰ÓÏ˘ È·¯
È∫‚Ï ˙È˘‡¯·
‰È‰È Ôˆ¯Ï ‡Ï ÈÎ ®Î ·Î ‡¯˜È© Ê¢ÚÏ· Ë¢ÈÓÈÈÙ‡ ¨ÒÂÈÙ ÔÂ˘Ï ‡¯˜Ó·˘ Ôˆ¯ ÏÎ ÔΠ¨ÈÏ ˙ÒÈÈÙ˙ ≠ Èˆ¯˙Â
∫˙ˆ¯Ï ÒÈÈÙÏ ÌÈÚ„ÂÈ ¨Ôˆ¯ ÔÂÚ„È ˜È„ˆ È˙Ù˘ ®·Ï∫È ÈÏ˘Ó© ÔΠ¨Ôˆ¯Ï ÒÈÈÙÏ ˙‡· ˙Â·¯˜‰ ¨ÌÎÏ

Rashi
Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (France, 1040-1105)
Genesis 33:10

And you were pleased with me:You were appeased by me.And similarly, every [instance
of [‫ רצון‬in the Bible denotes appeasement (appaisement in Old French). “For it shall
not be acceptable for you” (Lev. 22:20) the sacrifices come to appease and conciliate;
and similarly, “The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable” (Proverbs 10:32)
[i.e.,] they know how to appease and conciliate.

****
‰·¯ ˙È˘‡¯·
„Ù ‰˘¯Ù
¨ÔÁ·˘ Ú„ÂÈ ‰˙‡ ÌÈË·˘ Ï˘ Ô˙Â‚ ÍÂ˙Ó ‡¯ÈÚÊ ¯· ‰·‰‡ ·¯ ¯Ó‡ ¨ÂÈÁ‡ ÏÎÓ Ì‰È·‡ ·‰‡ Â˙‡ ÈÎ ÂÈÁ‡ ‡¯ÈÂ
¯·„ ÂÏÎÈ ‡Ï ‡Î‰ ̯· ¨‰È·ÈÏ· ‰È·ÈÏ· È„ ¨·ÂË „Ú گÓÏ ÔÂÓ‡ ÌÚ ÌÂÏ˘·‡ ¯·„ ‡Ï ®‚È · χÂÓ˘© ÔωÏ
ÆÔ‰ÓÂÙ· Ô‰·ÈÏ· È„ ÌÂÏ˘Ï

Genesis Rabbah
Portion 84

AND WHEN HIS BRETHREN SAW THAT THEIR FATHER LOVED HIM MORE THAN
ALL HIS BRETHREN, THEY HATED HlM, AND COULD NOT SPEAK PEACEABLY
UNTO HIM (Gen. 37:4). R. Ahava b. Ze’ira said: From the very disgrace of the tribal
ancestors you learn their virtues. Elsewhere it says, And Absalom spoke unto Amnon
neither good nor bad (II Sam. 13:22), keeping in his heart what he felt in his heart.
Whereas here, AND COULD NOT SPEAK PEACEABLY UNTO HIM - what was in
their heart was on their tongues.

****

106
 È˙·¯ ‰ÏÎ ˙ÎÒÓ
È ‰Îω ‚ ˜¯Ù

ÆÂ˙‡ ÒÈÈÙ˙ ÍÏ˙˘ „Ú ¨Ï„‚ ÍÈÈÚ· È‰È ¨Ô¢ Ú¯ ¯·„ ÌȯÁ‡ ÏÚ ˙¯Ó‡ ̇Â
ȇ ¨˙·˘· ÂÏÈه ÌÈÙÁ‰ ˙‡ ÔÈÓÒ¯ÙÓ ‡È˙ ‡‰Â ¨Â‰Ï ˘ÈÈÁ È‡Ó ÌȈ¯ٷ ȇ„ ¨Ìȯ˘Î· ¯Ó‡ ˜ÈÒÚ ‡˜
‡˘È¯ ¨È˙ËÓÏ È¯È·Á ˙ÏϘ ‰˙ÏÚ ‡Ï ÈÓÈÓ ¯Ó‡ ÔÂÚÓ˘ ߯ ‡‰Â ¨‡Ï ÌȈ¯ٷ ‡‰ ¨Ìȯ˘Î· ÈÓ ‡˘È¯ ÈΉ
Ƈ˙ȇ„Î ‡‰Â ¨‡˙ȇ„Î
ȇ¯˜‡ Ì˙‰ ÂÏȇ„ ¨Âί·Ï Íȯˆ˘ ‡Ï‡ „ÂÚ ‡Ï ¯Ó‡„ ‡ÂÓ‰ ·¯Ï ‰ÈÏ ‡ÚÈÈÒÓ ¨Â˙‡ ÒÈÈÙ˙ ÍÏ˙˘ „Ú
‰Á΢‡ ‡Ï ȇ ‡ÓÏÈ„ ¨‡ÂÓ‰ ·¯ ÍÏ ¯Ó‡ ¨‡ÂÓ‰ ·¯„‡ ‡‚ÈÏÙ ‡ÓÈÏ È¯Ó‡„ ‡Îȇ ª‡ÎÈÏ ‡Î‰ ¨‡ÓÏÚ·
Ɖ¯˙· ÏÈʇ ‰Â‰

Kallah Rabati
Chapter 3 Law 10

And if you have attributed a minor evil to others, let it be serious in your eyes until you
go and appease him. It deals here with honorable men, for if [it dealt with] dissolute
men what do they care? But it has been taught: We should expose hypocrites [and
this should be done] even on the Sabbath. If so, the earlier statement must also refer
to honorable and not dissolute men! But Rabbi Simeon said: Never in my life has
the curse of my fellow gone up with me upon my bed! The earlier statement is to be
understood as it is and the latter as it is.
Until you go and appease him. This statement supports Rabbi Hamnunah who said:
[If one wrongly suspected another, he must conciliate him:] nay more, he must bless
him. No, [it is no support]. There [in the teaching of Rabbi Hamnunah it speaks of
a case] when he meets his fellow by chance, but here [in the Baraitha it speaks of
his] going [to appease him].There are others who say:There is a difference here with
Rabbi Hamnunah [who can reply]: Should he not find him, he goes [searching] after
him.

****

ÌȘȄˆ ˙ÂÁ¯Â‡ ¯ÙÒ

‰·‰‡‰ ¯Ú˘
¨Ì˙˜ÂÏÁÓ· Ì‰Ï ÚÈÈÒÈ Ì˙·‰‡ ÍÂ˙Ó ¨ÂȯȷÁ ÂÈÚȯ ¨Âȷ¯˜ ¯‡˘Â ¨ÂÈ˙ÂÈÁ‡Â ÂÈÁ‡Â ¨ÂӇ ÂÈ·‡ ¨Âȷ¯˜ ˙·‰‡
„Ú ÏÂÁÓÏ ÂÏ Ôȇ ≠ ÌÈ·¯· ‰ÂÊ· ̇ ԂΠÆÆÆÆÌ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÈÏÚ·· ÂÚ˘Ù Ì‰ ̇ ˜„˜„È ‡Ï ˘ÂÁÈ ‡ÏÂ
ƉÂÒÈÈÙÈ˘
Pathways of the Righteous
Gate to Love
The love of man for his relatives - his father and his mother, his brothers an his sisters
and the rest of his kind, friends and companion, and because of his love for them
he helps them in their quarrels, and does not feel, nor does he ascertain whether or
not his relatives did wrong against the other party of the quarrel, but always helps,
protects and shelters them...
Similarly, if people have shamed him publicly he should not forgive them until they
have entreated and appeased him.

107
 ÌȘȄˆ ˙ÂÁ¯Â‡ ¯ÙÒ
‰Ë¯Á‰ ¯Ú˘
‫ ואי‬.‫ כאילו לא חטא‬,‫ כי מי שחטא ומתחרט‬,‫ היא דרך ישרה מאד לענין התשובה‬.‫ הוא שעושה אדם דבר וחוזר בו ומתנחם על המעשה‬- ‫החרטה‬
.‫ לעולם לא יתכפרו עוונותיו אם אינו מתחרט עליהם‬:‫ פירוש‬,‫אפשר לשוב בלא חרטה‬
,‫ אם עשית דבר כנגד חבירך‬.‫ כי אז תהיה מתחרט ואין תקנה לחרטה ההיא‬,‫ ואל תאחר עד בואך לקבר‬,‫בן אדם! שוב בעוד שהחרטה שלך‬
‫ אם‬.‫ קבלהו‬- ‫ רק שהוא מנקה עצמו נגדך‬,‫ אפילו אם ספק לך אם מתחרט בלבו‬:‫ קבלהו‬- ‫ ואם חבירך פשע בך ומתחרט‬,‫התחרט ותלך ותרצהו‬
‫ כי אם‬,‫ אל תתחרט על אותה קטטה‬,"‫ "ובתקוממיך אתקוטט‬:(‫ כדרך שאמר דוד )תהלים קלט כא‬,‫הוכחת אותו בדברים קשים עד שהוא שונאך‬
.‫ אז יתחזק בטעותו‬,‫תתחרט ותבקש ממנו מחילה‬
Pathways of the Righteous
Gate to Remorse

Remorse is the quality wherein a person does something and then in retrospect
regrets the deed. This is the most direct path to repentance because he who has
sinned and regrets, it is as though he had not sinned.
It is impossible to repent without remorse. This means that a man’s wrongs are not
atoned for if he does not regret them. Even his prayer is not accepted unless he
regrets his deed, for how can he say, “Forgive us our Father for we have sinned” if he
does not regret his sins?
O son of man! Repent while you still have the power to repent and do not delay until
you approach the grave, for then when you regret your acts it is too late to repair
the wrong. If you have done a thing against your companion, regret it and go and
appease him and if your companion has wronged you and regrets it - welcome him.
Even though you doubt he is sorry in his heart and believe that he wants only to seem
sincere in your eyes - welcome him. If you have rebuked him with harsh words until
he hates you as David said, “And do I not strive with those that rise up against Thee?”
(Ps. 139:21), do not regret such a quarrel and do not seek forgiveness, for if you do
express remorse and plead for forgiveness he will continue to err.

****
Summary

The Bible records a number of examples of reconciliation. When Abraham

approached G-d to argue on behalf of the people of Sodom - asking that G-d should
not destroy their city - he approached in a reconciliatory attitude, pleading with G-d
not to destroy them. Influenced by Abraham’s example, Jacob approached his brother
Esau seeking reconciliation. Despite the fact that Esau sought to kill Jacob in revenge for
the theft of his birthright, Jacob approached his elder brother with presents and came
in peace hoping to reconcile their differences.
The Jewish sources encourage reconciliation. If one has insulted his friend, he is
told to go in the spirit of reconciliation and apologize to him for the insult. One should
assist family members in resolving their conflicts and encourage them to reconcile their
differences. If one feels animosity inside, he should refrain from giving voice to it, for
the sake of preserving peaceful family relations. One should make amends for one’s
wrongdoings before it is too late to do so. The offended party should forgive offence
and accept a reconciliatory advance, even thought he not be sure if the offer of peace
is made wholeheartedly.

108
4. APPROACHES TO MANAGING CONFLICT
ÍÂÒÎÒ Ï‰ÈÏ ˙Â˘È‚

4.1 Prohibition Against Revenge and Bearing a Grudge

‰¯ÈË ‰ÓȘ ¯ÂÒȇ

‡¯˜ÈÂ
ÁÈ ˜ÂÒÙ ËÈ ˜¯Ù
∫߉ È‡ ÍÂÓÎ ÍÚ¯Ï ˙·‰‡Â ÍÓÚ È· ˙‡ ¯Ë˙ ‡Ï ̘˙ ‡Ï
ֿ
Leviticus
Chapter 19 Verse 18

You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you
shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.

****
È¢˘¯
®±±∞µ≠±∞¥∞ ¨˙Ù¯ˆ© ¨È˜ÁˆÈ ‰ÓÏ˘ È·¯
ÁÈ∫ËÈ ‡¯˜ÈÂ

ÍÏȇ˘Ó Èȇ ÂÏ ¯Ó‡ ÆÍÓ„¯˜ ÈÏȇ˘‰ ÂÏ ¯Ó‡ ¯ÁÓÏ ÆÂ‡Ï ÂÏ ¯Ó‡ ÆÍÏ‚Ó ÈÏȇ˘‰ ÂÏ ¯Ó‡ ≠ ̘˙ ‡Ï
¯Ó‡ ¯ÁÓÏ ÆÂ‡Ï ÂÏ ¯Ó‡ ÆÍÓ„¯˜ ÈÏȇ˘‰ ÂÏ ¯Ó‡ ¨‰¯ÈË ‡È‰ ÂÊȇ ƉÓȘ ‡È‰ ÂÊ ¨È˙χ˘‰ ‡Ï˘ ͯ„Î
ÏÚ Û‡ ·Ϸ ‰·È‡‰ ¯ËÂ˘ ¨‰¯ÈË ‡È‰ ÂÊ ÆÈ˙χ˘‰ ‡Ï˘ ¨Í˙ÂÓÎ Èȇ ÍÏ ‡‰ ÂÏ ¯Ó‡ ÆÍÏ‚Ó ÈÏȇ˘‰ ÂÏ
∫̘Â Âȇ˘ ÈÙ
∫‰¯Â˙· Ï„‚ ÏÏÎ ‰Ê ‡·È˜Ú È·¯ ¯Ó‡ ≠ ÍÂÓÎ ÍÚ¯Ï ˙·‰‡Â

Rashi
Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (France, 1040-1105)
Leviticus 19:18

You shall not take vengeance: If one mans says to another, “Lend me you sickle” [and
the latter] says to him “no” [and] on the morrow [the second man] says to him [to
the first],“Lend me your axe” [and the first man] says to him,“I will not lend it to you;
just as you did not lend it to me,” this is taking vengeance.” And what is “bearing a
grudge” [if one ] says to another, “Lend me your axe” and the latter says to him, “No”
[and ] on the morrow [the latter] says to him [to the first], “Lend me your sickle,”
[and the first man] says to him,“Here it is. I am not like you who did not lend [it] to
me,” this is bearing a grudge for he guards the hatred in his heart even though he
does not take vengeance.

****

109
 ÌȘȄˆ ˙ÂÁ¯Â‡ ¯ÙÒ
˙ÂȯÊ·‰ ¯Ú˘
¨¢Ì˜ ÌÂÈ· ÏÂÓÁÈ ‡Ï¢ ∫®„Ï∫ ÈÏ˘Ó© ·È˙΄Π¨Âȷȇ· ‰Ó˜ ‚È˘‰Ï Ì„‡ Ï˘ ¢Ù· ˙‡Ê‰ ‰„ÈÓ‰ „ÂÚÂ
ÂÏÈÙ‡ ¨¢¯ÂË˙ ‡Ï Ì˜˙ ‡Ï¢ ∫®ÁÈ∫ËÈ ‡¯˜È© ¯Ó‡ ·Â˙Ή ¨˙ÂȯÊ· ‡Ï‡ ‰ÏÓÁ Ôȇ ≠ ‰Ó˜ ˘È˘Î ¨˘Â¯ÈÙ
Â˙ÚÈ˘Ù ‡Ï· ÏÙ ̇ Û‡ ‡Ï‰ ƯȷÁ ˙‡ ˙ÂÎ‰Ï ÌÈ„È· ‰˘ÚÓ ˙¢ÚÏ ‡Ï˘ Ô΢ ÏÎ ¨Â¯‰Ê‰ ·Ï· ¯ÂËÈÏ
¯È·ÚÓ Âȇ ¯ËÂ‰Â ̘Â‰Â Æ¢Í·Ï Ï‚È Ï‡ ÂÏ˘Î·Â ÁÓ˘˙ χ ͷȇ ÏÂÙ·¢ ∫®ÊÈ∫„Î ÈÏ˘Ó© ·È˙΄Π¨ÁÓ˘È ‡Ï
‰·ÂË ‰Ó ˙Ú„È ¯·Î ¨‰‡˘‰Â ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ ͢ÂÓ ¯¯Â‚ ‰Ê ¨ÂÈÏÚ ÌÈÚ˘ÂÙ‰ ÂȯȷÁÏ ÏÁÂÓ Âȇ ¨ÂÈ˙„ÈÓ ÏÚ
ÆÌÂÏ˘‰ ˙„ÈÓ ‰ÓÈÚ ‰ÓÂ

Pathways of the Righteous

Gate to Cruelty

And there is this aspect of the quality of cruelty in the soul of man - to avenge himself
on his enemies as it is written: “And he will not spare in the day of vengeance” (Prov.
6:14).The meaning of this verse is that where there is the desire for vengeance there
is no compassion, only cruelty. And Scripture says, “You shall not avenge nor bear a
grudge” (Lev. 19:18). We are wanted not to bear a grudge even in our heart - all
the more so not to do any deed with the hands to hurt a companion. Even when
your enemy has fallen through no fault of yours, you must not rejoice as it is written:
“Rejoice not when your enemy falls and when he stumbles let not your heart be
glad” (Prov. 24:17).The avenger or the grudge-holder never overlooks a grievance and
never forgives his companions who have wronged him, and this attitude drags after it
quarrels and hatred, and you already know how good and how pleasant is the quality
of peace.

****

Summary

Revenge is a natural human response to an offense inflicted by another. Although a

visceral desire, vengeance is a negative response that sets off the spiral of violence in
which one hate-filled act is followed by another. In order to suppress the violent spiral
at its beginning and to halt the subsequent perpetuation of hatred and disdain, the
Bible commands us not to take revenge or to bear a grudge against our fellows. This
commandment includes acts of unlawful retaliation against the perpetrator and, even if
revenge is not taken, one should not continue to bear a grudge in one’s heart. Revenge
is seen as an act of cruelty. It perpetuates conflict and hatred between people.

110
4.2 Cities of refuge ËÏ˜Ó È¯Ú
˙È˘‡¯·
 ˜ÂÒÙ Ë ˜¯Ù

∫Ì„‡‰ ˙‡ ‰˘Ú Ìȉχ Ìψ· ÈÎ ÍÙ˘È ÂÓ„ Ì„‡· Ì„‡‰ Ì„ ÍÙ˘

Genesis
Chapter 9 Verse 6

Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of G-d
He made man.

****
¯·„Ó·
‚Ï≠Ë ÌȘÂÒÙ ‰Ï ˜¯Ù
Ì˙ȯ˜‰Â ∫ÔÚÎ ‰ˆ¯‡ Ô„¯È‰ ˙‡ Ìȯ·Ú Ì˙‡ ÈΠ̉χ ˙¯Ó‡Â χ¯˘È È· χ ¯·„ ∫¯Ó‡Ï ‰˘Ó χ ߉ ¯·„ÈÂ
‡Ï χ‚Ó ËϘÓÏ Ìȯډ ÌÎÏ Âȉ ∫‰‚‚˘· ˘Ù ‰ÎÓ Áˆ¯ ‰Ó˘ Ò ÌÎÏ ‰Èȉ˙ ËÏ˜Ó È¯Ú ÌÈ¯Ú ÌÎÏ
Ìȯډ ˘Ï˘ ˙‡ ∫ÌÎÏ ‰Èȉ˙ ËÏ˜Ó È¯Ú ˘˘ Â˙˙ ¯˘‡ Ìȯډ ∫ËÙ˘ÓÏ ‰„Ú‰ ÈÙÏ Â„ÓÚ „Ú Áˆ¯‰ ˙ÂÓÈ
ÌÎÂ˙· ·˘Â˙Ï ¯‚Ï χ¯˘È È·Ï ∫‰Èȉ˙ ËÏ˜Ó È¯Ú ÔÚÎ ı¯‡· Â˙˙ Ìȯډ ˘Ï˘ ˙‡Â Ô„¯ÈÏ ¯·ÚÓ Â˙˙
‡Â‰ Áˆ¯ ˙ÓÈ ‰Ή Ïʯ· ÈÏη ̇ ∫‰‚‚˘· ˘Ù ‰ÎÓ ÏÎ ‰Ó˘ ÒÂÏ ËϘÓÏ ‰Ï‡‰ Ìȯډ ˘˘ ‰Èȉ˙
¯˘‡ „È ıÚ ÈÏη ‡ ∫Áˆ¯‰ ˙ÓÂÈ ˙ÂÓ ‡Â‰ Áˆ¯ ˙ÓÈ ‰Ή ‰· ˙ÂÓÈ ¯˘‡ „È Ô·‡· ̇ ∫Áˆ¯‰ ˙ÓÂÈ ˙ÂÓ
̇ ∫Â˙ÈÓÈ ‡Â‰ · ÂÚ‚Ù· Áˆ¯‰ ˙‡ ˙ÈÓÈ ‡Â‰ Ì„‰ χ‚ ∫Áˆ¯‰ ˙ÓÂÈ ˙ÂÓ ‡Â‰ Áˆ¯ ˙ÓÈ ‰Ή · ˙ÂÓÈ
Ì„‰ χ‚ ‡Â‰ Áˆ¯ ‰ÎÓ‰ ˙ÓÂÈ ˙ÂÓ ˙ÓÈ „ȷ ‰Ή ‰·È‡· ‡ ∫˙ÓÈ ‰È„ˆ· ÂÈÏÚ ÍÈÏ˘‰ ‡ ÂÙ„‰È ‰‡˘·
¯˘‡ Ô·‡ Ïη ‡ ∫‰È„ˆ ‡Ï· ÈÏÎ ÏÎ ÂÈÏÚ ÍÈÏ˘‰ ‡ ÂÙ„‰ ‰·È‡ ‡Ï· Ú˙Ù· ̇ ∫· ÂÚ‚Ù· Áˆ¯‰ ˙‡ ˙ÈÓÈ
Ì„‰ χ‚ ÔÈ·Â ‰ÎÓ‰ ÔÈ· ‰„Ú‰ ÂËÙ˘Â ∫Â˙Ú¯ ˘˜·Ó ‡Ï ÂÏ ·È‡ ‡Ï ‡Â‰Â ˙ÓÈ ÂÈÏÚ ÏÙÈ ˙‡¯ ‡Ï· ‰· ˙ÂÓÈ
Ò ¯˘‡ ÂËÏ˜Ó ¯ÈÚ Ï‡ ‰„Ú‰ Â˙‡ Â·È˘‰Â Ì„‰ χ‚ „ÈÓ Áˆ¯‰ ˙‡ ‰„Ú‰ ÂÏȈ‰Â ∫‰Ï‡‰ ÌÈËÙ˘Ó‰ ÏÚ
ÂËÏ˜Ó ¯ÈÚ Ï·‚ ˙‡ Áˆ¯‰ ‡ˆÈ ‡ˆÈ ̇ ∫˘„˜‰ ÔÓ˘· Â˙‡ Á˘Ó ¯˘‡ Ï„‚‰ ԉΉ ˙ÂÓ „Ú ‰· ·˘È ‰Ó˘
¯ÈÚ· ÈÎ ∫Ì„ ÂÏ Ôȇ Áˆ¯‰ ˙‡ Ì„‰ χ‚ Áˆ¯Â ÂËÏ˜Ó ¯ÈÚ Ï·‚Ï ıÂÁÓ Ì„‰ χ‚ Â˙‡ ‡ˆÓ ∫‰Ó˘ ÒÂÈ ¯˘‡
˙˜ÁÏ ÌÎÏ ‰Ï‡ Âȉ ∫Â˙ÊÁ‡ ı¯‡ χ Áˆ¯‰ ·Â˘È Ï„‚‰ ԉΉ ˙ÂÓ È¯Á‡Â Ï„‚‰ ԉΉ ˙ÂÓ „Ú ·˘È ÂËϘÓ
∫˙ÂÓÏ ˘Ù· ‰ÚÈ ‡Ï „Á‡ „Ú Áˆ¯‰ ˙‡ Áˆ¯È ÌÈ„Ú ÈÙÏ ˘Ù ‰ÎÓ ÏÎ ∫ÌÎÈ˙·˘ÂÓ Ïη ÌÎÈ˙¯„Ï ËÙ˘Ó
·Â˘Ï ÂËÏ˜Ó ¯ÈÚ Ï‡ ÒÂÏ ¯ÙÎ ÂÁ˜˙ ‡Ï ∫˙ÓÂÈ ˙ÂÓ ÈÎ ˙ÂÓÏ Ú˘¯ ‡Â‰ ¯˘‡ Áˆ¯ ˘ÙÏ ¯ÙÎ ÂÁ˜˙ ‡ÏÂ
‡Ï ı¯‡Ï ı¯‡‰ ˙‡ ÛÈÁÈ ‡Â‰ Ì„‰ ÈÎ ‰· Ì˙‡ ¯˘‡ ı¯‡‰ ˙‡ ÂÙÈÁ˙ ‡Ï ∫ԉΉ ˙ÂÓ „Ú ı¯‡· ˙·˘Ï
∫ÂÎÙ˘ Ì„· ̇ ÈÎ ‰· ÍÙ˘ ¯˘‡ Ì„Ï ¯ÙÎÈ

Numbers
Chapter 35 Verse 9-33

And the Lord spoke to Moses saying: Speak to the people of Israel, and say to them:
When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall appoint you
cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the manslayer who kills any person unawares
may flee there. And they shall be to you cities for refuge from the avenger, that the
manslayer should not die, until he stands before the congregation in judgment. And
the cities which you shall give shall be six cities for refuge. You shall give three cities
in this side of the Jordan, and three cities you shall give in the land of Canaan. They
shall be cities of refuge.These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the people of Israel,

111
 and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them, that everyone who kills any
person without intent may flee there. But if he hits him with an instrument of iron, so
that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he hits
him by hand with a stone, whereby he may die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall
surely be put to death. Or if he hits him with a weapon of wood in his hand, whereby
he may die, and he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.
The avenger of blood shall himself slay the murderer; when he meets him, he shall
slay him. And if he stabbed him out of hatred, or hurled something at him while lying
in wait, that he died; or if in enmity he hits him with his hand, so that he dies; he who
hit him shall surely be put to death, for he is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall
slay the murderer when he meets him. But if he stabbed him suddenly without enmity,
or hurled upon him anything without lying in wait; or with any stone, whereby a man
may die, without seeing him, and cast upon him, that he died, and he was not his
enemy, nor sought his harm, then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer
and the avenger of blood, according to these judgments. And the congregation shall
deliver the slayer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall
restore him to his city of refuge, where he had fled; and he shall live there until the
death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil. But if the man slayer
shall at any time go outside the border of the city of his refuge, where he had fled,
and the avenger of blood finds him outside the borders of the city of his refuge, and
the avenger of blood kills the slayer, he shall not be guilty of blood. Because he must
remain in his city of refuge, until the death of the high priest; but after the death of
the high priest the man slayer may return to the land of his possession. And these
things shall be for a statute of judgment to you throughout your generations in all
your dwellings. Whoever kills any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the
evidence of witnesses, but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause
him to die. Moreover, you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty
of death, but he shall surely be put to death. And you shall take no ransom for him
who has fled to his city of refuge, that he should come back to live in the land, until
the death of the priest. So you shall not pollute the land in which you are, for blood
pollutes the land; and the land can not be cleansed of the blood that is shed there,
but by the blood of him who shed it.

****
˙ÂÎÓ ˙ÎÒÓ ‰˘Ó
 ‰˘Ó · ˜¯Ù

Â˙‡ ÔȇȷÓ ÔÈÁÏ¢ ÔÈ„ ˙È·Â ËÏ˜Ó È¯ÚÏ ÔÈÓÈ„˜Ó „ÈÊÓ „Á‡Â ‚‚¢ „Á‡ ‰ÏÁ˙· ¯Ó‡ ‰„Â‰È ¯· ÈÒÂÈ ß¯
Â˙‡ ÔȯÈÊÁÓ ˙ÂÏ‚ ·ÈÈÁ˙˘ ÈÓ Â‰Â¯ËÙ ‰˙ÈÓ ·ÈÈÁ˙ ‡Ï˘Â ‰‚¯‰ ÔÈ„ ˙È·· ‰˙ÈÓ ·ÈÈÁ˙˘ ÈÓ Ì˘Ó
„Á‡Â ‰Á˘Ó‰ ÔÓ˘· ÁÂ˘Ó „Á‡ ß‚ ÂËÏ˜Ó ¯ÈÚ Ï‡ ‰„Ú‰ Â˙‡ Â·È˘‰Â ®‰Ï ¯·„Ó·© ¯Ó‡˘ ÂÓ˜ÓÏ
˙‡ ¯ÈÊÁÓ ‰ÓÁÏÓ ÁÂ˘Ó Û‡ ¯Ó‡ ‰„Â‰È È·¯ ÁˆÂ¯‰ ˙‡ ÔȯÈÊÁÓ Â˙ÁÈ˘ÓÓ ¯·Ú˘ „Á‡Â ÌÈ„‚·· ‰·Â¯Ó‰
¯Ó‚˘Ó Â˙ÂÓÈ˘ ̉È· ÏÚ ÂÏÏÙ˙È ‡Ï˘ È„Î ˙ÂÒΠ‰ÈÁÓ Ô‰Ï ˙˜ÙÒÓ ÌÈ‰Î Ï˘ Ô‰È˙ÂÓ‡ ÍÎÈÙÏ ÁˆÂ¯‰
¯Ó‚ ÔÎÓ ¯Á‡Ï ÂÈ˙Á˙ ¯Á‡ ÂÓ Ï„‚ ԉΠ˙Ó ÂÈ„ ¯Ó‚ ‡Ï˘ „Ú Ì‡ ‰Ï‚ Âȇ ‰Ê ȯ‰ Ï„‚ ԉΠ˙Ó ÂÈ„
∫È˘ Ï˘ Â˙˙ÈÓ· ¯ÊÂÁ ÂÈ„

Mishnah Makot
Chapter 2 Mishnah 6

R. Jose b. Judah says:To begin with, a slayer was sent in advance to [one of] the cities
of refuge, whether he had slain in error or with intent.Then the court sent and brought

112
 him thence.Whoever was found guilty of a capital crime the court had executed, and
whoever was found not guilty of a capital crime they acquitted. Whoever was found
liable to banishment they restored to his place [of refuge] as it is ordained, and the
congregation shall restore him to the city of refuge whither he was fled. It is all one
whether a high priest [who died] had been anointed with the [holy] anointing oil; or
had been consecrated by the many vestments, or had retired from his office - all make
possible the return of the manslayer; R. Judah says also the [death of the] priest who
had been anointed for war permits the return of the manslayer. Therefore, mothers
of high priests were wont to provide food and raiment for them that they might not
pray for their son’s death.

****
˙ÂÎÓ ˙ÎÒÓ ‰˘Ó
Ê ‰˘Ó · ˜¯Ù
‫רוצח שיצא חוץ לתחום ומצאו גואל הדם רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר מצוה ביד גואל הדם ורשות ביד כל אדם רבי עקיבא אומר רשות ביד גואל הדם‬
.‫וכל אדם אין חייבין עליו‬

Mishnah Makot
Chapter 2 Mishnah 7

If a slayer went beyond the bounds and the blood-avenger fell in with him, R. Jose the
Galilean says that for the avenger it is a matter of obligation [to strike]; for everyone
else, a matter of option. R. Akiva says that for the avenger it is a matter of option and
anyone [else] is [not] responsible for him.

****
‡ËÂÊ È¯ÙÒ
‰Ï ‡˜ÒÈÙ

¯Á‡ ۄ¯ ‰È‰˘ ÈÓ È¯‰ ÁˆÂ¯‰ ˙ÂÓÈ ‡Ï ¯Ó‡˘ ‰ÙÏ Ï‡Â‚Ó ˙ÂËϘ ‡Â‰È ¨Ï‡Â‚Ó ËϘÓÏ Ìȯډ ÌÎÏ ÂȉÂ
®Â∫Ë ˙È˘‡¯·© ÍÙ˘È ÂÓ„ Ì„‡· Ì„‡‰ Ì„ ÍÙ¢ ‰¯Â˙· ·Â˙΢ ÚÈ„ÂÈ È‰ ‡Â‰ ˙ȯ· Ô· ÂÏ Â¯Ó‡ ‚¯Â‰Ï ¯ȷÁ
Æ‰Ê Ï˘ ¢Ù· ‰Ê Ï˘ ¢Ù ψ‰ ‰‚¯Â‰ Ì„˜ ˙ÂÓÏ Ú˘¯ ߇ ‡Â‰ ‚¯Â‰ ÔÎ ÈÙ ÏÚ Û‡ Ô‰Ï ß‡

Sifri Zuta
Paragraph 35

“And the cities shall be as a refuge from the redeemer” - they shall take in [the
accidental murderer] from the redeemer, as it states, “And the murderer shall not
die.” Indeed, [when] one was pursuing his fellow in order to kill him, they said to him,
“know that he is a member of the covenant”; know that the Torah states, “He who
sheds a man’s blood shall have his blood shed by man” (Gen. 9:6). He responded to
them “Despite this [verse], he is a murderer.”They responded, “An evil man is to die”’
(Num. 35:31); precede him and kill him; save his [the fleeing man’s] soul with his
[the pursuer’s] soul.

****

113
 ˙ÂÎÓ ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙
· „ÂÓÚ È Û„

ÔȇȷÓ ÔÈÁÏ¢ ÔÈ„ ˙È·Â ¨ËÏ˜Ó È¯ÚÏ ÔÈÓÈ„˜Ó „ÈÊÓ „Á‡Â ‚‚¢ „Á‡ ‰ÏÁ˙· ∫¯Ó‡ ‰„Â‰È È·¯· ÈÒÂÈ È·¯
Â˙‡ Â˙Â Ì˘Ó Â˙‡ ÂÁ˜Ï ¯ÈÚ È˜Ê ÂÁÏ˘Â ®ËÈ Ìȯ·„© ∫¯Ó‡˘ ¨Â‰Â‚¯‰ ≠ ‰˙ÈÓ ·ÈÈÁ˙˘ ÈÓ ¨Ì˘Ó Ì˙‡
χ‚ „ÈÓ ÁˆÂ¯‰ ˙‡ ‰„Ú‰ ÂÏȈ‰Â ®‰Ï ¯·„Ó·© ∫¯Ó‡˘ ¨Â‰Â¯ËÙ ≠ ·ÈÈÁ˙ ‡Ï˘ ÈÓ ¨˙Ó ̄‰ χ‚ „È·
ÂËÏ˜Ó ¯ÈÚ Ï‡ ‰„Ú‰ Â˙‡ Â·È˘‰Â ®‰Ï ¯·„Ó·© ∫¯Ó‡˘ ¨ÂÓ˜ÓÏ Â˙‡ ÔȯÈÊÁÓ ≠ ˙ÂÏ‚ ·ÈÈÁ˙˘ ÈÓ ¨Ì„‰
ª‰Ó˘ Ò ¯˘‡

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Makot 10b

R. Jose b. Judah says, that to begin with, every slayer, be it in error or with intent, was
first sent forward to [one of] the cities of refuge.The court then sent [him] and had
him brought thence.Whoever was found guilty of a capital crime, they had [him] put
to death, as it is written: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence
and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Whoever
was found not guilty [of murder] they acquitted, as it is said: And the congregation
[of judges] shall deliver the slayer out of the hands of the avenger of blood.Whoever
had incurred banishment, they sent him back to his place [of refuge], as it is said:
And the congregation [of judges] shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither
he was fled.

****

˘Ù‰ ˙¯ÈӢ ÁˆÂ¯ ˙ÂÎω ≠ ‰¯Â˙ ‰˘Ó

®±±≥∏≠±≤∞¥ ¨ÌȯˆÓ≠„¯ÙÒ© ÔÂÓÈÓ Ô· ‰˘Ó È·¯ ≠ Ìßß·Ó¯
Ë≠ Á ‰Îω ‰ ˜¯Ù
‚‰Ó Â· ‚‰˙ χ Ì‰Ï ÔȯÓ‡ ͯ„· Ì„‰ χ‚ Â‚¯‰È ‡Ó˘ ÌÈÓÎÁ È„ÈÓÏ˙ È˘ ÂÏ ÔȯÒÂÓ Â˙‡ ÔÈ·È˘Ó˘Î
Æ„ÈÏ ‰˘ÚÓ ‡· ‚‚¢· ÌÈÓ„ ÈÎÙ¢
Æ˙ÂÓ ËÙ˘Ó Ôȇ ÂÏ ®Â∫ËÈ Ìȯ·„© ¯Ó‡˘ ¯ÂËÙ ÂËÏ˜Ó ¯ÈÚ ÌÂÁ˙Ï ıÂÁ Ì„‰ χ‚ ‚¯‰˘ ‰‚‚˘· ÁˆÂ¯

Mishneh Torah Laws of a Murderer and the Preservation of Life

Maimonides - Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Spain - Egypt, 1138-1204)
Chapter 5 Law 8-9

When the court sends him back, it provides two scholars for him, lest the avenger of
blood kill him on the way, and tells them not to treat him as a murderer because the
incident occurred through misadventure.
If the avenger of blood kills an inadvertent slayer outside the bounds of his city of
refuge, he is exempt, for Scripture says, “Whereas he is not deserving of death” [Deut.
19:6].
****

114
 Summary

Man is commanded to suppress his inclination for vengeance, and to work toward
resolving conflicts between groups. While man is commanded not to take revenge,
the Bible recognizes that this is an onerous demand, especially in the case of murder
or a crime committed against loved ones. Therefore, the Bible detailed a system to
deal with incidents of murder and revenge through the agency of cities of refuge. The
family of the murder victim had every right to avenge its loss, and therefore the cities
of refuge were established to protect those who took a life unintentionally.
The cities of refuge allowed for a cooling-off period until the victim’s family calmed
down and the murderer was brought to trial. If the court found that in fact the killing
was unintentional, then leaders of the community escorted the hapless perpetrator
back to the city of refuge. His guardians were charged with protecting him, and if
avengers approached him, the escort reminded them that the crime was committed
inadvertently and the man responsible was not punishable. Jewish law recognizes the
family’s natural desire to want to avenge their loss, so the city of refuge was put in place
to avoid confrontation between the two parties.
If the murderer left the city, the family had the right to take vengeance. The Tannaim
discuss whether vengeance is a commandment and whether the “avengers of blood”
are obliged to avenge the murder of a family member, or if vengeance is merely a right
the family may take advantage of. In any event, if the family avenged their loved one
outside a city of refuge, they were not considered guilty of a murder that required their
being brought to trial.

115
4.3 Excommunication and Ostracism ̯Á È„È
‡ÚÈˆÓ ‡·· ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙
· „ÂÓÚ Ë Û„

ÍÏÈ ÈÓ ∫¯Ӈ Æ‰Âί·Â ÂÈÏÚ ÂÓ ¨˘‡· ÌÂÙ¯˘Â ¯ÊÚÈχ È·¯ ¯‰Èˢ ˙¯‰Ë ÏΠ‡ȷ‰ ÌÂȉ Â˙‡ ∫¯Ӈ
ÌÏÂÚ‰ ÏÎ ˙‡ ·È¯ÁÓ ‡ˆÓ ¨ÂÚÈ„ÂÈ Ô‚‰ Âȇ˘ Ì„‡ ÍÏÈ ‡Ó˘ ¨Íχ È‡ ∫‡·È˜Ú È·¯ Ì‰Ï ¯Ó‡ ≠ øÂÚÈ„ÂÈÂ
È·¯ ÂÏ ¯Ó‡ ≠ Æ˙ÂÓ‡ Ú·¯‡ ˜ÂÁȯ· ÂÈÙÏ ·˘È ¨ÌȯÂÁ˘ ÛËÚ˙ ¨ÌȯÂÁ˘ ˘·Ï ø‡·È˜Ú È·¯ ‰˘Ú ‰Ó ÆÂÏÂÎ
ÂÈ„‚· Ú¯˜ ‡Â‰ Û‡ ≠ ÆÍÓÓ ÌÈÏÈ„· ÌȯȷÁ˘ ÈÏ ‰Ó„ÓÎ ¨È·¯ ∫ÂÏ ¯Ó‡ ≠ øÌÈÓÂÈÓ ÌÂÈ ‰Ó ¨‡·È˜Ú ∫¯ÊÚÈχ
¨ÌÈËÁ· ˘ÈÏ˘Â ¨ÌÈ˙ÈÊ· ˘ÈÏ˘ ÌÏÂÚ‰ ‰˜Ï ¨˙ÂÚÓ„ ÂÈÈÚ Â‚ÏÊ ÆÚ˜¯˜ È·‚ ÏÚ ·˘È ËÓ˘ ¨ÂÈÏÚÓ ıÏÁÂ
Ô˙˘ ÌÂ˜Ó Ïη˘ ¨ÌÂȉ Â˙‡· ‰È‰ Ï„‚ ͇ ∫‡˙ ÆÁÙË ‰˘‡ È„È·˘ ˜ˆ· Û‡ ∫ÌȯÓ‡ ˘È ÆÌȯÂÚ˘· ˘ÈÏ˘Â
ÈÏ ‰Ó„ÓÎ ∫¯Ó‡ ÆÂÚ·ËÏ Ï¢Á ÂÈÏÚ „ÓÚ ¨‰ÈÙÒ· ‡· ‰È‰ χÈÏÓ‚ Ô·¯ ۇ ÆÛ¯˘ ¯ÊÚÈχ È·¯ ÂÈÈÚ Â·
‡Ï˘ ÍÈÙÏ Ú„È ÈÂÏ‚ ¨ÌÏÂÚ Ï˘ Â·¯ ∫¯Ó‡Â ÂÈÏ‚¯ ÏÚ „ÓÚ ÆÒÂ˜¯Â‰ Ô· ¯ÊÚÈχ È·¯ ÏÈ·˘· ‡Ï‡ ‰Ê Ôȇ˘
ÆÂÙÚÊÓ Ìȉ Á Æχ¯˘È· ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ Â·¯È ‡Ï˘ ¨Í„·ÎÏ ‡Ï‡ ¨È˙È˘Ú ‡·‡ ˙È· „·ÎÏ ‡Ï ¨È˙È˘Ú È„Â·ÎÏ

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Baba Metzia 59b

It was said: On that day, all objects which R. Eliezer had declared clean were brought
and burnt in fire.Then they took a vote and excommunicated him. Said they, “Who
shall go and inform him?” “I will go,” answered R. Akiva, “lest an unsuitable person go
and inform him, and thus destroy the whole world.”What did R. Akiva do? He donned
black garments and wrapped himself in black, and sat at a distance of four cubits
from him. “Akiva,” said R. Eliezer to him, “what has particularly happened to-day?”
“Master,” he replied, “it appears to me that thy companions hold aloof from thee.”
Thereupon, he too rent his garments, put off his shoes, removed [his seat] and sat on
the earth, whilst tears streamed from his eyes.The world was then smitten: a third of
the olive crop, a third of the wheat, and a third of the barley crop. Some say, the dough
in women’s hands swelled up.
A Tanna taught: Great was the calamity that befell that day, for everything at which
R. Eliezer cast his eyes was burned up. R. Gamaliel too was traveling in a ship, when
a huge wave arose to drown him. “It appears to me,” he reflected, “that this is on
account of none other but R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus.”Thereupon, he arose and exclaimed,
“Sovereign of the Universe! Thou knowest full well that I have not acted for my honor,
nor for the honor of my paternal house, but for Thine [honor], so that strife may not
multiply in Israel!” At that the raging sea subsided.

****

Ô˘ „ÚÂÓ ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙

‡ „ÂÓÚ ÊÈ Û„

˘È¯„ ‡‚ÈÏÙ Ƈ¯Â˙· ‡ÈÁÈË ÈÎ ‰È· ‡È‰Ó ¨‰È‰È ‰ÓÓ˘ ∫¯Ó‡ χÂӢ ¨‰˙ÈÓ Ì˘ ·¯ ¯Ó‡ ø‡˙Ó˘ ȇÓ
‰‡ˆÂÈ ≠ ‰‡ˆÂÈ ‡È‰˘Î ÍÎ Ìȯ·È‡ ‰ÂӢ ÌÈÚ·¯‡Â ÌÈ˙‡Ó· ˙ÒÎ˘ Ì˘Î ˘È˜Ï ˘È¯ ¯Ó‡„ Æ˘È˜Ï
‡È¯ËÓÈ‚· ̯Á ̯Á ¯ÈÚ‰ ‰˙ȉ ®Â Ú˘Â‰È© ·È˙΄ ˙ÒÎ ‡È‰˘Î ÆÌȯ·È‡ ‰ÂӢ ÌÈÚ·¯‡Â ÌÈ˙‡ÓÓ
Ɖ ÈΉ ‡È¯ËÓÈ‚· ÌÁ¯ ¯ÂÎÊ˙ ÌÁ¯ ʂ¯· ®‚ ˜Â˜·Á© ·È˙΄ ‰‡ˆÂÈ ‡È‰˘Î Ɖ ‰ÂӢ ÌÈÚ·¯‡Â ÌÈ˙‡Ó

116
Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Moed Katan 17a
What is [the etymology of the word] shammetha? - Said Rab, [It is], sham-mitha,
“death is there”. Samuel said, [It is], shemamah yihye, “he shall be a desolation”;
and its effects adhere to one like grease to the oven. And this is in disagreement
with [what] Resh Lakish said. For Resh Lakish said that just as when it [the herem]
enters, it penetrates the two hundred and forty-eight joints [in one’s body], so on its
withdrawal it departs from the two hundred and forty-eight joints.When it enters, as
it is written(Joshua 6) ; And the city shall be herem, [a curse, i.e.], herem, being in its
letter [number] value [gematria] two hundred and forty-eight, so at its withdrawal, as
it is written (Habakuk 3): In wrath remember rahem [to have compassion] the letter
[number] value being the same.

****

‰¯Â˙ „ÂÓÏ˙ ˙ÂÎω ≠ ‰¯Â˙ ‰˘Ó

®±±≥∏≠±≤∞¥ ¨ÌȯˆÓ≠„¯ÙÒ© ÔÂÓÈÓ Ô· ‰˘Ó È·¯ ≠ Ìßß·Ó¯
„È ‰Îω  ˜¯Ù
̉ÈÏÚ ÌÈ·ÈÈÁ˘ Ìȯ·„ ¯‡˘ ÏÚ Â‰Â„È˘ ÈÓ Ï·‡ ÌÈÓÎÁ È„ÈÓÏ˙ ‰Ê·˘ ÏÚ Â‰Â„˘ ÈÓ· øÌȯÂÓ‡ Ìȯ·„ ‰Ó·
‰„È˘ ¯·„Ó ‰·Â˘˙· ¯ÂÊÁÈ˘ „Ú È„È · ‚‰Ï Ï‡¯˘È ÏΠ‡È˘‰ ·ÈÈÁ χ¯˘È·˘ Ô˘ ‰„È ÂÏÈÙ‡ È„È
∫Ô‰ Âχ ‰˘‡ ÔÈ· ˘È‡ ÔÈ· Ì„‡‰ ˙‡ ÔÈ„Ó Ìȯ·„ ‰Ú·¯‡Â Ìȯ˘Ú ÏÚ ÂÏ Â¯È˙È ÂÏÈ·˘·
Â˙ÂÓ ¯Á‡Ï ÂÏÈه ÌÎÁ‰ ˙‡ ‰Ê·Ó‰ Ƈ
ÆÔÈ„ ˙È· ÁÈÏ˘ ‰Ê·Ó‰ Æ·
Æ„·Ú ¯ȷÁÏ ‡¯Â˜‰ Æ‚
Ƈ· ‡Ï ÔÓÊ ÂÏ ÂÚ·˜Â ÔÈ„ ˙È· ÂÏ ÂÁÏ˘˘ ÈÓ Æ„
Ɖ¯Â˙ ȯ·„· ¯ÓÂÏ Íȯˆ Ôȇ ÌȯÙÂÒ È¯·„Ó „Á‡ ¯·„· ÏÊÏÊÓ‰ Ɖ
ÆÔ˙È˘ „Ú Â˙‡ ÔÈ„Ó ÔÈ„‰ ˙‡ ÂÈÏÚ Ï·È˜ ‡Ï˘ ÈÓ ÆÂ
ƘÊȉ ¯ÈÒÈ˘ „Ú Â˙‡ ÔÈ„Ó ÚÂÚ¯ ÌÏÂÒ Â‡ Ú¯ ·ÏÎ Ô‚Π˜ÈÊÓ‰ ¯·„ Â˙¢¯· ˘È˘ ÈÓ ÆÊ
χ¯˘ÈÏ ÌÈ·ÎÂÎ „·ÂÚ‰ ÔÓ ‡·È˘ Ò‡ ÏÎ ÂÈÏÚ Ï·˜È˘ „Ú Â˙‡ ÔÈ„Ó ÌÈ·ÎÂÎ „·ÂÚÏ ÂÏ˘ Ú˜¯˜ ¯ÎÂÓ‰ ÆÁ
ƯˆÓ‰ ÏÚ· ¯ȷÁ
Â˙‡ ÔÈ„Ó Ï‡¯˘È ÔÈ„Î ‡Ï˘ ÔÂÓÓ Â˙„ڷ ÂÓÓ ‡ÈˆÂ‰Â ÌÈ·ÎÂÎ È„·ÂÚ Ï˘ ˙‡ίڷ χ¯˘È ÏÚ „ÈÚÓ‰ ÆË
ÆÌÏ˘È˘ „Ú
ÆÔ˙È˘ „Ú Â˙‡ ÔÈ„Ó ¯Á‡ Ô‰ÎÏ Ô˙Â ˙Â˙Ó‰ ˘È¯ÙÓ Âȇ˘ ԉΠÁ·Ë ÆÈ
Æ ‚‰Ó ‡Â‰˘ Ù¢Ú‡ ˙ÂÈÏ‚ Ï˘ È˘ ·ÂË ÌÂÈ ÏÏÁÓ‰ ƇÈ
Æ˙ˆÁ ¯Á‡ ÁÒÙ‰ ·¯Ú· ‰Î‡ÏÓ ‰˘ÂÚ‰ Æ·È
Æ È‡·‰ ȯ·„· ‰Ú·˘Ï ‡ ‰ÏË·Ï ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘ ¯ÈÎÊÓ‰ Æ‚È
ÆÌ˘‰ ÏÂÏÁ È„ÈÏ ÌÈ·¯‰ ˙‡ ‡È·Ó‰ Æ„È
Æ ıÂÁ· ÌÈ˘„˜ ˙ÏÈ· È„ÈÏ ÌÈ·¯‰ ˙‡ ‡È·Ó‰ ÆÂË
Æı¯‡Ï ‰ˆÂÁ· ÌÈ˘„Á ڷ˜ ÌÈ˘ ·˘ÁÓ‰ ÆÊË
ƯÂÚ‰ ˙‡ ÏÈ˘ÎÓ‰ ÆÊÈ
Æ ‰ÂˆÓ ˙¢ÚÏÓ ÌÈ·¯‰ ·ÎÚÓ‰ ÆÁÈ
ÆÂ„È ˙Á˙Ó ‰Ù¯Ë ‰‡ˆÈ˘ Á·Ë ÆËÈ
ÆÌÎÁ ÈÙÏ ÂÈÎÒ ˜„· ‡Ï˘ Á·Ë ÆÎ
Æ˙Ú„Ï ÂÓˆÚ ‰˘˜Ó‰ ƇÎ
Â‡Â·È˘Î ‰ÊÏ ‰Ê ˜˜Ê‰Ï Ô‰Ï ÔȇȷӉ Ô˙Ó ‡˘Ó ‡ ˙ÂÙ˙¢ ‰È·Â ÂÈ· ‰˘Ú Â˙˘‡ ˙‡ ˘¯È‚˘ ÈÓ Æ·Î
ÆÌ˙‡ ÔÈ„Ó ÔÈ„ ˙È·Ï
Ɖگ Â˙ÚÂÓ˘˘ ÌÎÁ Æ‚Î
ÆÈ„È ·ÈÈÁ Âȇ˘ ÈÓ ‰„Ó‰ Æ„Î

117
Mishneh Torah Laws of Torah Study
Maimonides - Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Spain - Egypt, 1138-1204)
Chapter 6 Law 14

This is talking about someone who is excommunicated for having despised a learned
sage, but if somebody, even a child, is excommunicated for having committed an
offence punishable by excommunication, then everybody, princes included, is obligated
[to comply with] the excommunication until the excommunicated person has repented
and his excommunication lifted.There are 24 offenses which, whether committed by a
man or a woman, are punishable by excommunication, and they are as follows:
(i) Despising a sage, even after his death.
(ii) Despising a messenger of a court of law.
(iii) Referring to someone else as a slave.
(iv) Ignoring a summons to a court of law.
(v) Scorning the words of the Sages, and how much more so the words of the Torah.
(vi) Not accepting the laws - this lasts until one does.
(vii) Having in one’s possession a something hazardous, such as a dog or unstable
ladder, and not taking any necessary precautions.
(viii) Selling land to a gentile - this lasts until one accepts responsibility for anything
the gentile does to the adjacent fields.
(ix) Testifying against a fellow Jew in a gentile court and extracting money from him in
a manner contrary to Jewish law - this lasts until one pays him back.
(x) Not giving tithes to a fellow priest if one is a priest oneself - this lasts until one
does.
(xi) Desecrating the second day of a festival in the Diaspora, even though its observance
is only a custom.
(xii) Working after midday on the day before Passover.
(xiii) Taking G-d’s Name in vain, or when making a nonsensical vow.
(xiv) Causing the public to desecrate G-d’s Name.
(xv) Causing the public to eat holy food outside the Temple.
(xvi) Modifying the calendar in the Diaspora.
(xvii) Misleading people.
(xviii) Preventing the public from fulfilling a mitzvah.
(xix) Causing the public approach [Temple] sacrifices slaughtered outside without
checking the [sharpness of the] slaughtering knife.
(xx) Slaughtering animals unfit for eating [by Jews].
(xxi) Refusing to understand.
(xxii) Going into partnership with one’s wife after having divorced her, or otherwise
fulfilling her needs.A court should excommunicate both of them until they are brought
before it.
(xxiii) Not behaving as a sage if one is a sage.
(xxiv) Excommunicating someone who is not punishable by excommunication.

****

118
 ‰¯Â˙ „ÂÓÏ˙ ˙ÂÎω ≠ ‰¯Â˙ ‰˘Ó
®±±≥∏≠±≤∞¥ ¨ÌȯˆÓ≠„¯ÙÒ© ÔÂÓÈÓ Ô· ‰˘Ó È·¯ ≠ Ìßß·Ó¯
‰≠„ ‰Îω Ê ˜¯Ù

ÔÈÓÊÓ Ôȇ ¨ÂÈ„È ÈÓÈ ÏÎ Ï·‡Î Ò·ÎÏ ¯ÙÒÏ ¯ÂÒ‡ ‰„ÂÓ ¨ÂÓÚ ÔÈ‚‰Â˘Â ÂÓˆÚ· ‰„ÂÓ‰ ‚‰È˘ ‚‰Ó‰ ‰Ó
‡Â‰ ‰¢ Ï·‡ ¨™ ˙ÂÓ‡ Ú·¯‡· ÂÓÚ ÔÈ·˘ÂÈ ‡Ï ¨‰¯˘Ú Íȯˆ˘ ¯·„ ÏÎÏ ‰¯˘Ú· Â˙‡ ÔÈÏÏÂÎ ‡Ï ¨ÂÈÏÚ
Â˙‡ ÔÈӂ¯ Ô‰˘ ¯ÓÂÏÎ Â¯‡ ÏÚ Ô·‡ ÔÈÁÈÓ ÔÈÁÏ¢ ÔÈ„ ˙È· È„È· ˙Ó Ì‡Â ¨¯Î¢ ¯Î˘ ÂÏ ÔÈ¢ ÌȯÁ‡Ï
ÆÂ˙ËÓ ˙‡ ÔÈÂÏÓ Ôȇ Â˙‡ ÔÈ„ÈÙÒÓ Ôȇ˘ ¯ÓÂÏ Íȯˆ Ôȇ ¨¯Â·Èˆ‰ ÔÓ Ï„·ÂÓ ‡Â‰˘ ÈÙÏ
¯Î˘ Âȇ ¨Â„ÂÓÏ˙ ÁÎ˘È ‡Ï˘ ÂÓˆÚÏ ‡Â‰ ‰¢ Ï·‡ ÂÏ ÔÈ¢ Ôȇ ÌȯÁ‡Ï ‰¢ Âȇ˘ ̯ÁÂÓ‰ ÂÈÏÚ ¯˙ÂÈ
ÆÂ˙Ò¯Ù È„Î ˜ÒÚ ËÚÓ ‡Ï‡ ÂÓÚ ÔȘÒÚ˙Ó Ôȇ ¨ÂÓÚ ÔÈ˙Â Ôȇ˘Â Ôȇ ¨ÂÏ ÔÈ¯Î˘ ÔȇÂ

Mishneh Torah Laws of Torah Study

Maimonides - Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Spain - Egypt, 1138-1204)
Chapter 7 Laws 4-5

What does being excommunicated involve? Somebody who has been excommunicated
may not shave, cut his hair or wash in the same way as a mourner. So long as one
is excommunicated, he cannot count as one of the three men required to make a
zimmun [the three male adults required to say grace after meals], and also cannot
count as one of the people of a minyan [i.e., a quorum - the ten male adults required
for prayer services].We do not sit within four cubits of him, but he may teach [Torah
to] others and they may learn from him. It is permitted to employ him or be employed
by him. If he dies during his excommunication the court arranges for a stone to be
placed on his coffin, i.e. he is [symbolically] stoned, for the reason that he was an
outcast from the rest of society. It goes without saying that eulogies are not said for
him, nor is he given a [proper] funeral.
Isolation is more strict than excommunication. Somebody who has been isolated may
not teach others, nor may others learn from him; but he may learn for himself in order
not to forget what has already learned. It is not permitted to employ him, and it is also
forbidden to accept employment from him. No business may be transacted with him,
except for the barest minimum which he needs for survival.

****

Summary

Excommunication is used to ostracize a community member who defies the

authority of community leaders or undermines the community’s solidarity. The person
thus sanctioned is socially distanced, labeled as “excommunicated from the community”
and communication and physical contact with him is limited. An excommunicated
individual must behave as one does in mourning, i.e., not shaving, sitting on the ground,
etc. This signifies that he is treated as if he were “dead” - no longer an active member
of the community. If a community member breaks ranks with his fellows and creates
internal conflict, the community may shun him in order to contain any further damage
he might cause. Excommunication also serves as an example to deter others from

119
causing disturbance or defiance in the community.The Rambam lists the 24 grounds for
the excommunication of an individual. Many of the examples constitute behavior that
can provoke conflict between individuals or between the individual and the community
or can be construed as an instance of open rebellion against the authority of the
community’s leaders.
One example of excommunication applied to Rabbi Eliezer, when the majority
overruled him despite the signs from heaven attesting to his correct opinion (see
sect. 3.3). Following this dispute in the beit midrash (study hall), the other rabbis
excommunicated him. In response to Rabbi Akiva’s notifying him of the majority’s
decision, the excommunicated Rabbi Eliezer rent his clothes and adopted the customs
of a mourner.
Rabban Gamliel, who had taken part in the decision to excommunicate Rabbi
Eliezer, later sailed on a ship. A storm blew up and threatened his life. Feeling he
was being punished for the excommunication of such a great leader as Rabbi Eliezer,
Rabban Gamliel cried out to G-d, explaining that the excommunication order was not
handed down for the sake of his own honor, but to avoid communal conflict and to
maintain the rule of law. In response to his explication, the storm abated.
The Aramaic word for ‘excommunication’ is similar to the word for ‘death,’
symbolizing excommunication’s everlasting effects on a person. Resh Lakish disputed
this opinion and perceived excommunication as a transient state to be lifted when the
individual decides return to the community and accept the position of its authorities.

120
4.4 Forgiveness and pardon in family conflict
‰ÁÙ˘Ó ÈÎÂÒÎÒ· ‰ÏÈÁÓ ‰ÁÈÏÒ
˙È˘‡¯·
„ ˜ÂÒÙ ÊÏ ˜¯Ù

∫ÌÏ˘Ï Â¯·„ ÂÏÎÈ ‡Ï Â˙‡ ‡˘È ÂÈÁ‡ ÏÎÓ Ì‰È·‡ ·‰‡ Â˙‡ ÈÎ ÂÈÁ‡ ‡¯ÈÂ

Genesis
Chapter 37 Verse 4

And when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they
hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him.

****
È¢˘¯
®±±∞µ≠±∞¥∞ ¨˙Ù¯ˆ© ȘÁˆÈ ‰ÓÏ˘ È·¯
„∫ÊÏ ˙È˘‡¯·

Æ·Ï· ˙Á‡Â ‰Ù· ˙Á‡ ¯·„ ‡Ï˘ ¨ÌÁ·˘ Â„ÓÏ Ì˙Â‚ ÍÂ˙Ó ≠ ÌÂÏ˘Ï Â¯·„ ÂÏÎÈ ‡ÏÂ

Rashi
Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (France, 1040-1105)
Genesis 37:4

From their blame we learn their praise. For they did not speak one way with their
mouth and another way with their heart.

****
˙È˘‡¯·
‰≠‚ ÌȘÂÒÙ ‰Ó ˜¯Ù

ÂÈÁ‡ χ ÛÒÂÈ ¯Ó‡È ∫ÂÈÙÓ Âω· ÈÎ Â˙‡ ˙ÂÚÏ ÂÈÁ‡ ÂÏÎÈ ‡Ï ÈÁ È·‡ „ÂÚ‰ ÛÒÂÈ È‡ ÂÈÁ‡ χ ÛÒÂÈ ¯Ó‡ÈÂ
ÈÎ ÌÎÈÈÚ· ¯ÁÈ Ï‡Â Â·ˆÚ˙ χ ‰˙Ú ∫‰ÓȯˆÓ È˙‡ Ì˙¯ÎÓ ¯˘‡ ÌÎÈÁ‡ ÛÒÂÈ È‡ ¯Ó‡È ¢‚È Èχ ‡ ¢‚
∫ÌÎÈÙÏ Ìȉχ ÈÁÏ˘ ‰ÈÁÓÏ ÈÎ ‰‰ È˙‡ Ì˙¯ÎÓ

Genesis
Chapter 45 Verses 3-5

And Joseph said to his brothers, I am Joseph; does my father still live? And his brothers
could not answer him, for they were troubled by his presence. And Joseph said to his
brothers, Come near me, I beg you. And they came near. And he said, I am Joseph
your brother, whom you sold into Egypt. Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with
yourselves, that you sold me here, for G-d did send me before you to preserve life.

121
 ¯·„Ó·
Ê ˜ÂÒÙ ‡Î ˜¯Ù

„Ú· ‰˘Ó ÏÏÙ˙È ˘Á‰ ˙‡ ÂÈÏÚÓ ¯ÒÈ ߉ χ ÏÏÙ˙‰ ͷ ߉· Â¯·„ ÈÎ Â‡ËÁ ¯ӇÈ ‰˘Ó χ ÌÚ‰ ‡·È
∫ÌÚ‰

Numbers
Chapter 21 Verse 7
Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken
against the Lord, and against you; pray to the Lord, that he take away the serpents
from us. And Moses prayed for the people.

****
È¢˘¯
®±±∞µ≠±∞¥∞ ¨˙Ù¯ˆ© ȘÁˆÈ ‰ÓÏ˘ È·¯
Ê∫‡Î ¯·„Ó·

∫ÏÂÁÓÏÓ È¯Ê· ‡‰È ‡Ï˘ ‰ÏÈÁÓ ÂÓÓ ÌÈ˘˜·Ó˘ ÈÓÏ Ô‡ÎÓ ≠ ‰˘Ó ÏÏÙ˙ÈÂ

Rashi
Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (France, 1040-1105)
Numbers 21:7

So Moses prayed. From here [we learn] that someone who is asked to forgive, should
not be so cruel so as not to forgive.

****

‡ÓÂÁ˙ ˘¯„Ó
ÂÓ ÔÓÈÒ ˙˜Á ˙˘¯Ù

߉ χ ÏÏÙ˙‰ ¯Ӈ ¨ÂÈÙÏ ÂÁË˙˘ ‰˘Ó· ¯·È„˘ ÂÚ„È Æ®Ê∫‡Î ¯·„Ó·© Â‡ËÁ ¯ӇÈ ‰˘Ó χ ÌÚ‰ ‡·ÈÂ
¨ÌÈÓÁ¯ ̉ÈÏÚ ˘˜·Ï ‰‰˙˘ ‡Ï˘ ¨‰˘Ó Ï˘ Â˙Â˙ÂÚ ˙‡ ÍÚÈ„Â‰Ï ¨®‡Î ¯·„Ó·© ˘Á‰ ˙‡ ÂÈÏÚÓ ¯ÒÈÂ
̇˘ ÔÈÓ ¨È¯Ê· ‰˘Ú ÏÁÂÓ‰ Ôȇ˘ Í„ÓÏÏ ¨Ì‰Ï ‰ˆ¯˙ „ÈÓ ¨Â‡ËÁ ¯Ӈ˘ ÔÂÈÎ ¨‰·Â˘˙‰ ÁÎ ÍÚȄ‰ÏÂ
ß‰Ï ‡ËÁÓ ÈÏ ‰ÏÈÏÁ ÈÎ‡ Ì‚ ¯Ó‡˘ ¨‡ËÂÁ ‡¯˜˘ ÂÏ ÏÁÂÓ Âȇ ¨È˙‡ËÁ ÂÏ ¯Ó‡Â ¯ȷÁÏ Ì„‡ Á¯Ò
χÂÓ˘ χ ÌÚ‰ ¯ӇÈ ¯Ó‡˘ ¨Â‡ËÁ ÂÏ Â¯Ó‡Â Â‡·˘Î È˙Óȇ ¨®‚Î∫·È ߇ χÂÓ˘© Ì΄ڷ ÏÏÙ˙‰Ï Ï„ÁÓ
Æ®È∫·È ߇ χÂÓ˘© ¯Ó‚ Â‡ËÁ
Midrash Tanhuma
Portion Hukat Section 46

Then the people came unto Moses and said: We have sinned. They knew that they
had spoken against Moses, so they fell prostrate before him and said: “Pray unto the
Lord to remove the serpent from us.” [The passage serves] to make Moses’ humility

122
 known to you, in that he did not hesitate to seek mercy for them and to make the
power of repentance known to you. As soon as they said, “We have sinned,” he was
immediately reconciled to them. [The passage serves] to teach you that there is no
one who forgives that becomes cruel. And where is it shown that, if one has sinned
against his companion and says to him; I have sinned, without [the companion]
forgiving him, that [the unforgiving one] is called a sinner? Where it is stated (in I
Sam 12:23) “[And] as for me also, far be it for me to sin against the Lord by ceasing
to pray on your behalf.” When? When they came and said to him: “WE have sinned”
[as stated] (in I Sam 12:10): “And [they the people] said [unto Samuel] we have
sinned...”

****

Summary

The conflict between Joseph and his brothers is an example of complete forgiveness
and reconciliation.The conflict developed as the brothers were growing up: they hated
Joseph and could not speak to him in peace. Rashi explains that this was to their credit
that they did not pretend to speak to him with love while inside feeling their hatred
for him. After the brothers sold Joseph into slavery and he was imprisoned in Egypt, he
built himself up into a position of power second only to Pharaoh. When the brothers
met Joseph again, they were afraid that he would begrudge them for their actions
toward him. Joseph reassured them that he had forgiven them and would not do them
any harm. He recognized their sins but was able to forgo any vengeful feelings he had
and reunited with his family. So too, the brothers looked past the hatred that they had
for their younger brother Joseph, and in their reunion with him were reconciled.
When the children of Israel sinned in the desert, Moshe prayed to G-d for their
forgiveness. Rashi explains that one can learn from this story that when it is asked to
forgive and when the regret is sincere and complete, then it is cruel not to forgive the
perpetrator. When one has done sincere repentance and really regrets his actions, then
it is a sin not to forgive him.

123
4.5Requesting forgiveness and pardon ‰ÏÈÁÓ ‰ÁÈÏÒ ˙˘˜·
‡Ó˜ ‡·· ˙ÎÒÓ ‰˘Ó
Ê ‰˘Ó Á ˜¯Ù

ÔÈÓ ¯Ó‚ ˙˘‡ ·˘‰ ‰˙Ú ®ßÎ ˙È˘‡¯·© ¯Ó‡˘ ÂÓÓ ˘˜·È˘ „Ú ÂÏ ÏÁÓ Ôȇ ÂÏ Ô˙Â ‡Â‰˘ ÈÙ ÏÚ Û‡
¯Ó‚ ÍÏÓÈ·‡ ˙‡ Ìȉχ ‡Ù¯È Ìȉχ‰ χ ̉¯·‡ ÏÏÙ˙È ®Î ˙È˘‡¯·© ¯Ó‡˘ ȯÊ· ÏÁÂÓ‰ ‡‰È ‡Ï˘
·ÈÈÁ È„Î ˙‡ ¯·˘ È˙ÂÒÎ ˙‡ Ú¯˜ ·ÈÈÁ ¯ÂËÙÏ ˙Ó ÏÚ ·ÈÈÁ ÈÏ‚¯ ˙‡ ¯·˘ È„È ˙‡ Ú˘ ÈÈÚ ˙‡ ‡ÓÒ ¯Ó‡‰
∫ÂÂÓÓ· ÔÈ· ÂÙ‚· ÔÈ· ·ÈÈÁ ¯ÂËÙÏ ˙Ó ÏÚ ÈÂÏÙ ˘È‡Ï ÔÎ ‰˘Ú ¯ÂËÙ ¯ÂËÙÏ ˙Ó ÏÚ

Mishnah Baba Kama

Chapter 8 Mishnah 7

Even though the offender pays him [compensation], the offence is not forgiven until
he asks him for pardon, as it says: now therefore restore the man’s wife, etc.Whence
can we learn that should the injured person not forgive him, he would be [stigmatized
as] cruel? From the words: So Abraham prayed unto G-d and G-d healed Abimelech,
etc. If the plaintiff said: “Put out my eye, cut off my arm and break my leg,” the
offender would nevertheless be liable; [and also even if he told him to do it] on
the understanding that he would be exempt he would still be liable. If the plaintiff
said: “Tear my garment and break my pitcher,” the defendant would still be liable,
but if he said to him: “[Do this] on the understanding that you will be exempt,” he
would be exempt. But if one said to the defendant: “Do this to a third person on the
understanding that you will be exempt,” the defendant would be liable, whether the
injury was done to the person or to his chattels.

****
‡ÓÂÈ ˙ÎÒÓ ‰˘Ó
Ë ‰˘Ó Á ˜¯Ù
ÌÂÈ Ôȇ ¯ÙÎÓ ÌȯÂÙΉ ÌÂÈ ‡ËÁ‡ ‰·Â˘˙ ˙¢ÚÏ Â„È· ÔȘÈÙÒÓ Ôȇ ·Â˘‡Â ‡ËÁ‡ ·Â˘‡Â ‡ËÁ‡ ¯Ó‡‰
ÌȯÂÙΉ ÌÂÈ Ôȇ ¯ȷÁÏ Ì„‡ ÔÈ·˘ ˙Â¯È·Ú ¯ÙÎÓ ÌȯÂÙΉ ÌÂÈ Ì˜ÓÏ Ì„‡ ÔÈ·˘ ˙Â¯È·Ú ¯ÙÎÓ ÌȯÂÙΉ
˙Â¯È·Ú Â¯‰Ë˙ ߉ ÈÙÏ ÌÎÈ˙‡ËÁ ÏÎÓ ®ÊË ‡¯˜È© ‰È¯ÊÚ Ô· ¯ÊÚχ È·¯ ˘¯„ ÂÊ ˙‡ ¯·Á ‰ˆ¯È˘ „Ú ¯ÙÎÓ
¯·Á ˙‡ ‰ˆ¯È˘ „Ú ¯ÙÎÓ ÌȯÂÙΉ ÌÂÈ Ôȇ ¯ȷÁÏ Ì„‡ ÔÈ·˘ ˙Â¯È·Ú ¯ÙÎÓ ÌȯÂÙΉ ÌÂÈ Ì˜ÓÏ Ì„‡ ÔÈ·˘
χ˜ÊÁÈ© ¯Ó‡˘ ÌÈÓ˘·˘ ÌÎÈ·‡ ÌÎ˙‡ ¯‰ËÓ ÈÓ Ôȯ‰ËÈÓ Ì˙‡ ÈÓ ÈÙÏ Ï‡¯˘È ÌÎȯ˘‡ ‡·È˜Ú È·¯ ¯Ó‡
Û‡ ÌȇÓˉ ˙‡ ¯‰ËÓ ‰Â˜Ó ‰Ó χ¯˘È ‰Â˜Ó ®„È ‰Èӯȩ ¯Ó‡ Ì˙¯‰Ë ÌÈ¯Â‰Ë ÌÈÓ ÌÎÈÏÚ È˙˜¯Ê ®ÂÏ
∫χ¯˘È ˙‡ ¯‰ËÓ ‡Â‰ ͯ· ˘Â„˜‰

Mishnah Yoma
Chapter 8 Mishnah 9

To him who says: I shall sin and the Day of Atonement will procure atonement for
me, the Day of Atonement procures for him no atonement. For transgressions as
between man and the Omnipresent, the Day of Atonement procures atonement,
but for transgressions as between man and his fellow the Day of Atonement does
not procure any atonement, until he has pacified his fellow. This was expounded

124
 by R. Eleazar b. Azariah: From all your sins before the Lord shall ye be clean, i.e.,
for transgressions as between man and the Omnipresent the Day of Atonement
procures atonement, but for transgressions as between man and his fellow the Day of
Atonement does not procure atonement until he has pacified his fellow. R.Akiva said:
Happy are you, Israel! Who is it before whom you become clean? And Who is it that
makes you clean? Your Father which is in heaven, as it is said: And I will sprinkle clean
water upon you and ye shall be clean. And it further says: Thou hope of Israel, the
Lord! Just as the fountain renders clean the unclean, so does the Holy One, blessed
be He, render clean Israel.

****
‡ÓÂÈ ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙
‡ „ÂÓÚ ÊÙ Û„

ÌÂÈ Ôȇ ¯ȷÁÏ Ì„‡ ÔÈ·˘ ˙Â¯È·Ú ∫‰·‡ È·¯Ï ·Á ¯· ÛÒÂÈ ·¯ ‰ÈÏ ÈÓ¯ ÆÈÏÂΠ̘ÓÏ Ì„‡ ÔÈ·˘ ˙¯ȷÚ
ȇ ≠ ƇÈÈ„ ≠ Ìȉχ Ô‡Ó ≠ °Ìȉχ ÂÏÏÙ ˘È‡Ï ˘È‡ ‡ËÁÈ Ì‡ ®· ߇ χÂÓ˘© ·È˙Î ‡‰Â ø¯ÙÎÓ ÌȯÂÙΉ
ÏÂÁÓÈ Ìȉχ ≠ ÂÏÏÙ ˘È‡Ï ˘È‡ ‡ËÁÈ Ì‡ ∫¯Ó‡˜ ÈΉ ≠ øÂÏ ÏÏÙ˙È ÈÓ ˘È‡ ‡ËÁÈ ß‰Ï Ì‡Â ∫‡ÙÈÒ ‡Óȇ ÈΉ
¨Â¯È·Á ˙‡ ËÈ˜Ó‰ ÏÎ ∫˜ÁˆÈ È·¯ ¯Ó‡ ÆÌÈ·ÂË ÌÈ˘ÚÓ ‰·Â˘˙ ¨Â„Ú· ÏÏÙ˙È ÈÓ ≠ ˘È‡ ‡ËÁÈ ß‰Ï Ì‡Â ¨ÂÏ
ÆÆÆÍÈ٠ȯӇ· ˙˘˜Â ÍÈÙÎ ¯ÊÏ ˙Ú˜˙ ÍÚ¯Ï ˙·¯Ú ̇ È· ®Â ÈÏ˘Ó© ¯Ó‡˘ ¨ÂÒÈÈÙÏ Íȯˆ ≠ Ìȯ·„· ÂÏÈÙ‡
¨„È ˙ÒÙ ÂÏ ¯˙‰ ≠ Í„È· ˘È ÔÂÓÓ Ì‡ ÆÍÈÚ¯ ·‰¯Â ÒÙ¯˙‰ ÍÏ ÍÚ¯ Ûη ˙‡· ÈΠψ‰Â È· ‡ÂÙ‡ ˙‡Ê ‰˘Ú
ÆÌÈÚȯ ÂÈÏÚ ‰·¯‰ ≠ Â‡Ï Ì‡Â
¯Ó‡È ÌÈ˘‡ ÏÚ ¯˘È ®‚Ï ·Âȇ© ¯Ó‡˘ ¨Ì„‡ È· ‰˘Ï˘ Ï˘ ˙Â¯Â˘ ˘Ï˘· ÂÒÈÈÙÏ ÍȯˆÂ ∫‡„ÒÁ ·¯ ¯Ó‡
ÆÈÏ ‰Â˘ ‡Ï È˙ÈÂÚ‰ ¯˘È È˙‡ËÁ
® ˙È˘‡¯·© ¯Ó‡˘ ¨ÌÈÓÚÙ ˘Ï˘Ó ¯˙ÂÈ ÂÓÓ ˘˜·È χ ¯ȷÁÓ ÂËÓ ˘˜·Ó‰ ÏÎ ∫‡ÈÁ ¯· ÈÒÂÈ È·¯ ¯Ó‡
ȉχ ß‰Ï È˙‡ËÁ ∫¯Ó‡ ¨Â¯·˜ ÏÚ Ô„ÈÓÚÓ ¨Ì„‡ È· ‰¯˘Ú ‡È·Ó ≠ ˙Ó Ì‡Â ‡ ‡˘ ‰˙Ú ÆÆƇ ‡˘ ‡‡
Æ· È˙Ï·Á˘ ÈÂÏÙÏ χ¯˘È
‡ËÓ ‡ÈÓ ‰È˙Ó‡ ‡È„˘„ È„‰· Ƈ·‡ È·¯„ ‡˘„‡ ·È˙ȇ Ïʇ ¨‰È„‰· ‡·‡ È·¯Ï ‡˙ÏÈÓ ‰ÈÏ ‰Â‰ ‰ÈÓ¯È È·¯
ÆÔÂÈ·‡ ÌÈ¯È ˙Ù˘‡Ó ®‚Ș ÌÈω˙© ‰È˘Ù‡ ‡¯˜ ¨‰Ù˘‡Î È‡˘Ú ∫¯Ó‡ Ƈ˘È¯‡ ‡ÈÓ„ ÈÙÈʯÊ
ÆÍÈÚ¯ ·‰¯Â ÒÙ¯˙‰ ÍÏ ·È˙΄ ¨Í˙Ú„‡ ˜ÙÈÓÏ ‡Îȯˆ ‡˙˘‰ ∫‰ÈÏ ¯Ó‡ ¨‰ÈÙ‡Ï ˜ÈÙ ‡·‡ È·¯ ÚÓ˘
‰ÈÏ ˜ÂÙÈ È˙È„ ÈÎȉ ÈÎ ¨‰ÈÏ ‡ÈˆÓÓ ‰ÈÓ˜Ï È˙ ÛÈÏÁ ‰Â‰ ˘Èȇ È„‰· ‡˙ÏÈÓ ‰ÈÏ ‰Â‰ ÈÎ ¨‡¯ÈÊ È·¯
ÏÈÊȇ ∫‰ȇ ¯Ó‡ ȯÂÙ΄ ‡ÓÂÈ ÈÏÚÓ· ƉÈÓ˜Ï ‡˙‡ ‡Ï ≠ ‡Á·Ë ‡Â‰‰ È„‰· ‡˙ÏÈÓ ‰ÈÏ ‰Â‰ ·¯ ƉÈ˙Ú„Ó
ÏÈʇ ∫¯Ó‡ ƇÈÏÙÏ ÈÒÂÈÙÏ ‰ÈÏ ¯Ó‡ ≠ ø¯Ó ÏÈʇ ‡˜ ‡ÎÈ‰Ï ≠ ‰ÈÏ ¯Ó‡ ª‡‰ ·¯ ‰È· ڂ٠ƉÈÏ ÈÒÂÈÙÏ ‡‡
¨ÏÈÊ °˙‡ ‡·‡ ∫‰ÈÏ ¯Ó‡ ¨‰ÈÈÊÁ ‰ÈÈÚ ÈÏ„ ¨‡˘È¯ ÈÏÙ ‡˜Â ·È˙È ‰Â‰ ¨‰ÈÂÏÈÚ Ì˜Â Ïʇ Ƈ˘Ù Ï˘ÈÓÏ ‡·‡
‡¯„ÈÒ ˜ÈÒÙ ‰Â‰ ·¯ ƉÈÏ˘ ¨‰ÈÚ˜· ‰ÈÈÁÓ ¨‡Ó¯‚ ËÈÓ˙˘È‡ ‡˘È¯ ÈÏÙ ‡˜„ È„‰· °Í„‰· ‡˙ÏÈÓ ÈÏ ˙ÈÏ
¯„‰ ≠ È·¯· ÔÂÚÓ˘ È·¯ ‡˙‡ Ƈ˘È¯Ï ¯„‰ ≠ ‡¯Ù˜ ¯· ÏÈÈÚ ¨‡˘È¯Ï ¯„‰ ≠ ‡ÈÈÁ È·¯ ‡˙‡ ÏÈÈÚ ¨È·¯„ ‰ÈÓ˜
‰È·‚Ï ·¯ Ïʇ ¨‡ÈÁ È·¯ „È٘ȇ Ư„‰ ‡Ï øÏÈÊÈ ¯„‰ ȇ‰ ÈÏÂÎ ∫¯Ó‡ ¨‡ÓÁ ¯· ‡ÈÁ È·¯ ‡˙‡ Ƈ˘È¯Ï
¯ȷÁÓ ÂËÓ ˘˜·Ó‰ ÏÎ ∫‡ÈÁ ¯· ÈÒÂÈ È·¯ ¯Ó‡‰Â øÈΉ „È·Ú ÈÎȉ ≠ ÆÒÈÈÙȇ ‡Ï ¨È¯ÂÙ΄ ÈÓÂÈ ÈÏÚÓ ¯ÒÈÏ˙
ÏÚ ¯È·ÚÓ‰ ÏÎ ∫‡·¯ ¯Ó‡‰Â øÈΉ „È·Ú ÈÎȉ ‡ÈÁ È·¯Â ≠ ÆÈ‡˘ ·¯ ≠ °ÌÈÓÚÙ ˘Ï˘Ó ¯˙ÂÈ ÂÓÓ ˘˜·È χ
Ï΄ ȯÈÓ‚Â ¨‡Ï˜È„· ‰Â٘ʄ ·¯Ï ‰ÈÏ ÈÊÁ ‡ÓÏÁ ‡ÈÁ È·¯ ¨‡Ï‡ ≠ °ÂÈÚ˘Ù ÏÎ ÏÚ ÂÏ ÔȯȷÚÓ ≠ ÂÈ˙„Ó
‡˙Èȯ‡ ¯Ó‚Ï ÏÈÊÈÏ„ ÈÎȉ ÈÎ ¨ÒÈÈÙȇ ‡Ï Ƈ˙¢¯ „·ÚÓÏ ÈÚ· ‰ÈÓ ÚÓ˘ ∫¯Ó‡ Æȉ ‡˘È¯ ‡Ï˜È„· ‰Â٘ʄ
ÆÏ···

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Yoma 87a

R. Joseph b. Helbe pointed out to R. Abbahu the following contradiction: [We learned]:
FOR TRANSGRESSIONS COMMITTED BY MAN AGAINST HIS FELLOW MAN THE
DAY OF ATONEMENT PROCURES NO ATONEMENT, but it is written: If one man
sin against his fellow man, G-d [Elohim] will pacify him? Elohim here means “the

125
Judge.” But how then is the second half of the clause to be understood, “But if a man
sin against the Lord, who shall entreat for him?” — This is what he means to say:
“If a man sins against his fellow man, the judge will judge him, he [his fellow] will
forgive him, but if a man sins against the Lord G-d, who shall entreat for him? Only
repentance and good deeds.”
R. Isaac said: Whosoever offends his neighbor, and he does it only through words,
must pacify him, as it is written: My son, if thou art become surety for thy neighbor, if
thou hast struck thy hands for a stranger, thou art snared by the words of thy mouth
. . . Do this, now, my son, and deliver thyself, seeing thou art come into the hand of thy
neighbor; go, humble thyself, and urge thy neighbor. If he has a claim of money upon
you, open the palm of your hand to him, and if not, send many friends to him.
R. Hisda said: He should endeavor to pacify him through three groups of three people
each, as it is said: He cometh before me and saith: I have sinned and perverted that
which was right, and it profited me not.

R. Jose b. Hanina said: One who asks pardon of his neighbor need do so no more
than three times, as it is said: Forgive. I pray thee now . . . And now we pray thee. And
if he [against whom he had sinned] had died, he should bring ten persons and make
them stand by his grave and say: I have sinned against the Lord, the G-d of Israel, and
against this one, whom I have hurt.

R. Abba had a complaint against R. Jeremiah. He [R. Jeremiah] went and sat down
at the door of R. Abba and as the maid poured out water, some drops fell upon his
head. Then he said: They have made a dung heap of me, and he cited this passage
about himself: He raiseth up the poor out of the dust. R. Abba heard that and came
out towards him, saying: Now, I must come forth to appease you, as it is written: “Go,
humble thyself and urge thy neighbor.”
When R. Zera had any complaint against any man, he would repeatedly pass by him,
showing himself to him, so that he may come forth to [pacify] him.
Rab once had a complaint against a certain butcher, and when on the eve of the Day
of Atonement he [the butcher] did not come to him, he said: l shall go to him to pacify
him. R. Huna met him and asked: Whither are you going, sir? He said, To pacify so-
and-so. He thought: Abba is about to cause one’s death. He went there and remained
standing before him [the butcher], who was sitting and chopping an [animal’s] head.
He raised his eyes and saw him [Rab], then said: You are Abba, go away. I will have
nothing to do with you. Whilst he was chopping the head, a bone flew off, struck his
throat, and killed him.
Once Rab was expounding portions of the Bible before Rabbis, and there entered R.
Hiyya, whereupon Rab started again from the beginning; as Bar Kappara entered, he
started again from the beginning; as R. Simeon, the son of Rabbi entered, he started
again from the beginning. But when R. Hanina b. Hama entered, he said: So often shall
I go back? And he did not go over it again. R. Hanina took that amiss. Rab went to
him on thirteen eves of the Day of Atonement, but he would not be pacified. But how
could he do so? Did not R. Jose b. Hanina say, one who asks pardon of his neighbor
need not do so more than three times? - It is different with Rab. But how could R.
Hanina act so [unforgivingly]? Had not Rab said that if one passes over his rights,
all his transgressions are passed over [forgiven]? - Rather: R. Hanina had seen in a
dream that Rab was being hanged on a palm tree, and since the tradition is that
one who in a dream is hanged on a palm tree will become head [of an Academy], he
concluded that authority will be given to him, and so he would not be pacified, to the
end that he departed to teach Torah in Babylon.

126
 ‰ÏÈ‚Ó ˙ÎÒÓ ÈÏ·· „ÂÓÏ˙
‡ „ÂÓÚ ÁÎ Û„

Ô‡Ó ÏÎÏ ‰ÈÏ È¯˘ ∫¯Ó‡ ‰ÈȯÂÙÏ ˜ÈÏÒ ‰Â‰ ÈÎ ¨‡¯ËÂÊ ¯Ó„ ‡‰ ÈÎ ≠ ȯ·Á ˙ÏϘ È˙ËÓ ÏÚ ‰˙ÏÚ ‡ÏÂ
ÆÔ¯Úˆ„

Babylonian Talmud
Tractate Megilla 28a

“Nor did the curse of my fellow go up on my bed with me.”This is illustrated by Mar
Zutra, who, when he climbed into his bed said, I forgive all who have vexed me.

****

‰·Â˘˙ ˙ÂÎω ≠ ‰¯Â˙ ‰˘Ó

®±±≥∏≠±≤∞¥ ¨ÌȯˆÓ≠„¯ÙÒ© ÔÂÓÈÓ Ô· ‰˘Ó ߯ ≠ Ìßß·Ó¯
È ‰Îω · ˜¯Ù

‡ËÂÁ‰ ÂÓÓ ˘˜·Ó˘ ‰Ú˘·Â ÒÂÚÎÏ ‰˘˜Â ˙ˆ¯Ï ÁÂ ‡‰È ‡Ï‡ ÒÈÈÙ˙È ‡Ï ȯÊ· ˙ÂÈ‰Ï Ì„‡Ï ¯ÂÒ‡
Ú¯Ê Ï˘ Ìί„ ‰Ê ¯ÂËÈ ‡Ï ÌÂ˜È ‡Ï ‰·¯‰ ÂÏ ‡ËÁ ÂÏ ¯ˆ‰ ÂÏÈه ¨‰ˆÈÙÁ ˘Ù·Â ÌÏ˘ ·Ï· ÏÁÂÓ ÏÂÁÓÏ
ÌÈÂÚ·‚‰ ÏÚ ¯Ó‡ ‡Â‰ ÔΠ¨Áˆ ‰¯Ó˘ Ô˙¯·Ú ‡Ï‡ ÔÎ Ôȇ ·Ï ÈÏ¯Ú ÌÈ·ÎÂÎ È„·ÂÚ‰ Ï·‡ ÔÂÎ‰ Ì·Ï χ¯˘È
ƉӉ χ¯˘È È·Ó ‡Ï ÌÈÂÚ·‚‰Â ÂÒÈÈÙ˙ ‡Ï ÂÏÁÓ ‡Ï˘ ÈÙÏ

Mishneh Torah Laws of Repentance

Maimonides - Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Spain - Egypt, 1138-1204)
Chapter 2 Law 10

A man is forbidden to be cruel and must be conciliatory: He should be easily appeased,

hard to make angry and when a wrongdoer begs his forgiveness, he ought to forgive
with a whole heart and willing spirit. Even if he was persecuted and much wronged,
he ought not to be vengeful and bear a grudge, because such is the way of the upright
hearts of the Children of Israel. The idolaters’ hard hearts are not so and their anger
holds forever. So it was concerning the Gibeonites; because they were unforgiving and
not conciliatory, it was said of them: Now the Gibeonites were not of the Children of
Israel (II Sam. 21:2).

****

‰ÂÈ ÂÈ·¯Ï ‰·Â˘˙ È¯Ú˘ ¯ÙÒ

®±≥≠‰ ‰‡Ó‰ ¨„¯ÙÒ© È„¯Ȃ ̉¯·‡ Ô· ‰ÂÈ È·¯
ÊË ∫‡ ¯Ú˘
ÈÙ ÏÚ Û‡ ÈÎ ®‡ ¨·ˆ ‡Ó˜ ‡··© ‰Î¯·Ï Ì¯ÎÊ ÂÈ˙·¯ ¯Ӈ ÔΠ¨‰ÏÈÁÓ ÂÓÓ ˘˜·È˘ „Ú ‰¯ÙÎ ÂÏ Ôȇ ÆÆÆ
¯Ó‡˘ ¨‰ÏÈÁÓ ÂÓÓ ˘˜·È˘ „Ú ÂÏ ÏÁÓ ‰‡Î‰‰Â ‰˘Â·‰ ¯Úˆ Ôȇ ¨‰‡Î‰‰ ¯Úˆ ÈÓ„Â Â˙˘Â· ÈÓ„ Ô˙˘
ƉÈÁ ̈́ڷ ÏÏÙ˙È ‡Â‰ ‡È· ÈÎ ˘È‡‰ ˙˘‡ ·˘‰ ‰˙Ú ∫®Ê∫Î ˙È˘‡¯·©
ËÈ∫„ ¯Ú˘
¯ÓÂÏ Íȯˆ Ôȇ ¨ÂÒÈÈÙÏ Íȯˆ Ìȯ·„· ¯·Á ˙‡ Ì„‡ ËÈ˜‰ ̇ ∫®‡ ¨ÊÙ ‡ÓÂÈ© ‰Î¯·Ï Ì¯ÎÊ ÂÈ˙·¯ ¯ӇÂ
˙¯Â·Á ÌÚ ÂÈÙÏ ‡Â·Ï ·ÈÈÁ ≠ ¯ȷÁ ÂÏ ÏÁÓ ‡Ï ̇ ¨˙¯ÂÓÁ‰ ˙¯ȷډ ÔÓ ‰Ê ÈÎ ¨Ú¯‰ ÔÂ˘Ï ÂÈÏÚ ¯·„ ̇
Æ˙È˘ÈÏ˘ ÌÚÙ ‰˘ÚÈ ÔΠ¨˙¯Á‡ ‰¯Â·Á ÌÚ ˙È˘ ÂÈÙÏ ‡Â·È ≠ ÂÏ ÏÁÓ ‡Ï ¨Ì„‡ È· ‰˘Ï˘

127
Sha`Arei Teshuvah
Rabbi Yonah ben Rabbi Abraham Gerondi (Spain, 13th Century)
Chapter 1 Section 16

For in offenses between man and his neighbor, such as theft and plunder, one’s
transgression is not forgiven until the theft has been returned. Similarly, if one has
grieved his neighbor and oppressed him, or shamed him, or slandered him, he is not
forgiven until he asks his forgiveness. Our Sages of blessed memory have said that
although one may have rendered monetary compensation for his neighbor’s shame
and for the pain caused him by the injury, the pain of the shame and the injury are
not atoned for until he asks his forgiveness, as it is said, “Now, therefore, restore the
man’s wife; for he is a prophet and he shall pray for you and you shall live” (Gen. 20:7;
Baba Kama 92a).
Chapter 4 Section 19
Our Sages of blessed memory have said that one who antagonizes a friend must
appease him; this goes with out saying if he spoke slander against him (Yoma 87a),
for this is one of the most severe transgressions. And if his friend does not forgive him,
he must come before him with a company of three men. If he still does not forgive
him, he must come before him again with another group and so he must do a third
time.

****
‰‡¯È‰ ¯ÙÒ
®±≥≠‰ ‰‡Ó‰ ¨„¯ÙÒ© È„¯Ȃ ̉¯·‡ Ô· ‰ÂÈ È·¯

¨ÒÂÈÙ ÂÓÓ ˘˜· ÍÏ ‡ËÁ ̇ ۇ ¨ÒÈÈÙ˙È˘ „Ú Â˙‡ ‰ˆ¯˙ ÍÏ Í‡ ¨Ì„‡ ÌÚ ÍÏ ‰Ë˘ ‰ÏÈÏ· ·Î˘˙ χÂ
ÏÚ ·ÚÂ˙Ó ‰È‰˙ ¨Í··Ï ‰È·‚È ‡Ï ÔÚÓÏ ¨ÂÈχ ÍÏ ͯˆÈ ˙‡ ÛÂÎ ¨ÈÒÈÈÙÏ ‡·Ï ÂÈÏÚ ¨ÈÏ ‡ËÁ Ô‰ ∫¯Ó‡˙ χÂ
Æ¢·Ï ‰·‚ ÏΠ߉ ˙·ÚÂ˙¢ ∫®ÊË ÈÏ˘Ó© ¯Ó‡˘ ‡¯Â·‰ ÈÙ

Sefer Hayira
Rabbi Yonah ben Rabbi Abraham Gerondi (Spain, 13th Century)

And do not lie down at night while harboring a dispute with another, rather go
and appease him until he acquiesces. Even if he sinned to you, go and ask for
appeasement, and do not say, “He wronged me, he must come and appease me,”
subdue your inclination and go to him, so that your heart will not become haughty
and thus you will become despised to the Creator, as it states, “Every proud of heart
is an abomination to God” (Prov. 16:5).

****
ÌȘȄˆ ˙ÂÁ¯Â‡ ¯ÙÒ
‰·Â˘˙‰ ¯Ú˘
ÌȯÂÙΉ ÌÂÈ Ôȇ Æ¯ȷÁ ˙‡ ‰ˆ¯È ‡Ï ̇ ¨‰¯ÙÎ ÂÏ Ôȇ ¨Ìȯ·„ ˙‡‡· ÔÈ· ÔÂÓÓ· ÔÈ· ¨Â¯ÚȈ ¯ȷÁ ‰ÎÓ‰
ÏÚ Â„È ‰È·‚Ó‰ Æ®· ‰Ù ‡ÓÂÈ© ÂÒÈÈÙÏ Íȯˆ ¯ȷÁ ÔÈ·Â ÂÈ·˘ Ï·‡ ¨Ì˜Ӊ ÔÈ·Ï ÂÈ·˘ ˙Â¯È·Ú ‡Ï‡ ¯ÙÎÓ
ÆÆÆÆÆÆƯÙÎ˙È ‰ÏÈÁÓ ÂÓÓ ˘˜·È ¨®· Á Ôȯ„‰Ò© Ú˘¯ ‡¯˜ ¨Â‰Î‰ ‡Ï˘ ÈÙ ÏÚ Û‡ ¨Â¯È·Á

128
 ˘˜·È ¯ȷÁÏ Ì˘ ‰ÎÓ‰ ÆÂÈÈÁ ÈÓÈ ÏÎ ‰„ÂÂ˙È ¨ÌÂÈ Ïη ‰˜ÏÈ ¨¯˙ÂÈ Â‡ ÌÂÈ ÌÈÚ·¯‡ ‰Ú˙È Â¯È·Á ÈÙ ÔÈ·ÏÓ‰
ÆÌÂÈ Ïη ‰Úˆ· ‰„ÂÂ˙È ¨ÌÂÈ ÌÈÚ·¯‡ ‰Ú˙È ¨ÌÈ·¯ ÈÙ· ‰ÏÈÁÓ ÂÓÓ

¯Ó‡È ÌÈ˘‡ ÏÚ ¯Â˘È¢ ∫®ÊÎ∫‚Ï ·Âȇ© ¯Ó‡˘¸ ¨Ì„‡ È· ‰˘Ï˘ Ï˘ ˙Â¯Â˘ ˘Ï˘ ‡È·È ¯ȷÁ ˙‡ ËÈ˜Ó‰
‰¯˘Ú ÍÈÏÂÈ ≠ ˙Ó Ì‡Â ÆÌÈÓÚÙ ˘Ï˘Ó ¯˙ÂÈ ÂÓÓ ˘˜·Ï Íȯˆ Ôȇ ƢÈÏ ‰Â˘ ‡Ï È˙ÈÂÚ‰ ¯˘È È˙‡ËÁ
‰ÏÈÁ˙Ó °®‡ ÊÙ ‡ÓÂÈ© Â˙‡ È˙Ë˜‰˘ ‰Ê ÈÂÏÙÏ χ¯˘È ȉχ ß‰Ï È˙‡ËÁ ∫¯Ó‡È ¯·˜ ÏÚ Ì„‡ È·
‰ÏÈÁÓ ÂÓÓ ˘˜·È ̄‡ È· ‰¯˘Ú ‡È·È ¨Ï·˜Ó Âȇ ̇ °Í· È˙Ú˘Ù ∫¯Ó‡È ÂËÈ˜‰˘ ÈÓÏ ËÈ˜Ó‰ ÍÏÈ
‡‰È ‡Ï ÆÂÈ·Ï ÂÈ· ÒÂÈÙ· ‰ÏÈÁÓ ÂÓÓ ˘˜·È˘ È„ ‡Ï ¨ÌÈ·¯· ‰ÊÈ· Ï·‡ ¨ÌÈ·¯· ‰ÊÈ· ‡Ï˘ ‡˜Â„ Æ̉ÈÙ·
‡Ó˜ ‡·· ÈÓÏ˘Â¯È© ˙ÈÓÏÂÚ ‰ÏÈÁÓ ÂÏ Ôȇ ¨Ú¯ Ì˘ ÂÈÏÚ ‡ÈˆÂ‰Â ÂËÈ˜‰ ̇ Ʈ‡ ·ˆ ‡Ó˜ ‡··© ȯÊ· ÏÁÂÓ‰
Ư˙ÂÈ Â‡ ÌÂÈ ÌÈÚ·¯‡ ÂÓˆÚ ÔÈ·Ï ÂÈ· ‰˜ÏÈ ‰Ú˙È ÔΠ̇ ‡Ï‡ ¨®È ‰Îω Ë ˜¯Ù

Pathways of the Righteous

Gate to Repentance

He who hits his companion, and causes him pain, whether it be in money matters or
through fraudulent words, there is no atonement for him unless he can appease his
companion. And the Day of Atonement atones only for sins that are between man
and G-d. But as for sins between him and his fellow man, he must first appease him
(Yoma 85b). He who lifts his hand against his companion, even though he did not hit
him, is called a wicked man (Sanhedrin 58b) and he must ask forgiveness of him: Only
thus can he do atonement...
He who shames his companion should fast for forty days or more, and he should
be lashed every day, and he should confess his wrong all the days of his life. He who
calls his companion by a derogatory nickname must beg him for forgiveness in the
presence of many, and he must fast forty days and he must confess privately every
day...
He who provokes his companion must bring three groups of three people, as it is said
“He cometh before men and saith” (Job 33:27), and he must say in their presence,
“I have sinned and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not.” But he
does not have to ask him for forgiveness more than three times. If the man whom
he provoked dies, he should take ten men to his grave and say: I have sinned to the
Lord, the G-d of Israel and to this person, for I have provoked him (Yoma 87a). But
to begin with, before he does these forms of penance, one who has aggrieved his
companion should go to him and say, “I have sinned against you,” and if he does not
accept his apology, he should bring three people and ask for forgiveness by appeasing
him privately. But the one who is asked to forgive should not be cruel (Baba Kama
92a). And if he provoked him by spreading an evil report concerning him, there is
no forgiveness for him ever (TJ Baba Kama 9:10), unless he fasts and he is lashed
privately for forty days or more.

****

ÌÈÈÁ Á¯Â‡ ÍÂ¯Ú ÔÁÏ¢

®±¥∏∏≠±µ∑µ ¨Ï‡¯˘È ı¯‡ ≠ „¯ÙÒ© ¯‡˜ Ìȯه Ô· ÛÒÂÈ ·¯
·≠‡ ÛÈÚÒ Â¯˙ ÔÓÈÒ
,‫ צריך לפייסו; ואם אינו מתפייס בראשונה‬,‫עבירות שבין אדם לחבירו אין יום הכיפורים מכפר עד שיפייסנו; אפילו לא הקניטו אלא בדברים‬
‫ )מיהו יאמר אחר כך לפני‬.‫ ואם אינו מתפייס בשלשה פעמיםאינו זקוק לו‬,‫ ובכל פעם יקח עמו שלשה אנשים‬,‫יחזור וילך פעם שנייה ושלישית‬
‫ והמוחל לא יהיה אכזרי מלמחול אם לא שמכוון לטובת‬:‫ הגה‬.‫ צריך לילך לו כמה פעמים עד שיתפייס‬,‫עשרה שבקש ממנו מחילה( ; ואם הוא רבו‬

129
 ÆÂÏ ÏÂÁÓÏ Íȯˆ Âȇ ¨Ú¯ Ì˘ ÂÈÏÚ ‡ÈˆÂ‰ ̇ ª‰ÏÈÁÓ ˘˜·Ó‰
‰Ê ÈÂÏÙÏ χ¯˘È È‰Ï‡Ï È˙‡ËÁ ∫¯Ó‡ ¯·˜ ÏÚ Ì„ÈÓÚÓ ̄‡ È· ‰¯˘Ú ‡È·Ó ¨ÂÏ ‡ËÁ ¯˘‡ ˙Ó Ì‡
Æ®¯ÂÙÎ ÌÂÈ ·¯Ú· ‰ÏÈÁÓ ˘˜·Ï ‚‰© ¨ÂÏ È˙‡ËÁ˘

Shulchan Aruch
Rabbi Joseph ben Ephraim Caro (Spain - Land of Israel, 1488-1575)
Orach Chaim Chapter 706

A transgression between a man and his fellow cannot be atoned for on the Eve of
Yom Kippur [Kol Nidre] until he is appeased. If [one’s fellow] was not appeased the
first time], one should approach him again a second and a third time. Every time [one
approaches him] one should take with him three people. If by the third time he was
not appeased, one does not need [to approach] him [any more]. However, he should
subsequently say in front of ten [people] that he requested him to forgive him. If [the
person against whom one transgressed] is one’s [Torah] teacher, one must go to him
several times until he is appeased.
Gloss: [A person] who is [asked] for forgiveness should not be cruel over [the
granting of] forgiveness unless he has in mind the benefit of the person who requests
forgiveness. If [the offender] blackened one’s name, one does not need to forgive
him.
If [the person] against whom one sinned dies, one should bring ten people and
station them at his grave and say, “I have sinned against the God of Israel and against
this [person], So-and-so, as I sinned against Him.” [It is the practice to ask forgiveness
on the Eve of Yom Kippur.]

****
ÌȯÂÙÎ ÌÂÈ ·¯Ú ‰ÎÊ ‰ÏÈÙ˙
®±∑¥∏≠±∏≤∞© ‚Ȉ„ ̉¯·‡ ߯

ÂÙÁ¯Â È·¯˜· È·Ï ¯·˘ ‰Ê ÏڠƯ·Á ˙‡ ‰ˆ¯È˘ „Ú ¯ÙÎÓ ÌȯÂÙΉ ÌÂÈ Ôȇ ¯·ÁÏ Ì„‡ ÔÈ·˘ ‡ËÁ ÏÚ ÈÎÆÆÆÆ
ÔÈ·Â ÂÙ‚· ÔÈ· ¨È„‚ ‡ËÁ˘ ÈÓ ÏÎÏ ¨‰¯ÂÓ‚ ‰ÈÏÁÓ· ÏÁÂÓ È‰ÂÆÆÆÆÆƯÙÎÓ ‰ ˙ÈÓ‰ ÌÂÈ Ôȇ ÂÏÈÙ‡ ÈÎ ¨È˙ÂÓˆÚ
˙‡ËÁ ÏÎÏ ÆÈÂÓÓ· ‡ ÈÙ‚· ÈÏ ˜Èʉ˘ ÈÓ ÏÎÏ ÔΠÆÚ¯ Ì˘ ˙‡ˆÂ‰ ÂÏÈه ¨Ú¯‰ ÔÂ˘Ï ÈÏÚ ¯·„˘ ‡ ¨ÂÂÓÓ·
¨¯Ó‡ Ȅ‚Î ‡ËÂÁ˘ ÈÓ ıÂÁ ¨ÔÈ„ ÈÙ ÏÚ ‡ÈˆÂ‰Ï ÏÂÎÈ È‡ ¯˘‡ ÔÂÓÓÓ ıÂÁ ¨Â¯·ÁÏ Ì„‡ ÔÈ· ¯˘‡ ¨Ì„‡‰
È‡˘ Ì˘Î ÆÈ˙·Ò· Ì„‡ Ì¢ ˘ÚÈ ‡Ï ۉ¯ÂÓ‚ ‰ÏÈÁÓ· ÏÁÂÓ È‡ ÂÏ‡Ó ıÂÁ ¨ÈÏ ÏÁÓÈ ‡Â‰Â ‡Ï ¯ËÁ‡Â
Ɖ¯ÂÓ‚ ‰ÏÈÁÓ· ÈÏ ÂÏÁÓÈ˘ Ì„‡ ÏÎ ÈÈÚ· ÈÁ ˙‡ Ô˙˙ ÔÎ ¨Ì„‡ ÏÎÏ ÏÁÂÓ

Tefillah Zakkah recited on Yom Kippur

Rabbi Abraham Danzig (1748-1820)

...because for a sin between man and his neighbor,Yom Kippur does not atone until
one appeases his neighbor. For this, I am inwardly heartbroken and my bones shudder,
because even the day of death does not atone. Therefore, I make my supplication
before You that You have mercy on me and allow me to find favor, kindness and mercy
in Your eyes and in the eyes of all people. Behold! I extend complete forgiveness to
everyone who has sinned against me, whether physically or monetarily, or who has
injured me, whether physically or financially, and for any human sins between man
and his neighbor - except for money that I wish to claim and that I can recover by law

130
 and except for someone who sins against me and says, “I will sin against him and he
will forgive me” - except for these I grant complete forgiveness; and may no person
be punished on my account. And just as I forgive everyone, so may You grant me favor
in every person’s eye, so that he will grant me complete forgiveness.

****

Summary

Abraham showed an example of compassion when he prayed for the recovery of

Abimelech, the king who had abducted his wife. G-d cured Abimelech, because he had
done true repentance and regretted his actions toward Abraham.
If one commits a sin or a crime intending to repent later, his repentance will not be
accepted nor will he be forgiven. Crimes committed between men and not against G-d
cannot be forgiven unless the perpetrator asks the victim for forgiveness.
If one should insult another even if only through words and not actions, he must
reconcile with him. The reconciliation process, according to Rabbi Hisda, requires
sending three groups of representatives to ask the victim for forgiveness. But if the
victim refuses to grant his forgiveness after the third attempt, then the perpetrator is no
longer held responsible for the crime, because he sincerely repented and attempted to
reconcile with the victim. The Talmud describes how one can be reconciled even with
the dead. This ritual comprises going to the aggrieved person’s grave with ten people
to ask forgiveness, which is an act designed to show public regret for one’s actions.
Another Talmudic instance illustrates that sometimes forgiveness is not required, and
that it can even benefit the offender not to be forgiven. Rab was giving a sermon on
the Torah portion of the week, when three rabbis entered the learning hall separately
after he had started. Each time Rab restarted his sermon from the beginning. But the
fourth time this happened, when Rabbi Hanina entered, Rab did not go back to the
beginning of the sermon. Rabbi Hanina felt anger and shame, because he was shown
less honor and treated with less importance than the other rabbis. For thirteen years
prior to Yom Kippur, Rab went to ask forgiveness from Rabbi Hanina for insulting him
publicly in the learning hall. Each time Rabbi Hanina did not forgive him. The Ramo
(Rabbi Moshe Isserles) gleans from this story that situations exist where one is not
obligated to forgive. One explanation of this story is that where forgiveness would be
harmful to the apologizer, it is acceptable not to forgive.
It is said of Mar Zutra that he would not retire for the night without granting
forgiveness to those who had injured him that day. Here forgiveness is granted without
receiving an apology or an apology even being requested.
In his laws of damages, the Rambam rules that one is obliged to grant forgiveness
only if the repentance is sincere. If the perpetrator confessed and promises not to
repeat the offense, only then the offended individual is expected to forgive. The
Rambam inserts “and he knows that he has repented his sins” for without sincerity
one is not expected to forgive. In his laws of repentance, the Rambam outlines the

131
process of asking for forgiveness from the one who has been wronged. He says that if
there is someone you insulted, stole from or harmed physically, even if you have paid
him back or recompensed him, you still must be forgiven by him in order to achieve
full repentance and be forgiven by G-d. If the offended person refuses to forgive the
transgressor for his actions, the transgressor must send three people (friends of the
person he harmed) to plead on his behalf that he should be forgiven. If the wronged
individual still refuses to forgive, the transgressor must send a delegation of people
a second and third time to ask his forgiveness. If the wronged person still refuses to
forgive, the law states that the transgressor should leave him alone and the person
who refused to forgive now becomes “the sinner.” The law of forgiveness is reciprocal
in that just as people must ask for forgiveness, so too they are commanded to forgive
others who have hurt them. After describing the laws outlining the process of asking
forgiveness, the Rambam instructs a person not to be cruel and to forgive another with
a willing and whole heart. The law states that a person who feels greatly wronged by
another should forgive “for this is the way of the Jews” and he should not take revenge
on the transgressor.
Rabbenu Yona in Shaarei Teshuva outlines a process similar to the Rambam’s for
asking for forgiveness. The key components in the process are the realization that one
may not forgive immediately and that it is important and expected that one must make
several attempts to ask for forgiveness. In addition, one is advised to seek the assistance
of a friend of the offended person in order to try and convince him to forgive. This
friend is similar to a facilitator or third party, although it is clear that he is not neutral as
he is distinctly connected to one side and being sent by the offender. Rabbenu Yona in
the Sefer Hayira encourages the offending party to ask for forgiveness. He specifically
instructs a person that he should not say, “He wronged me, he should come and
reconcile with me.” Instead, an individual should overcome his negative inclinations
and ask for reconciliation. He should not hold a grudge and remain angry, but rather
approach his friend, make peace and be reconciled, even if he feels that he has done
nothing wrong.
The Shulchan Aruch in the Yom Kippur ordinances outlines the process the Rambam
described. Here it is advised to ask for forgiveness before Yom Kippur, because the Day
of Atonement does not erase sins between men. The Ramo, Rabbi Moshe Isserles,
adds that the wronged person should not be cruel and should forgive the wrongdoer.
Commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch point out that forgiveness is a moral trait that
man should strive for and it is admirable to forgive those that have wronged him. The
Shulchan Aruch, as does the Rambam, requires the wrongdoer to beg forgiveness a
minimum of three times. After three tries, the offender does not need the forgiveness
of the offended in order to appear before G-d with a clear conscience. Another
understanding of the term used in the Shulchan Aruch - eino zakuk lo, “he does not
need him” - could be that the offender should not have contact with the offended.While
every effort is made to manage the conflict and maintain the relationship between the
parties, if the attempt to make peace and to receive forgiveness fails, the Shulchan
Aruch seems to be instructing a different approach to manage the conflict. Instead of

132
reconciling between the parties, perhaps the alternative approach is avoidance, thus
the two parties should break all contact and end their relationship.
When discussing the forgiveness process, the Orchot Zadikim adds that if the
offense was committed in public then the apology must also be made publicly. Just as in
a defamation case, where the apology must be printed in the newspaper or broadcast
over media in which the defamation occurred, so asking for forgiveness must be done
publicly for all those who witnessed the insult to be part of the repentance.
Among the many preparations for the Day of Atonement, the holiest day in the
Jewish calendar, is the act of seeking forgiveness from each other before the day begins.
A private prayer, Tefillah Zaka, recited before the start of Yom Kippur, stresses the
connection between forgiveness among one’s fellows and this holy fast day. This prayer
was compiled by Rabbi Abraham Danzig, author of Hayyei Adam, and he states that
it should be recited before Kol Nidre. The prayer is a combination of confession and
supplication. Remorse is expressed for having used our G-d-given facilities to flout His
will, rather than to serve Him. In this prayer forgiveness is limited. However, the limits
are somewhat different than the limits set down in the Shulchan Aruch and Talmud.
Though money that the individual wishes to claim and recover by going to court, or
sins that were committed with the explicit intent of asking forgiveness are not forgiven,
slander and emotional harm are forgiven.

133
Bibliography of Translated Texts
ben Avraham, Yonah. 1976. The Gates of Repentance: Sha’arei Teshuvah. Trans. by Shraga
Silverstein. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers.

ben Isaiah, Abraham and Benjamin Sharfman. 1949. The Pentateuch and Rashi’s

Commentary. Brooklyn, NY: S.S. & R. Publishing Company.

Blackman, Philip. 1983. Mishnayoth. Gateshead, UK: Judaica Press.

Chavel, Charles. 1971. Ramban (Nachmanides). New York: Shilo Publishing House.

Cohen, Seymour J., trans. 1974. Orchot Tzadikim: The Ways of the Righteous. Jerusalem:
Feldheim Publishers.

Denburg, Chaim. 1955. Code of Hebrew Law: Shulhan Aruk. Montreal: Jurisprudence Press.

Goldin, Hyman. 1927. Code of Jewish Law. New York: Hebrew Publishing Co.

Halevi, Aaron. 1978. Sefer haHinnuch: The Book of [Mitzvah] Education. Trans. Charles
Wengrov. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers.

Van Loopik, Marcus. 1991. The Ways of the Sages and the Way of the World: The Minor
Tractates of the Babylonian Talmud. Tubingen: Mohr.

Maimonides. 1957. The Code of Maimonides. Trans. by Hyman Klein. London: University Press.

Maimonides. 2001. Mishneh Torah. Trans. by Eliyahu Touger. New York: Moznaim Publishing
Corporation.

Neusner, Jacob. 1988. Sifra: An Analytical Translation. USA: Brown University.

Neusner, Jacob. 1998. The Talmud of the Land of Israel. USA: University of South Florida.

Orenstein, Aviel. 1999. Mishnah Berurah. Jerusalem: Pisga Foundation.

Russel, H.M. and J. Weinberg, trans. 1983. The Book of Knowledge: From the Mishneh Torah of
Maimonides. New York: Ktav Publishing House.

Scherman, Nosson. 1986. The Complete ArtScroll Machzor, Yom Kippur. New York: Mesorah
Publications.
Soloveitchik, Joseph B. 1979. Reflections of the Rav: Lessons in Jewish Thought, adapted from
lectures of Joseph B. Soloveitchik, compiled by Abraham R. Besdin. Jerusalem: Department for
Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora of the World Zionist Organization.

Townsend, John. 1989. Midrash Tanhuma. Hoboken: Ktav Publications.

Additional Literature

134
Auerbach, Yehudith. 2004. “The Role of Forgiveness in Reconciliation.” Pp.149-175 in From
Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation, edited by Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Barsky, Allan Edward. 2000. “Cross-cultural Issues in Community Mediation: Perspectives for
Israel.” Jewish Political Studies Review 12, no. 3-4: 83-94.

Bazak, Jacob. 2002. “Compromise vs. Adjudication in Jewish Law.” Jewish Law Association
Studies 12: 1-6.

Berner, Adam. “Divorce Mediation: Gentle Alternative to a Bitter Process.” http://jlaw.com/

Articles/berner.html. Accessed 10.10.2007.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 2002. “Traditions of Dispute: From Negotiations of Talmudic Texts to

the Arena of Political Discourse in the Media.” Journal of Pragmatics 34, no.10-11: 1569-1594.

Broyde, Michael J. “Fighting the War and the Peace: Battlefield Ethics, Peace Talks,Treaties, and
Pacifism in the Jewish Tradition,” http://jlaw.com/Articles/war1.html Accessed 10.10.2007.

Broyde, Michael J. 1996. “Forming Religious Communities and Respecting Dissenter’s Rights:
A Jewish Tradition for a Modern Society.” Pp. 203-233 in Religious Human Rights in Global
Perspective, edited by J. Witte Jr. and J.D. van der Wyver. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

Cohen, Arthur A. and Paul Mendes-Flohr, eds. 1987. Contemporary Jewish Religious
Thought: Original Essays on Critical Concepts, Movements, and Beliefs. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons.

Dorf, Elliot N. 1992. “Individual and Communal Forgiveness.” Pp. 193-218 in Autonomy and
Judaism, edited by Daniel H. Frank. Albany NY: State University of New York.

Ehrlich, Avishai. 2004. “Israel, Religion, and Peace.” Pp. 166-189 in Islam, Judaism, and the
Political Role of Religions in the Middle East, edited by John Bunzl. Gainesville, FL: University
Press of Florida.

Elon, Menachem. 1971. “Compromise.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem: Keter. vol. 5: 857-
859.

Elon, Menachem. 1997. “Law, Truth, and Peace: ‘The Three Pillars of the World’.” New York
University Journal of International Law and Politics 29, 4: 439-471.

Finkelman, Marilyn. 1987. “Self-Defense and Defense of Others in Jewish Law: The Rodef
Defense.” The Wayne State Review 33: 1257-1287.

Friedman, Hershey H. and Abraham C. Weisel. 2007. “Should Moral Individuals

Ever Lie? Insights from Jewish Law.” Jewish Law Articles: Examining Halacha, Jewish Issues and
Secular Law, http://jlaw.com/Articles/hf_LyingPermissible.html Accessed 10.10.2007

135
Gopin, Marc. 1994. “Is There a Jewish God of Peace?” Pp. 32-39 in The Challenge of Shalom,
edited by Murray Polner and Naomi Goodman. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.

Lamm, Norman. 1992. “‘Peace and Truth’: Strategies for Their Reconciliation—A

Meditation.” Pp. 193-199 in Reverence, Righteousness and Rahamanut: Essays in

Memory of Rabbi Dr. Leo Jung, edited by Jacob J. Schacter. Northvale: Aronson.

Newman, Louis E. 1998. “The Quality of Mercy: On the Duty to Forgive in the Judaic
Tradition.” Pp. 83-100 in Past Imperatives, edited by Louis E. Newman. Albany NY: State
University of New York.

Novak, David. 1996. “Religious Human Rights in Judaic Texts.” Pp. 175-201 in Religious Human
Rights in Global Perspective, edited by J. Witte Jr. and J.D. van der Wyver. The Hague: Kluwer
Law International.

Ravitsky, Aviezer. 1987. “Peace.” Pp. 685-702 in Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought, edited
by Arthur A. Cohen and Paul Mendes-Flohr. New York: New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Schimmel, Solomon. 2002. Wounds Not Healed by Time – The Power of Repentance and
Forgiveness. New York: Oxford University.

Soloveitchik, Joseph B. 1998. Before Hashem You Shall Be Purified: Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik
on the Days of Awe, compiled by Arnold Lustiger. New Jersey: Ohr Publishing.

Steinberg, Gerald M. 2000. “Conflict Prevention and Mediation in the Jewish Tradition.” Jewish
Political Studies Review 12, no. 3-4: 3-21.

Tropper, Daniel. 2000. “Avoiding Intervention as a Model for De-Facto Religious

Compromise.” Jewish Political Studies Review 12, no. 3-4: 27-38.

Walzer, Michael. 1996. “War and Peace in the Jewish Tradition.” Pp. 95-114 in The Ethics of
War and Peace. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wiesenthal, Simon.1998. The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness, edited
by Harry James Cargas and Bonny V. Fetterman. New York: Schocken Books.

Zelcer, Heshey. 2007. “Two Models of Alternative Dispute Resolution,” Hakirah 4:

69-113.

Zerbe, Gordon. 2001. “Forgiveness and the Transformation of Conflict:The Continuity of

a Biblical Paradigm.” Pp. 235-258 in Reclaiming the Old Testament: Essays in Honour of
Waldemar Janzen, edited by Gordon Zerbe. Winnipeg: CMBC Publications.

136
 Æ¢ÔÓ¢ÈÈ ˙ÂÈÎÂÈÁ ˙ÂÎÏ˘‰ ∫˙Ȅ‰ȉ ˙‚‰· ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ ˙·¯˙¢ Ʊππ∂ ÆÔÈÓÈ· ¨ÌÂÏ˘≠˘È‡
˙·˘ÁÓ ¯˜ÁÏ ÊίӉ ∫ÌÈÏ˘Â¯È Æ˙„Á‡Â ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ‰È˯˜ÂÓ„Â ˙„‰È ÍÂ˙· ∑∞≠∏± ßÓÚ
ÆıÈ˘ÙÈÏ ˙ÏÏÎÓ „ÈÏ˘ ˙Ȅ‰ȉ ˙‚‰· ÍÂÈÁ‰

˙ÙÈ ‰¯˘Â ÔÂχ ÌÁÓ ÍÂ˙· ±∑≠≥µ ßÓÚ Æ¢ÌÂÏ˘‰Â ˙Ó‡‰ ÔÈ„‰¢ Ʊππ∂ ¢˘˙ ÆÌÁÓ ¨ÔÂχ
Æ‡È˘‰ ˙È· ∫ÌÈÏ˘Â¯È Æ‰„ÙÈ˙ ËÙ˘Ó· ÔÂȈ ®ÌÈίÂÚ©

ËÙ˘Ó‰ È„ÂÓÚ ‰Ú·¯‡Â ‰˘ÂÏ˘ ÏÚ ∫‰¯˘Ù‰Â ÌÂÏ˘‰ ˙Ó‡‰ ÔÈ„‰¢ ÆÁ¢˘˙ ÆÌÁÓ ¨ÔÂχ
Æ≤∂π≠≥¥±∫®≤© „È ËÙ˘Ó È¯˜ÁÓ¢ ‰¯·Á‰Â

Æ∂¥≠∑∂∫‡Ú ÈÈÒ ¢È¯·Ú‰ ËÙ˘Ó· ‰¯˘Ù Ï˘ ͯ„· ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘È¢ Ʊπ∑≤ Æ·˜ÚÈ ¨˜Ê·

ËÙ˘Ó‰ ÔÂ˙˘ ¢‰Îω‰ Ï˘ ‰ÈÏ‚ς· ÌÈÂÈÚ ≠ ˙Âȯ·‰ „·ΠÏ„‚¢ Ʊπ∏≥ Æ·˜ÚÈ ¨ÔÈˢ„ÈÏ·
Ʊ≤∑≠±∏∂ ∫È≠Ë È¯·Ú‰

ËÙ˘ÓÏ ÔÂÎÓ‰ ∫ÔÂËÒ· ƉÎω· ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ Æ·¢˘˙ Æ®ÌÈίÂÚ© Æ ¨È˘Â Ɖ ¨Ô˙ ¨‡ÈÁ ¨ÌÁÓ≠Ô·
ÆÔÂËÒ· ˙ËÈÒ¯·È‡ ¨È¯·Ú‰

˙‡ˆÂ‰Ï ‰¯·Á ∫ ÌÈÏ˘Â¯È Æ®¥µπ≠¥∂∞∫Á¢Î© ˙ȯ·Ú‰ ‰È„ÙÂϘȈ‡‰ Ɖ¯˘Ù ÆÂ¢Ï˘˙ Ƈ ¨˜‡ÏÈ‚

Æ˙ÂÈ„ÙÂϘȈ‡

ÆÔ˜Â˘ ∫ ÌÈÏ˘Â¯È Æ˙Â¯Â˜Ó ¯Á·Ó· ÔÂÈÚ ∫ χ¯˘È· ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ ˙·¯˙ Æ„¢Ó˘˙ Ƅ„ ¨ÔÂ˘È„

Æ ¥±≠µ±∫®¥© ‚È ÔÈÚÓ‰ ¢ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ˙˜ÂÏÁӢƱπ∑≥ Ƅ„ ¨‰˜˘‰

Ϙ ¢‚‚¢· ¯·ÁÏ ¯Úˆ ̯‚ ‡ Ï·Á˘ ÈÓ· ‰ÏÈÁÓ ˙˘˜· ·ÂÈÁ ÔÈÚ·¢ ÆÁ¢Ó˘˙ Æ˘ ¨Ï˘‚Â
Æ≤∏≠≥∞∫®È¯˘˙© ·Î ‰¯Â˙‰

·Ï≠¯· Ƈ ÍÂ˙· ±±≠≥≥ ßÓÚ ¢Ï¢ÊÁ ˙¯ÙÒ ÈÙ ÏÚ ˙È· ÌÂÏ˘Â ‰ÓÁÏÓ¢ ÆÂ¢Ò˘˙ Æ˙ÈÓÏ¢ ¨¯ÏÂ
Æχ¯˘È ˙„ÏÂ˙Ï ¯Ê˘ ÔÓÏÊ ÊÎ¯Ó ∫ÌÈÏ˘Â¯È Æ˙Ȅ‰ȉ ˙·¯˙· ‰ÓÁÏÓ ÌÂÏ˘ ¨®Í¯ÂÚ© ÌÂÏ˘

Æ≤∂¥≠≤∑∂∫‰Î ÔÈÓÂÁ˙ ¢ø‰¯˘Ù· ˙Ó‡ ˘È‰¢ Æ≤∞∞µ ‰¢Ò˘˙ ƯÓ˙ȇ ¨‚ÈËÙ‰¯Â

ËÙ˘Ó‰ ÔÂ˙˘ ¢‰Îω· ˙Ó‡‰ ˙χ˘ ˙ÂÚÓ˘ÓÏ ∫˙Ӈ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ¢ Æ≤∞∞∞ ÆÔ¢Ӣ ¨¯‚ÈË
Æ≥∑≠∂π ∫‡Î ȯ·Ú‰

ͯ„ ÏÚ ÔÈ„ ˜ÒÙ ÏÚ ‰¯˘Ù ÏÚ ∫‰¯˘ÙÏ „Á‡Â ÔÈ„Ï „Á‡¢ Ʊππ≤ ƷƇ ·˜ÚÈ ¨Ï˜¯ÈË
Ʊ≥≠≤¥∫®±© ‚ ËÙ˘Ó È¯Ú˘ ¢‰¯˘Ù‰

137
 Æ∏π≠π∂ ∫≤ ÔÈÏÈ·˘ ¢ø‰ˆÏÓ‰ ‡ ‰ÂˆÓ ≠˙ÂÏ‚¢ Æ≤∞∞± ÆÈÚ¯ ¨Ô‰Î

Æ ∂ππ≠∑∞π ∫‚ ˙È˙„‰ ˙ÂÂȈ‰ ı·Â˜ ¢ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ¢ Æ≤∞∞∞ Æ·Â˘È ¯‡˘ ¨Ô‰Î

Æ∏¥≠±∞∞∫‡Î ‰Ù ÏÚ·˘ ‰¯Â˙ ¢ÌÂÏ˘ Èί„ ÈÙÓ ∫˙Ó‡ ȇ ˙Ó‡¢ ÆÌ¢˘˙ Æ¯È‡Ó Ï‡¯˘È ¨Â‡Ï

Æ≥≥≠≥∏∫®‡© ‡Î ÔÈÚÓ‰ ¢‰ÎÏ‰Ï ¯Â˜Ó ∫ÌÚÂ Èί„ ‰Èί„¢ Ƈ¢Ó˘˙ ÆÈ ¨ÈÂÏ

¯Â˘„¢ ¯‡Â˙ ˙Ï·˜ Ì˘Ï ‰„Â·Ú Æȯ·Ú‰ ËÙ˘Ó· ‰¯˘Ù‰ Æ„¢Ò˘˙ ÆÈ˙ȇ ¨ıÈ˘ÙÈÏ
ÆÔÏȇ≠¯· ˙ËÈÒ¯·È‡ Æ¢‰ÈÙÂÒÂÏÈÙÏ

ßÓÚ ¢˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰ ÏÚ Ï¢ÊÁ ȯ·„· ÛÒÂ ÔÂÈÚ ∫Ìȯ„Á ȯ„Á Í·Ï ‰˘Ú¢ Ƈ¢Ò˘˙ ƉÓÏ˘ ¨‰‡
Â˙‚‰Â ÂÓÏÂÚ ÏÚ ∫˙˘„Á˙Ó ˙È„Â‰È ˙·ÈÂÁÓ ¨®ÌÈίÂÚ© ¯‰ÂÊ È·ˆÂ ‡È‚˘ È·‡ ÍÂ˙· ∏µ±≠∏∑µ
Æ„Á‡Ӊ ı·˜‰ ∫·È·‡ Ï˙ ÆÔÓ˯‰ „„ Ï˘

¨Â¯·ÁÏ Ì„‡ ÔÈ·˘ ˙ˆӉ ÈÈ„Ó ÂÏÏÎ · ∫ ÍÚ¯Ï ˙·‰‡Â Ɖ¢Ó˘˙ Æ·˜ÚÈ Ï‡¯˘È ¨ÔÓÂÈ
ÍÂÈÁÏ ‰˜ÏÁÓ‰ ∫ÌÈÏ˘Â¯È Æ ˙·ÂË ˙„ÈÓ ÏÚ ‰È‚ÂÏÂÎÈÒÙ‰ Ú„ÓÓ ‰„‚‡· Ï¢ÊÁ ȯ·„Ó
Æ˙ÈÓÏÂÚ‰ ˙ÈÂȈ‰ ˙¯„˙Ò‰‰ Ï˘ ‰Ï‚· ÌÈÈ¯Â˙ ˙·¯˙ÏÂ

ÆÈÂ Ì‡Ï Æ ¨Èχ¯˘È Æ˘ ÍÂ˙· ÁÒ˘≠Á˘ ßÓÚ ¢‰¯˘Ù‰ ËÙ˘Ó¢ Æ„¢Ó˘˙ ÆÈ·ˆ ‰˘Ó ¨‰È¯
Æ®‡ ͯΩ ˜È‘ˆÈÈ·ÂÏÂÒ ÈÂω ·Â„ ÛÒÂÈ È·¯ Ô‡‚‰ Â¯ÂÓ „·ÎÏ Ï·ÂÈ ¯ÙÒ ¨®ÌÈίÂÚ© χٯ
Ƙ˜ ·¯‰ „ÒÂÓ ∫ÌÈÏ˘Â¯È

¨ÍÓÒÂÓ ¯‡Â˙ ˙Ï·˜ Ì˘Ï ‰„Â·Ú Æ‰¯˘Ù‰ Ï˘ ÌÈÈίډ ˙„ÂÒȉ Ƈ¢Ò˘˙ ÆχÎÈÓ ¨‚¯·˯
ÆÌÈÏ˘Â¯È· ˙ȯ·Ú‰ ‰ËÈÒ¯·È‡‰

Æ≤¥∞≠≤µ∂∫È ÔÈÓÂÁ˙ ¢˙„‚‡ ˙„‚‡ ¢Ú˙ ‡Ï¢ Ʊππ≤ Ɖ„Â‰È ¨·È·˘

Æ„Á‡Ӊ ı·˜‰ ∫·È·‡ Ï˙ ÆÈ˙Îω‰ ÁÈ˘‰ Ï˘ Â˙ÂÚÓ˘Ó ∫Âχ Âχ Ʊππ∂ ÆÈ·‡ ¨‡È‚˘

ßÓÚ ¢ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ‰ȇ˘ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ∫Á¯˜ ˙˘¯Ù¢ ÆÂ¢Ò˘˙ Æ̉¯·‡ ¨ÔÈˢ
·˜ÚÈ ÊÎ¯Ó ∫Ìȯˆ ÔÈÚ Æ˙·˘ ˙‡¯˜Ï ¨®ÌÈίÂÚ© ¯‡˜È٠χȯ‡Â ·ÂËÈÁ‡ Ɖ ÍÂ˙· ≤≥≤≠≤≥π
Æ˙„‰È È„ÂÓÈÏÏ ‚ˆ¯‰
Ʊ±±≠±≥∞∫®‚© ± ËÙ˘Ó È¯Ú˘ ¢˙È„Â‰È ‰¯˘Ù Èχ¯˘È ¯Â˘È‚¢ Æ·¢Ò˘˙ ÆÌÈÈÁ ¨ÔÈ˘

Ƶµ≠∂∞ ∫±≥ ˙Ú„ ¢ø‰ÓÂ„Ó ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ≠·Â¯‰ ͯ„ ÏÚ¢ Æ≤∞∞¥ ÆÌÈÈÁ ¨ÔÈ˘

Jewish Political Studies Review Æ¢ÌÈÈÓ˘ ÈÈÈÚ· ‰¯˘Ù ÔÎ˙È˙‰¢≤∞∞∞Æ ÆÏ·ÂȨÂϯ˘

±≠±Æ ∫(3-4)±≤

138
¨ÍÎÈÙÏ Æ˙„‰ ‡Â‰ ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈÈ ÏÚ ˙ÂÈ˙·¯˙‰ ˙ÂÎÏ˘‰‰ Ï˘ „Á‡ ˷ȉ ÆÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ÌÚ
˙Ó¢˙ ˙‡ ÂÎ˘Ó ‡˘ÂÏ ˙ÂÒÁÈÈ˙Ó ˙Â¢ ˙Â˙„ ‰·˘ ͯ„‰Â ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ÏÚ ÌÈÈ˙„ ÌÈËÒ˜Ë
„ÂÓÈÏ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï Íȯˆ ˘ÈÏÙÂ˜Ï ‰˙˘È‚ ˙„‰È‰ ˙·‰· Ô¢‡¯‰ „Úˆ‰ ÆÌÈ·¯ Ìȯ˜ÂÁ Ï˘ Ì·Ï
˙‡Ê ¨¯˙ÂÈ ˙È¯„ÂÓ ˙¢Â˘ ˙¯ÙÒ ÔΨ„ÂÓÏ˙‰Â ‰˘Ó‰ ¨Í¢˙‰ ∫ÌÈÈ¢‡¯ ˙Â¯Â˜Ó Ï˘ ˜ÈÓÚÓ
ÆÌ·Â˘ÈÈ ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ· ÌȘÒÂÚ‰ ÌȯÁ‡ ÌÈËҘ˷ ÔÂÈÚ ÌÚ ·ÂÏÈ˘·

ƉÓ¢ÈÈÏ ÌÈ·¯ ÌÈ˘‡ ÂÓ¯˙ ¨ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈÈ ÏÚ ÌÈÈ„Â‰È ˙Â¯Â˜Ó ÛÂÒÈ‡Ï ‰ÓÊÂȉ ‰˙ÏÚ‰ ʇÓ
‰Ò¯È‚Ï ÁÂ˙ÈÙÏ „Ú ¨˙ÂËÂÈË ¯ÙÒÓ Ï˘ Ô˜È˙ ‰‡È¯˜ ÏÚ È¯Â·˙ Ìȯه ¯¢„Ï ˙Â„Â‰Ï Èˆ¯·
̉È˙Â·Â˙ ÏÚ ®ÔÊÁ© Ô¯Ë˘ ˙ÈÓÂÏ˘Â Ô„Ï‡ ¯È‡È ¨Ë¯ χÈ„Ï Ì‚ ‰„Â˙ Æ˙¯·ÂÁ‰ Ï˘ ˙ÈÙÂÒ‰
¨ÛÂÒ·Ï Æ‰ÎÈÓ˙‰Â ıÂÚÈȉ ÏÚ Ò¯ È·‡ ˜ÁˆÈÏ ‰„Â˙ Æ˘Èȯى ˘Â·È‚ Íωӷ ˙·¢Á‰
ͯ„‰ ÏÎ Í¯Â‡Ï Â˙ÎÈÓ˙ ÏÚ ÂÊ ˙¯·ÂÁ ˙˜Ù‰Ï ‰ÓÊÂȉ ÏÚ ‚¯·ÈÈˢ „χ¯ß‚ ßÙ¯ÙÏ Â˙„Â˙
ÆÒÂÙ„Ï ‰˙‡·‰Ï „Ú

Ò¯ ÏÎÈÓ

139
 ˙ίÂÚ‰ ˙¯Ú‰
∫˙Âȯ‚˘ Ú·¯‡Ï ˜ÏÂÁ ÂÊ ˙¯·ÂÁ· ˙¯˜Ӊ

Ï˘ Ì˙ÚÙ‰ ªÈ¯·Ú‰ ËÙ˘Ó· ˘ÈÏÙ˜‰ ˙ÒÈÙ˙Ï ˙Â¯Â˜Ó ÏÏÂÎ ∫˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÍÂÒÎÒÏ ÒÁȉƱ
Ï˘ ˙¯˘Ù‡‰ ˙‡ ÌÈÓÈ‚„Ó‰ È‡Ó˘ ˙È·Â Ïω ˙È· ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ· ‚ˆÂÓ˘ ÈÙÎ ¨ÌÈȈ¯ ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ
ÈÏÎÎ ÂÓÓ ‰¢ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï Â‡ ¯Â·Èˆ‰ ÔÓ ˘Â¯ÙÏ ‡Ï Ï˘ Ô¯˜ÈÚ‰ ª‰ÓÎÒ‰ ȇ ˙¯ÓÏ ÌÂȘ „
ÆÈÓÈÙ ÍÂÒÎÒ ˙ÚÈÓÏ
˙Â¯Â˜Ó ÏÏÂÎ ÆÂ˙Â·È˘Á ˙‡ ÌÈ˘È‚„Ó ÌÂÏ˘‰ ˙‡ ÌÈ„„ÂÚÓ‰ ˙Â¯Â˜Ó ∫ÍÂÒÎÒ ˙ÚÈÓÆ≤
Ì„‡ ÔÈ· „·Ή ˙¯ÈÓ˘ ªÏÏη Ì„‡ È· ÔÈ·Â ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ· ÌÈ„„ˆ ÔÈ· ÌÈÒÁȉ ¯ÂÙÈ˘· ÌȘÒÂÚ‰
ƉÈË ˙¯ÈË ·È¯ ¯ÂÁ¯Á „‚ ‰‡ÈˆÈ ªÌÂÏ˘ ‡È·Ó ¯˘‚Ó Ï˘ ÒÂÙÈË·‡Î Ô¯‰‡ ªÂ¯·ÁÏ
˘ÈÏÙ˜ ÌÚ ˙„„ÂÓ˙‰Ï ˙Â¢ ˙Âȯ˘Ù‡ ÌȂȈӉ ˙Â¯Â˜Ó ∫ÍÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈÈÏ ÌÈÏÎÆ≥
Æ˙ÂÒ„ÁÓÈÈÙ˙‰Â ‰¯˘Ù ¨·Â¯‰ ÔÂËÏ˘¨˙„¯Ùȉ ¨ÌÈÓÈχ ˙Â¯˙Ù ∫˙˜ÂÏÁÓÂ
ϯËÈÏ ÈÏÎÎ ËÏ˜Ó È¯Ú· ÔÂÈÚ È„È ÏÚ ‰Ó˜‰ Ô¯˜Ú Ìȯ˜Ò ԇΠ∫ÍÂÒÎÒ Ï‰ÈÏ ˙Â˘È‚Æ¥
ÆÍ„È‡Ó ‰ÏÈÁÓ·Â È„È· ÌȘÒÂÚ‰ ˙Â¯Â˜Ó „ˆÏ ̘Ï ˙Èڷˉ ‰ÈË‰

Ï˘ ¯·Ò‰Â ¯ˆ˜ ÌÂÎÈÒ ÚÈÙÂÓ ‡˘Â ≠˙˙ ÏÎ ÛÂÒ· ÆÌȇ˘Â≠˙˙Ï ˙˜ÏÂÁÓ ‰È¯Â‚˘ ÏÎ
ÈÙ¯‚ÂÈ· ÍÂÈ˘ ÚÈÙÂÓ ¯·ÁÓ ÏÎÏ ¨È‚ÂÏÂ¯Π¯„Ò· Ìȇ·ÂÓ ˙¯˜Ӊ Ƈ·Â‰˘ ÌÈËҘˉ
Ưˆ˜

ԇΠÔȇ Ìχ ¨Ë˜ÈÏÙ˜· ÌȘÒÂÚ‰ ÌÈ„Â‰È ˙Â¯Â˜Ó Ï˘ ͯÚÓ ‚Ȉ‰Ï ‡È‰ ÂÊ ˙¯·ÂÁ ˙¯ËÓ
‰ÂÓ˙ ‚Ȉ‰Ï ˙Ó ÏÚ ˙Â¯Â˜Ó Ô‚ÓÓ ˙‚ˆÈÈÓ ˙‡·ÂÓ Ô‡Î ˙ÂÚˆÂÓ ÆÏÏÂÎ Ò˜„Â˜Ï ‰Ùȇ˘
ÂÓÎ ÌÈ¢ ˙¯˜ӷ ÚÈÙÂÓ ËÒ˜Ë Â˙‡ ÌÈ·¯ Ìȯ˜Ó· Æ˘ÈÏÙÂ˜Ï ˙ÂÈ„Â‰È ˙Â˘È‚ Ï˘ ˙ÈÏÏÎ
¨¯˙ÂÈ· Ì„˜‰ ¯Â˜Ó‰Ó ËҘˉ ·Â¯Ï ‚ˆÂ‰ ‰Ê ·ˆÓ· ÆÍÂ¯Ú ÔÁÏÂ˘Â Ì¢·Ó¯ ¨„ÂÓÏ˙ ¨˘¯„Ó
Ư˙ÂÈ ˙˯ÂÙÓ Â‡ ‰¯Â¯· ‰Ò¯È‚ ÚÈˆÓ ÌȯÁ‡‰ ˙¯˜Ӊ „Á‡ ÔΠ̇ ‡Ï‡

¨‰Ê΢ ÛÈ˜Ó ÔÂÈ„ ÏÈΉÏÓ ¯ˆ ̘Ӊ Æ˯˯ٷ ÔÂ„Ï Ô˙È ԇΠÌȇ·ÂÓ‰ ˙Â¯Â˜Ó‰Ó „Á‡ Ïη
ËҘˉ ‡·Â‰ ÂÊ ˙¯·ÂÁ· ÆÌÈËÒ˜ËÏ ÌÈ¢‰ ÌÈ˘Â¯ÈÙ· ÔÈÈÚÏ ˜ÓÂÚÏ ÏÂÏˆÏ ÔÓÊÂÓ ‡¯Â˜‰Â
È‡ÓˆÚ „ÂÓÈÏ Í˘Ó‰Ï ‡¯Â˜‰ ˙‡ ÏÈ·Â‰Ï ‡È‰ ‰¯ËӉ ¨„·Ï· È˙ȈÓ˙ ¯·Ò‰ Û¯Ȉ· Â¢ÏÎ
ÆÛÒÂ ÔÂÈÚÏ ‰˜Â˜Ê‰ ˙È˙„˜ ˙ÈÂÂÊ ‚Ȉ‰Ï ˙Ó ÏÚ ˜¯ ¯Â˜Ó ԇΠ‚ˆÂÓ ÌÈ˙ÈÚÏ Æ‡˘Â‰ Ï˘
Æ˙ÙÒÂ ‰‡È¯˜Ï ˙ÂÈÙ‰ ‡¯Â˜Ï Âڈ‰ ¯˘Ù‡‰ ˙„ÈÓ·Â ‰Ï‡‰ ˙¯˜Ӊ ·Â¯ ÏÚ ·˙Î ˙·¯

ÈÏ‚‡‰ Ì‚¯˙‰ Æ˙ÈÏ‚‡· ˙ȯ·Ú· ˙¯˜Ӊ ˙‡ ÂÓÒ¯Ù ¨Ìȯ˜ÂÁ‰Â Ìȇ¯Â˜‰ ˙ÂÈÁÂÏ

Ì‚ Â¯ÊÚ ͇ SoncinoÈÓ‚¯˙· ·Á¯ ˘ÂÓÈ˘ ‰˘Ú Æ˙Â¯Â˜Ó ¯ÙÒÓÓ Á˜Ï ˙¯˜ÓÏ
¨‰ÈËȯ·Ï È˘‡¯‰ ·¯‰ Ï˘ ‰ÁÈ˙Ù‰ ȯ·„Ï Ìȇ¯Â˜‰ ˙‡ ÌÈÙÓ ÂÁ‡ ÆÌȯÁ‡ ÌÈÓ‚¯˙·
ÌÒ¯ÙÏ Â˙Ú„· Æ˙ÈÏ‚‡· ¨‚¯·ÈÈˢ „χ¯ß‚ ßÙÂ¯Ù Ï˘ ‡Â·Ó‰ ¯Ó‡ÓÏ ÔÎÂ Ò˜Ê Ô˙ÂÈ ·¯‰
Æ˙ÈÎ˙‰ Ï˘ Ë¯Ëȇ‰ ¯˙‡· ˙ȯ·Ú· È˘‡¯‰ ·¯‰ ȯ·„ ˙‡

˙„„ÂÓ˙Ó ˙˘¯ÙÓ ¨‰ÚÈÙ˘Ó ˙·¯˙‰ „ˆÈÎ ∫ÍÂÒÎÒ ˙·¯˙ ÔÈ· ¯˘˜· Ì‚ ˜ÒÂÚ ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ¯˜Á

140
˙˘˜·Ï ∫ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈÈ· ˙Âψ˙‰‰ Ï˘ ‰˙Â·È˘Á ˙„‡ ·˙Î ˙·¯ ÆÌȂȉÓ Ì‰ Ô˙‡
‰˙ÂÚÓ˘Ó ˙È˙ÈÓ‡ ˙Âψ˙‰ ͇ ¨ÍÂÒÎÒ· È˘‰ „ˆ‰ ÏÚ ‰ÓÂˆÚ ‰ÚÙ˘‰ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ÏÂÎÈ ‰ÁÈÏÒ
˜¯ Ô˙È© Æ‰Ó˘‡‰ ÌÚ „„ÂÓ˙‰Ï ÌÈÏ‚ÂÒÓ „ÈÓ˙ Ìȇ ÍÂÒÎÒ· ÌÈ„„ˆ‰Â ˙ÂÚË· ‰‡„‰
˙ÏÈ·· ‰„ÂÓ ‰È‰ Ô¢‡¯‰ Ì„‡ ̇ ÌÏÂÚ‰ Ï˘ ‰È¯ÂËÒȉ‰ ‰˙˘Ó ‰˙ȉ „ˆÈÎ ˙‰˙Ï
®Æ‰ÂÁ ˙‡ Íη ÌÈ˘‡‰Ï ̘ӷ ¨‰Ë¯Á ÍÎ ÏÚ ÚÈ·Ó ÁÂÙ˙‰
˙Èχ¯˘È‰ ‰¯·Á· ÌȘÈÏ„‰ Ìȇ˘Â‰ ÔÈ· Æ˙È˙ÈÈÚ· ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ÏÂÏÚ ˙Âψ˙‰‰ ˙Ï·˜ Ì‚
ÌÈÓÂÏ˘˙ Ï·˜Ï ˙ÂÂÎ‰ Ï˘ ˙ÈÏÓÒ‰ ˙ÂÚÓ˘Ó‰ ÏÚ ÁÂÎȉ ˙‡ ˙ÂÓÏ Ô˙È ‰Ê ¯˘˜‰·
¨ÔÈ·¯ ˜ÁˆÈ ‰Ï˘ÓÓ‰ ˘‡¯ Áˆ¯ ¯Á‡Ï È˙„‰ ¯Â·Èˆ‰ ÈÙÏÎ ˙ÂÈÂÚ ª‰ÈÓ¯‚Ó ÌÈȈÈÙÂ
Ï˘ Ô·ÂÓ·© ‰Á΢ Ï·‡ ¨˙ÂÒÈÈÙ˙‰Ï ‡È·‰Ï ‰ÁÈÏÒ Áη ƉÊÚÓ ‰‚ÈÒ‰ ˙·˜Ú· ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ‰Â
˙„‰È‰ ÈÎ ¨ÍΠ̇ ¨ÚÈ˙ÙÓ ‰Ê Ôȇ Æ˙ÂÏÏ·˙‰Ï ˙Ï„‰ ˙‡ ÁÂ˙ÙÏ ‰ÏÂÎÈ ®¢ÁÂ΢Ï ÁÂÏÒÏ¢
ƘÏÓÚ Ï˘ ÂÈ˙ÂÙÈ„¯ ˙‡ ÁÂÎ˘Ï ‡Ï˘ ‰ÂˆÓ
Ɖ¯˜Â‰Â ‰Î¯Ú‰Ï ˙È„Â‰È ‰˘È‚ ‰˘È ÈÎ ‰‡¯ ¨‰ÁÓ˘· ÌÈ˘ÚÓ ˙¯ÎÂÊ Ì‚ ˙„‰È‰ ¨˙‡Ê ÌÚ
Ô˙Âß‚ ¯¢„ ·¯‰ ¨‰ÈËȯ· Ï˘ È˘‡¯‰ ·¯Ï Â˙„Â˙ ˙‡ ÚÈ·‰Ï Èˆ¯· ¨·Âˉ ˙¯Î‰ Ï˘ ÂÊ Á¯·
˙¯·ÂÁÏ ‰Ó„˜‰· ÔÈÈˆÓ ‡Â‰˘ ÈÙΠƉ˙Ó˜‰ Ê‡Ó ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈÈÏ ˙ÈÎ˙· Â˙·¯ÂÚÓ ÏÚ ¨Ò˜Ê
ƯÁ‡‰ ˙Ï·˜Â ‰¯Î‰ È·‚Ï ˙ˆÈÓ‡ ˙„ÓÚ Ë˜ ‡Â‰Â ¨Â·ÈÏÏ ·Â¯˜ ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ‰ ·Â˘ÈÈ ‡˘Â ¨ÂÊ
ÆÂ˙„·ڷ ÍÈ˘Ó‰Ï „ÈÓ˙Ó‰ „„ÈÚ‰ ÏÚ ÂÏ ÌÈ„ÂÓ Â‡
˙ÈÓÂÁ˙≠ÔÈ·‰ ˙ÈÎ˙‰ „ÒÈÈÓ ¨‚¯·ÈÈˢ „χ¯ß‚ ßÙ¯ÙÏ ÂÊ ˙Âӄʉ· ˙Â„Â‰Ï Ì‚ Èˆ¯·
‡¢Ò˘˙ ˙˘· ‰˙Ó˜‰ Ê‡Ó ˙ÈÎ˙‰ ˘‡¯Î ˘ÓÈ˘˘ ¨Ó¢ÂÓ ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈȠωÈ È„ÂÓÈÏÏ
Â˙·ÈÂÁÓ ˙‡ ˙‡¯Ï Â˙ˆÈÁÓ· „·ÚÏ ˙¯˘Ù‡‰ ÈÏ ‰˙È ¨˙ÈÎ˙‰ ˘‡¯ Ô‚ÒÎ ÆÁ¢Ò˘˙ „ÚÂ
ÌÈÈÂÈÁ ‰Î ÌÈÎ˙· ˙˜ÒÂÚ˘ ¨Ìȉ·‚ ÌÈ˯„ËÒ ˙ÏÚ· ˙ÈÓ„˜‡ ˙ÈÎ˙ ÁÂ˙ÈÙÏ ‰‰Â·‚‰
ÆÂÈ‚˘È‰Â Â˙¯ÈÒÓ· ‰¯Î‰· ¨ÂÏ ˙˘„˜ÂÓ ÂÊ ˙¯·ÂÁ ÆÏÏη ÌÏÂÚÏ ˙Èχ¯˘È‰ ‰¯·ÁÏ
Æ˙ÈÎ˙‰ Ï˘ ‰ÓÂȘ Í˘Ó‰Ï Ì˙Ó¯˙ ÏÚ Í¯Î· ˙ÁÙ˘ÓÏ ˙Â„Â‰Ï ¨„ÈÓ˙Î ¨‚ÂÚ‰ ÈÏ ˘È ÔÎ ÂÓÎ
‰Â˙ Â˙„Â˙ Æ˙ÈÎ˙‰ ˙Ó˜‰ ȯÂÁ‡Ó ‰ÈÁ‰ Á¯‰ ‰È‰ ‰ÈϯËÒ‡ ¨Ô¯Â·ÏÓÓ Ï¢Ê Í¯Î· Ò‰
Æ˙΢Ó˙Ó‰ Ì˙ÎÈÓ˙ ÏÚ ‰˙ÁÙ˘Ó ͯη ÈÈ‚ ß·‚Ï
˘Èȯ٠ωÈ ÏÚ ¨ÂÊ ˙¯·ÂÁ· ˙¯˜Ӊ ˙‡ ‰Î¯Ú ‰ÙÒ‡˘ ¨Ò¯ ÏÎÈÓÏ ˙„ÁÂÈÓ ‰„Â˙ ¨ÌÂÈÒÏ
·Á¯Â˙˘© ÂÊ ˙È¢‡¯ ‰„Â·Ú ÈÎ ÌÈÂÂ˜Ó Â‡ ÆÒÂÙ„Ï Â˙‡·‰Ï „Ú ÌÈ¢‡¯‰ ÂÈ·Ï˘Ó ÏÁ‰ ‰Ê
ÏÎÈÓ Æ˙„‰È· Ì·Â˘ÈÈ ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ÔÈ· ¯˘˜‰ „ÂÓÈÏ· ÔÈÈÂÚÓ‰ ÏÎÏ Ìȯ˜ÂÁÏ ÚÈÈÒ˙ ®„È˙Ú·
¢˙„‰È· ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈÈ ˙‚ȉÓ¢ ÏÚ ÒΉ ˙‡ Ì‚ ˜ÈÙ‰ ®ÔÊÁ© Ô¯Ë˘ ˙ÈÓÂÏ˘ ÌÚ „ÁÈ ¨Ò¯
Æ˙ÈÚˆ˜Ó‰ Ô˙„Â·Ú ÏÚ Â˙„Â˙ ˙‡ Ô‰Ï ÚÈ·Ó ˙ÈÎ˙‰ Ï‚ÒÂ

ȯ·˙ Ìȯه ¯¢„

Ó¢ÂÓ ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈȠωÈ È„ÂÓÈÏÏ ˙ÈÎ˙‰ ˘‡¯
ÔÏȇ≠¯· ˙ËÈÒ¯·È‡
Á¢Ò˘˙ ¨˙·Ë

141
 ¯·„ Á˙Ù
Æ˙„Á‡Â ‰·¯˜Ï ‡È·‰Ï Ì‚ ÏÂÎÈ ‡Â‰ ͇ ¨ ˙„¯ÙÈ‰Ï ˙ˆ·˜Â ÌÈ˘‡ ÏÈ·Â‰Ï ÏÂÎÈ Ë˜ÈÏÙ˜
‰ˆÂ·˜‰ Ư‰ËÏ ‡Óˉ ÔÈ· ¨ÏÂÁÏ ˘„˜‰ ÔÈ· Ï·‚‰ ˙¯„‚‰Ï Ì‚ ˘Ó˘Ó ¨˙„‰È· ¨Ë˜ÈÏÙ˜
Æ„‚ ˙ÂÏىϠ¢¯Á‡¢‰ ˙‡ ¯È„‚‰Ï Ì‚ Íη ¨˙˘·Â‚Ó ‰¯Â¯· ˙Â‰Ê ‰ÓˆÚÏ ¯È„‚‰Ï ‰ÏÂÎÈ
˙ÈÁÙÓ ‡Â‰ Æ˙È˙¯·Á ˙„ÈÎÏÏ Ì¯Â˙ ‡Â‰˘ ÔÂÂÈÎÓ ˙ÏÚÂ˙ ‡È·‰Ï ÏÂÎÈ Ë˜ÈÏÙ˜ ¨‰Ê ˷ȉÓ
ÌÈÓÂË ˙¯·„ȉ ˙ÂÂÈÒ ƯÁ‡‰ Ï˘ ‰ÈˆÓÈËȂω ˙‡ ÏÏ¢ ‡Â‰˘ Íη ÈÂÈ˘Ï ıÁω ˙‡
ÌÓ‡ Ȅ‰ȉ ÌÚ‰ Æ˙ÂÏÏ·˙‰ ‡ ‰ÚÓË‰Ï Û‡ Èχ Ì˘Ó – È˙¯·Á ÈÂÈ˘Ï ÈÂÎÈÒ‰ ˙‡ ÌÎÂ˙·
ÔÈ·Ï ÂÈ· ÌÈÈ‚ÂÏÂÎÈÒÙ‰ ˙ÂÏ·‚‰ ͇ ¨˙¯„‰ Íωӷ „‚ ‰ÈÏÙ‡‰Â ‰ÙÈ„¯‰Ó ˙·¯ Ï·Ò
‰ˆÂ·˜Ï ‰·¯ ‰„ÈÓ· Â˙‡ ÂÎÙ‰ ≠ÂË‚‰ ˙¯Ș ≠ÌÈÈ˘ÓÓ‰ ˙ÂÏ·‚‰ ÏÚ ¯·„Ï ‡Ï˘ ¨‰·È·Ò‰
ÆÈ‡ÓˆÚ ÌÚ ˙˘·Â‚Ó
ÏÎÈÓ ‰ÙÒ‡˘ ˙¯˜ӷ ÔÂÈÚÓ ±‚¯·ÈÈˢ „χ¯ß‚ Ï˘ ¯Ó‡Ó‰ ˙‡È¯˜Ó ˙ÂÏÂÚ ‰Ï‡ ˙·˘ÁÓ
˙Â˘È‚¢ ˙¯„Ò· ÈÚÈ·¯‰ ÒΉ ˙‡¯˜Ï ‰˙˘Ú˘ ¯˜ÁÓ‰ ˙„Â·Ú ˙‡ ˙„‚‡Ó ÂÊ ˙¯·ÂÁ ÆÒ¯
·Â˘ÈȠωÈ È„ÂÓÈÏÏ ˙ÈÓÂÁ˙ ÔÈ·‰ ˙ÈÎ˙‰ Ï˘ ‰˙ÂÒÁ· ͯÚ˘ ¢ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈÈÏ ˙ÂȄ‰È
ÆÔÏȇ≠¯· ˙ËÈÒ¯·È‡ Ï˘ Ô˙Ó ‡˘Ó ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ
ÂÈÏÚ˘ ÔÎ˙È ÆÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈÈÏ ˙È„Â‰È ‰˘È‚ ˙ÓÈȘ ̇‰ ‰Ï‡˘· ˜ÒÚ ‰¯„Ò· ÌÈӄ˜ ÌÈÒÎ
ˆ¯Ù˘ ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ Ô˙ÓÏ ÂÏÚ٠ϢÊÁ ÈÎ ÌÈ˙ÈÚÏ ‰Ó„ ∫ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒÏ ˙È„Â‰È ‰˘È‚ ‰˘È ̇ χ˘Ï
‰¯Âˆ ‰˙‡· ÂÏÚÙ ‡Ï ͇ ¨‰Ïȉ˜Ï ‰Ïȉ˜· ÌÈ·Â˘Á Ìȯ·ÁÏ Â·˘Á ÌÈ„„ˆ‰ È˘ ¯˘‡Î
Ɖ‚ȯÁÎ Ì„È ÏÚ ‰ÒÙ˙˘ ‰„ÓÚ ‚ˆÈÈ ÌÈ„„ˆ‰ „Á‡ ¯˘‡Î
‡ÂˆÓÏ Ô˙È ÆËÏÁÂÓ ˜„ˆ ÏÚ ÌÈ˙ÈÚÏ ÛÈ„Ú È˙Â„È„È ÌÎÒ‰ ÈÎ ¨Â¯Ó‡Ó· ÔÈÈˆÓ ‚¯·ÈÈˢ ßÙ¯Ù
ÈÎ ˘˘Á ÍÂ˙Ó ¨ÔÂÈÏÚ Í¯Ú ‡È‰ ˙ÈÓÈÙ‰ ˙„ÈÎω Ô‰·˘ ˙ÂÏȉ˜· „ÁÂÈÓ· ÂÊ ‰„ÓÚÏ ÌÈ„‰
Ô¯˙Ù ÛÈ„Ú‰Ï ‰ÈÂ˘Ú ‰ÓˆÚ· ‰ÁÂË·Â ˙È·ȯ ‰¯·Á ƉˆÂ·˜‰ ÔÓ ‰‡ÈˆÈÏ ÏÈ·ÂÈ Ë˜ÈÏÙ˜
ÌȈÚ˙ ˙˜„ˆ ‰¯·ÁÎ ‰˙ÒÈÙ˙ ˜ÂÁ¯‰ ÁÂÂË· ÈÎ ‰ÂÓ‡ ÍÂ˙Ó ¨˜„ˆ Ï˘ ˙Â¯˜Ú ÏÚ ÒÒ·Ӊ
ÌÈÏÚ ˙Â¯˜Ú ÏÚ ˙ÒÒ·Ӊ ‰¯·ÁÓ ˜ÏÁ ̉ ÈÎ Â˘È‚¯È Ìȯ·Á‰ ÏÎ ∫‰Ï˘ ‰ÈˆÓÈËȂω ˙‡
Æ˙·ÈÒÏ Ì‡˙‰· ÌÈ˙˘Ó‰ ÁÂÂË È¯ˆ˜ ˙Â¯˙Ù ÏÚ ‡ÏÂ
‡˘Â‰ Æ¢ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈÈÏ ˙ÂÈ„Â‰È ˙Â˘È‚¢ ˙¯„Ò· ÈÚÈ·¯‰ ÒÎÏ ÏÈ·˜Ó· ˙ÓÒ¯Ù˙Ó ÂÊ ˙¯·ÂÁ
χ¯˘È ÌÚ ˙„ÏÂ˙Ï ‰˜ÏÁӉ ‰È„Ó‰ ÈÚ„ÓÏ ‰˜ÏÁÓ‰ ÌÚ ÛÂ˙È˘· ͯÚ‰© ‰Ê ÒÎ Ï˘
‰ÈÙÈˆÏ ¯·ÚÓ Æ¯·˘Ó· ˙‚ȉÓ ‡Â‰ ®ÌÈÏ˘Â¯È· ‰˘¯ÂÓ ˙È· ÔΠÔÏȇ≠¯· ˙ËÈÒ¯·È‡·
ÌÓˆÚ· ˙ÂÂ‰Ï ÌÈÈÂ˘Ú ÌȂȉÓ˘ Íη ˙¯·Â‚ ‰¯Î‰ Ì‚ ˙ÓÈȘ ¨¯·˘Ó È·ˆÓ· ÏÂÚÙÏ ‚ȉÓ‰Ó
ÌȯÁ‡˘ „ÂÚ· ¨ÌÂÏ˘Ï ÚÈ‚‰Ï ÌÈÙ‡Â˘ ÌÈÓÈÈÂÒÓ ÌÈÈËÈÏÂÙ ÌȂȉÓ ÆÍÂÒÎÒ ¯·˘ÓÏ Ì¯Â‚
¨ÌÈ‚ˆÈÈÓ Ì‰ ‰˙‡ ‰ˆÂ·˜‰ ˙„Á‡ ÏÚ ÌÈÈ‡Ï ‰ÏÂÏÚ ‰ÓÎÒ‰˘ ÔÂÂÈÎÓ Ë˜ÈÏÙ˜ ÌÈÙÈ„ÚÓ
Æ˙ÈÁ¯ ‡ ˙ÈÊÈÙ ‰Ó¯·
‰ÓÎÒ‰ ÏÂÓ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ Ï˘ ‰È‚ÂÒ‰ È·‚Ï Ï‡¯˘È· ÌÈÈ·¯ ÌȂȉÓ Ï˘ ˙˜ÂÏÁ‰ ̉È˙„ÓÚ
≠˙È˙„‰ ˙„‰È‰ ˙„ÓÚ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ· ԇΠ˙„ÓÂÚ ÆÁ¢Ò˘˙ ‰ËÈÓ˘‰ ˙˘ È·‚Ï ÔÂÈ„· ˙‡˷˙Ó
˘ÈÏÙ˜· ˙„ ˙È˙ˆÂ·˜ ˙Â‰Ê ÔÈ·˘ ÌÈÒÁȉ ˙‡ Ô˘È‚„‰· ¨˙ÈÓÂ‡Ï ‰ȇ˘ ÂÊ ÏÂÓ ˙ÈÓ‡Ï
ÆÈ˙¯·Á
˙È„Â‰È ‰˘È‚ ‰˘È ̇‰ χ˘Ï Ô˙È ¨Ë˜ÈÏÙÂ˜Ï ˙È„Â‰È ‰˘È‚ ‰˘È ̇‰ ‰Ï‡˘Ï ÛÒÂ·
¯ÙÒÓ ˙Â¯Á‡‰ ÌÈ˘· Âȇ¯ Ô· ¨ÈÊÎ¯Ó „ȘÙ˙ ˘È ÌȂȉÓÏ Ô‡Î Ì‚ ƉÏÈÁÓ‰ ‚˘ÂÓÏ
˙¯·Á‰ È„È ÏÚ ¯·Ú· ¢Ú˘ ÌÈ˘ÚÓ ÏÚ ˙È·ÓÂÙ ‰ÏÈÁÓ ˙˘˜·· ‡ˆÈ˘ ÌÈÈÓ‡ÏÈ· ÌȂȉÓ

142
 ÌÈÈÈÚ ÔÎÂ˙

¥ ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈȠωÈ È„ÂÓÈÏÏ ˙ÈÎ˙‰ ˘‡¯ ¨È¯Â·˙ Ìȯه ¯¢„ ∫¯·„ Á˙Ù
ÔÏȇ≠¯· ˙ËÈÒ¯·È‡ ¨Ó¢ÂÓÂ
∑ ˛˙ÈÏ‚‡·¸ ‰ÈËȯ·Ï È˘‡¯‰ ·¯‰ ¨Ò˜Ê Ô˙ÂÈ ·¯‰ ∫‰Ó„˜‰
±∞ ·Â˘ÈȠωÈ È„ÂÓÈÏÏ ˙ÈÎ˙‰ „ÒÈÈÓ ¨‚¯·ÈÈˢ „χ¯ß‚ ßÙ¯٠∫‰ÁÈ˙Ù ¯Ó‡Ó
˛˙ÈÏ‚‡·¸ ÔÏȇ≠¯· ˙ËÈÒ¯·È‡ ¨Ó¢ÂÓ ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ

≤¥ Ò¯ ÏÎÈÓ ¨˙ίÂÚ‰ ˙¯Ú‰

˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ÍÂÒÎÒÏ ÒÁȉ Ʊ
≤∂ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ Ï˘ ‰ÒÈÙ˙ ±Æ±
≥≤ ÌÈÓ˘ Ì˘Ï ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ∫È‡Ó˘Â Ïω ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ±Æ≤
≥∂ ˙˜ÂÏÁÓ ˙¯ÓÏ ÌÈÒÁÈ Í˘Ó‰ ±Æ≥
≥∏ „„‚˙˙ ‡Ï ±Æ¥
ÍÂÒÎÒ ˙ÚÈÓ Æ≤
¥± ÌÈÈÂ‚Ï ÌÈ„Â‰È ÔÈ· ÍÂÒÎÒ ˙ÚÈÓ ≤Ʊ
¥¥ ·ÈÂ‡Ï ÒÁȉ ≤Æ≤
¥∑ ÌÂÏ˘ Èί„ ≤Æ≥
µπ ÌÚÂ Èί„ ≤Æ¥
∂¥ ÌÂÏ˘ ۄ¯ Ô¯‰‡ ≤Ƶ
∂∑ ˙È· ÌÂÏ˘ ≤Æ∂
∑¥ ¯Â·È„ ÔÂ‚Ò ≤Æ∑
∑∑ ˙Âȯ·‰ „·Π≤Æ∏
∏∞ ÌÈÁ ˙‡˘ ≤Æπ
ÍÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈÈÏ ÌÈÏÎ Æ≥
∏≥ ˙ÂÓÈχ ≥Ʊ
∏¥ ‰„¯Ù‰ ≥Æ≤
∏µ ˙ÂË‰Ï ÌÈ·¯ ȯÁ‡ ≥Æ≥
∏∏ ‰¯˘Ù ≥Æ¥
π∑ ‰¯˘Ù ÈÈ„ ≥Ƶ
±∞µ ˙ÂÒÈÈÙ˙‰ ≥Æ∂
ÍÂÒÎÒ Ï‰ÈÏ ˙Â˘È‚ Æ¥
±∞π ‰¯ÈË ‰ÓȘ ¯ÂÒȇ ¥Æ±
±±± ËÏ˜Ó È¯Ú ¥Æ≤
±±∂ ̯Á È„È ¥Æ≥
±≤± ‰ÁÙ˘Ó ÈÎÂÒÎÒ· ‰ÏÈÁÓ ‰ÁÈÏÒ ¥Æ¥
±≤¥ ‰ÏÈÁÓ ‰ÁÈÏÒ ˙˘˜· ¥Æµ
±≥¥ ˙ÙÒÂ ˙¯ÙÒ ‰ÈÙ¯‚ÂÈÏ·È·

143
144
 Ó¢ÂÓ ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈȠωÈ È„ÂÓÈÏÏ ˙ÈÎ˙‰
Ï˘ ÂÚÂÈÒ· ‰Ó˜Â‰
‰ÈϯËÒ‡ ¨Ô¯Â·ÏÓÓ Ï¢Ê Í¯Î· Ò‰

Ìȯ‡˙Ï ˙ÈÓÂÁ˙ ÔÈ· ˙ÈÎ˙ ‰‰ ¨ÔÏȇ ¯· ˙ËÈÒ¯·È‡ ¨Ó¢ÂÓ ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈȠωÈ È„ÂÓÈÏÏ ˙ÈÎ˙‰
¨‰È„Ó‰ ÈÚ„Ó ¨‰È‚ÂÏÂÎÈÒÙ‰ ÈÓÂÁ˙Ó ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈÈÏ ˙Âȯ‡˙ ˙Â˘È‚ ˙·Ï˘Ó‰ ÌÈÓ„˜˙Ó
¯‡Â˙ ¨‰Ê˙ ÌÚ È˘ ¯‡Â˙ ÈÏÂÏÒÓ· ÌÈË„ÂËÒ ±µ∞≠Î ÌÈÏÈÚÙ ˙ÈÎ˙· Æχ¯˘È ÌÚ ˙„ÏÂ˙ ÌÈËÙ˘Ó
˘Èȯى ÌÈÏÂÏÎ ˙ÈÎ˙‰ Ï˘ ˙ȯ˜ÁÓ‰ ˙ÂÏÈÚÙ‰ ˙¯‚ÒÓ· Æ˯¢„ ¨Áˢ ˘Èȯ٠·ÂÏÈ˘· È˘
˙¯‚ÒÓ· ÆÚ‚Ó‰ ˙Èȯ‡˙ ‡˘Â· ¯˜ÁÓ ˙ˆÂ·˜ ÔΠ¢ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈÈÏ ˙ÂÈ„Â‰È ˙Â˘È‚¢ ͢Ó˙Ó‰
Æ˙Â˘ ˙ÂÚÈ·˙ ȘÈ˙·Â ‰Ïȉ˜· ¯Â˘È‚· ˜ÒÂÚ‰ ¢ÒÂÙÓ˜· ¯Â˘È‚ ÊίӢ ̘‰ ˙ÈÎ˙‰

Ó¢ÂÓ ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈȠωÈ È„ÂÓÈÏÏ ˙ÈÎ˙‰

χ¯˘È µ≤π∞∞ Ô‚ ˙Ó¯ ¨ÔÏȇ≠¯· ˙ËÈÒ¯·È‡
pconfl@mailÆbiuÆacÆil π∑≤≠≥≠µ≥±∏∞¥≥
wwwÆbarilan≠conflictÆcom

¯¯· „„ ∫˙ÈÂ˘Ï ‰ÎȯÚ

145
∞≥≠∂∏≥≤±π± ˙˜ى ȘÂÓ ∫‰˜Ù‰Â ·ÂˆÈÚ

146
˙„‰È‰ ˙¯˜ӷ Ì·Â˘ÈÈ ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ

Ò¯ ÏÎÈÓ ∫˙ίÂÚ

¨Ó¢ÂÓ ÌÈÎÂÒÎÒ ·Â˘ÈȠωÈ È„ÂÓÈÏÏ ˙ÈÎ˙‰

ÔÏȇ≠¯· ˙ËÈÒ¯·È‡
Á¢Ò˘˙ ¨Ô‚ ˙Ó¯

147