Group None

The Talmud, Taanit 25b [states]:The Rabbis taught…. There was another incident involving R. Eliezer who went down [to pray for rain] before the ark. He recited twenty-four blessings but was not answered. R. Akiva went down after him and said: “Our Father, our King, we have no King but You….” And the rains fell. The Sages were murmuring [that R. Akiva was answered while his teacher, R. Eliezer, was not.] A divine voice emerged and said: “It is not that this one [R. Akiva] is greater than that one [R. Eliezer], but that this one is forgiving (maavir al middotav) and that one is not forgiving.”At first glance, this is quite amazing. This trait of being forgiving alone is enough to raise R. Akiva’s merit above R. Eliezer’s! It is known that this trait is very powerful, to the point where our Sages, of blessed memory, said in the Talmud, in Rosh HaShana 17a: “Anyone who is forgiving [of others] has his sins forgiven for him, as it says: ‘[God] bears iniquity and forgives sin….’ (Mic. 7:18);” see further ad loc. But then how could the divine voice say: “It is not because this one is greater than that one”?

We heard, from the holy mouth of our master, teacher, and rabbi, the holy one of Israel, [R. Israel Salanter,] ztvk”l, a resolution: The Talmud states in Shabbat 30b: “A person should always be humble (anvetan) like Hillel and not be strict (kapdan) like Shammai”; see further ad loc., where the Talmud tells several stories about Hillel’s humility and Shammai’s strictness; see further ad loc.Now, people think that Hillel’s merits were greater than Shammai’s, for it is well known how praiseworthy is the trait of humility and how bad is the trait of strictness, as explained in many places in the Talmud. Therefore, in the world of truth, Hillel’s stature is greater than that of Shammai.

But in truth, this is an error, for, at first glance, Shammai’s strictness is surprising, even astonishing! It is well known that all the master Sages, of blessed memory – even of the later generations, so certainly of the earlier generations – were literally like the attending angels. They fulfilled the whole Torah and possessed all the good character traits in the world. If so, what was the motivation for Shammai’s strictness? Was it because he was naturally unyielding? If that is true, then would it be beyond Shammai to master his character traits and turn them toward his desire to perfect his quality of humility?

The explanation of this matter is that these differences stem from the disagreement between Shammai and Hillel about how to serve God, blessed be His name. Just as Hillel and Shammai disagreed about matters in every area of the Torah, so too, they disagreed about the proper ways to serve God – whether to conduct oneself according to the virtue of humility or whether, for the honor of Torah, to behave according to the trait of strictness. Shammai thought that the proper Torah path is to behave in accordance with the trait of strictness, for the honor of the Torah; Hillel thought that a person must always behave in accordance with the trait of humility. Each one of them maintained his view and acted accordingly. If Shammai had thought like Hillel that, according to the Torah, a person must behave in accordance with the trait of humility, then he, too, would have been humble like Hillel. Similarly, if Hillel had thought that according to the Torah one must behave strictly, then he would have acted as strictly as Shammai. It was by chance that Shammai maintained that a person must behave in accordance with the trait of strictness, for the honor of the Torah, while Hillel thought that one must behave in accordance with the trait of humility. Each of them acted in accordance with his opinion, as mentioned above.

In Yevamot 13a–b, the Schools of Shammai and Hillel argue: Is it permitted to perform levirate marriage (yibum) with the co-wife of a forbidden relative? The School of Shammai permits the co-wives to the brothers, whereas the School of Hillel prohibits.1Since the laws of levirate marriage (yibum) are complex and unfamiliar, we shall clarify the law in dispute. According to Torah law (Deut. 25:5–10), if a man dies childless, one of the deceased’s brothers must either marry his widowed sister-in-law or undergo a ceremony called ḥalitza, whereby the bond between the widow and her dead husband’s brothers is severed. If the widow is forbidden to marry the brothers due to a familial relationship – for instance, if there was only one brother, and the widow is his wife’s sister – then the widow never attaches to the brothers in the first place; yibum with her is forbidden, and ḥalitza is unnecessary.But what if the deceased brother was married to two women (co-wives or rival wives, recalling that the Torah legitimates polygyny), one of whom is forbidden to the remaining brothers due to a close familial relation? According to the School of Shammai, this prevents the attachment of the related widow to the remaining brothers, but the co-wife, who is not related to the brothers, must undergo either yibum or ḥalitza. According to the School of Hillel, the exemption of one wife from attachment to the brothers also exempts any co-wives. Thus, even with respect to those co-wives, yibum is forbidden, and ḥalitza unnecessary. In the discussion there, Shmuel says that the School of Shammai acted in accordance with their views; see further ad loc. That is, they performed yibum with co-wives of forbidden relatives. Now, we uphold the established ruling that halakhic practice follows the School of Hillel. According to this ruling, one who performs yibum with the co-wife of a forbidden relative would violate the prohibition of having a sexual liaison with the wife of one’s [living or dead] brother, a sin punishable by karet (excision, an extremely grave punishment). His sons [with this co-wife] would be mamzerim [illegitimate].Yet, it goes without saying that the School of Shammai themselves, who acted in accordance with their own rulings and performed yibum with co-wives of forbidden relatives, committed no sin whatsoever. They were not judged to be in violation of consanguinity prohibitions, [even] unintentionally. [This is] because the later halakhic ruling of the Sages, of blessed memory, in accordance with the School of Hillel did not affect the School of Shammai themselves, who said that the halakha was in accordance with them; according to the Torah, they had to act in accordance with their view. Not only were they not considered unintentional sinners in any way, there is also no doubt that those who acted in accordance with their view and performed yibum with co-wives of forbidden relatives even received their reward; in the world of truth2The divine realm. they received reward for having performed, in their opinion, the mitzva of yibum. However, once our Sages, of blessed memory, ruled that the halakha follows the School of Hillel everywhere, from that point on, one who performs yibum with the co-wife of a forbidden relative is liable for the punishment of karet and is condemned in Hell to the same fate as all others liable for karet.

The same principle applies to the disagreement between Hillel and Shammai about whether one should serve God through strictness, for the honor of the Torah, or through the trait of humility. Each one acted in accordance with his view. Shammai is rewarded for his strictness just as Hillel gets reward for his humility, since both were doing the will of God in accordance with the Torah. It thus emerges that Hillel’s virtue was no greater than Shammai’s virtue. There, in the world of truth, they are ensconced alongside one another, enjoying the pleasant radiance of the Most High, each one for acting in accordance with his view. However, now that our Sages, of blessed memory, have ruled in accordance with Hillel and said, “A person should always be humble like Hillel and not be strict like Shammai,” one who acts in accordance with the trait of strictness commits a grave sin.

This is why a divine voice emerged and said: “It is not that this one [R. Akiva] is greater than that one [R. Eliezer], but that this one is forgiving and that one is not forgiving.” At first glance this is quite astonishing. What does it really mean that R. Eliezer was not forgiving? Was it beyond his capacity to turn his character traits where he willed and become forgiving? According to the above, we can understand this well. It is known that R. Eliezer was a Shammaite, that is, among the disciples of Shammai. He shared Shammai’s halakhic view that a person should behave strictly for the sake of the honor of the Torah. This is why he was not forgiving. However, R. Akiva was among the disciples of Hillel. He shared Hillel’s opinion that one must act humbly, and so he was forgiving. It emerges that in truth R. Akiva was not greater than R. Eliezer, for each of them acted in accordance with the view that appeared to him to be consistent with the Torah.

As for why the divine voice said that R. Eliezer’s prayer was not answered and R. Akiva was answered and the rains fell because this one is forgiving and that one is not, this is the idea: It is known that the Holy One, blessed be He, interacts with His creatures according to a pattern of quid pro quo. As [the Sages] said in Shabbat 151b: “Whoever has compassion on creatures is shown compassion by Heaven.” Likewise: “Anyone who is forgiving [of others] has his sins forgiven for him.” Thus, one who is himself forgiving is better equipped to pray about a communal distress and beseech compassion from God, blessed be His name; his prayers will be willingly accepted, quid pro quo, as above.

Thus, when they prayed for rain, R. Akiva, whose character, following Hillel, was to be forgiving, was answered from Heaven quid pro quo. Whereas, R. Eliezer, whose character, following Shammai, was to be unforgiving – even though he will receive great reward for this, as he is doing the will of God, blessed be His name, according to his own view – ultimately, consistent with his view, he was not forgiving. Therefore, forgiving the sins of the community would not be quid pro quo, so he was not answered. This is the meaning of what the divine voice said: “It is not that this one is greater than that one, but that this one is forgiving and that one is not forgiving,” as explained above.