What's the Jewish "Take" on the Law of Love?

Great Debates
1

In several of the Gospels, Jesus is reported as suggesting that the entirety of the Law can be summarized by:

In at least one scenario, he gives this as an answer to one of the Pharisees (this being one of the cases where they are depicted as his antagonists).

Now, both the above are direct quotes from the Torah. The first is the second half of the Shema, which comes as close as anything can to being “the basic creed of Judaism.”

One of the great rabbis of the First Century B.C., Hillel IIRC, had already given effectively the same answer. And he suggested that obeying these to the letter was fulfilling the whole Law, or words to that effect.

As people who have read my posts are aware, they are key to my understanding of what is expected of me as a Christian.

Which brings me to the question, how do committed Jews view these two commandments? Do they see them in the same light as Hillel and Jesus evidently did? Are they just two among the 613 (or whatever the right number is)?

Obviously this thread is not limited to Jewish posters. But I’d especially welcome Chaim, Zev, and Dex giving their views and their understanding of what is taught regarding these. I’d also like to hear what David and other non-believing persons of Jewish extraction were taught about them, and how they regard them. (And let me hasten to say that I’m not trying to draw a Jew/Gentile line by posting this – it’s an aspect of something important to me that I don’t know anything about, and I’m looking for answers from the most probable sources.)

2

Polycarp:

Well, Hillel, at least, and JC to the degree that he agreed with Hillel on the issue.

And, FYI, 613 is indeed the correct number.

3

[nitpicker mode]

Well, not quite.

Hillel would not have told you that fulfilling “Love thy neighbor…” is fulfilling the whole law. He would not have told you that you could work on Shabbos, eat on Yom Kippur and not put a mezuzah on your door as long as you love your neighbor as yourself.

What he meant was that “Love your neighbor…” is the essence or the main point of the Torah. Rabbi Akiva (one of the most famous Rabbis in the Talmud) made a similar point about 150 years later.

A fine distinction, but a necessary one.

[/nitpicker mode]

That being said, yes, we view these commandments as very important. But then again, we view them ALL as important. That Hillel and Rabbi Akiva expounded upon them brings them into greater focus and perhaps indicates that we should give greater thought to them. They do not, however, supercede any other commandments.

Zev Steinhardt

Zev Steinhardt

4

zev:

Of course Hillel would not say that one who violates the Shabbos, etc. while “loving his neighbor” is doing OK.

However, my understanding of his statement was that the other commandments were all, in some way, expreesions of “love thy neighbor.” Thus, by Hillel’s definition, it would be impossible to “love thy neighbor” while engaging in other sins. Hence, the end of his statement: “The rest is just commentary.”

Chaim Mattis Keller

5

Chaim,

I agree with you. However, Polycarp made the following statement:

Since Christians put a different meaning on the words “fulfilling the whole Law” (as in Jesus fulfilled the Law) than Jews do, I just wanted to make that distinction.

Zev Steinhardt

6

I thought it was “What is hateful unto you do not do unto your neighbor, the rest is commentary” while standing on one foot.
BTW, how did he invent the Passover sandwich so long before the Earl of Sandwich invented the sandwich? :slight_smile:

7

**

You are correct. I mixed up the phrasings.

Don’t know. Can’t talk right now. I’m eating a peanut-butter and jelly hillel. :smiley:

Zev Steinhardt

8

Did Jewish scholars ever address this?

[/quote]
One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain.

The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

— Mark 2-23:27

[/quote]

If so, what was the commentary. If not, what is your own opinion? Thanks.

9

Thanks, Chaim and Zev. Just to clean up a bad case of dangling pronoun, the “he” to whom I referred was Jesus, not Hillel. My reading in the Gospels allows me to draw the conclusion for Him; what Hillel meant by “The rest is just commentary” was not something I felt knowledgeable about – which is why I asked the question, and Chaim’s explication of how Hillel meant what he said helped clarify my understanding of the context immensely. (You may be amused or chagrined to know that conservative Christians see things in about the same light: while what God said to Peter about the sheetful of food relieves them of keeping the dietary law, and Jesus’ self-sacrifice relieves them of the ceremonial law, the other moral and behavioral commandments are considered incorporated in the summary but binding individually as well.)

BTW, Chaim, at one point in discoursing on attitudes toward God, I ascribed to you, as exemplary of Orthodox Jews, the motivation that one keeps the Law out of reverential love of God (as opposed to the spiritual equivalent of a good citizen obeying a law regardless of whether he feels it’s a proper law or not). Granted that they are His Commandments, why should one keep them as an individual? That, I suggested, was your motivation and that of most devout Orthodox Jews. Did I catch your viewpoint accurately?

10

Most traditional Jews (Orthodox and Conservative) will respond, that one keeps the commandments out of reverential love of God, sure, and also because the commandments are a way of “partnering” with God in healing the world… but also because they are obligations imposed upon us by the Covenant. Which is more important? Judaism would say that question is irrelevant; what is more important is to KEEP the commandments.

Rabbinic commentary goes both ways, depending on the situation and the law. Some laws are unclear and one does MORE than what seems to be required – if you are prohibited from trespassing on certain property, and you’re not sure where the line is, you stay even further away than you have to.

Other laws are interpreted very strictly. Laws of sacrifice, for example, are interpreted to only take place in the Temple; since there is no Temple, we don’t do sacrifice anymore. We don’t try to “accomodate” or “expand” the law to doing sacrifice “near” the Temple as a compromise. Sacrifice was an honour and obligation, and it is replaced by prayer.

Prayer is therefore an obligation. Yes, prayer involves love of God, but it also involves attention to duty.

On Libertarian’s comment about Sabbath Laws: All laws may be abridged to save a life. An observant Jew, seeing someone starving on the Sabbath, would (OK, should) violate Sabbath rules to feed that person. Now, there’s some judgement call here; one wouldn’t violate the Sabbath just because someone was an hour or two late in getting lunch.

This has caused some consternation in Israel, over the question of army service on the sabbath. Clearly, the Israeli army, police, fire departments, etc can’t just take sabbath off. While the Ultra-Orthodox may be excused from army duties, most traditional Jews accept these sabbath violations as a necessary compromise with reality.

Minor footnote to one of Zev’s Comments: Zev said that all the laws are important, and I just want to clarify that does not mean of equal importance. Some laws (against murder, for instance) are clearly more important than others (wearing a fringe of blue.) A few laws have rewards and punishments attached to them; laws involving the death penalty in ancient times are clearly more important than minor infringements.

There are four prohibitions (murder, idolatry, adultery, and I’ve forgot the fourth) that one must accept martyrdom rather than violate the commandments. That is, the Nazi soldier tells me that I must kill X, or he will kill me; I accept martyrdom rather than kill X. Those are clearly more important than others – if the Nazi tells me to eat pork or he will kill me, I cheerfully eat pork. Well, OK, maybe not cheerfully.

11

This is to clarify the previous post by CKDextHavn:

  1. There are actually only three prohibitions.
  2. Adultery is not limited to such, but includes other forbidden sexual relations (e.g. incest).
  3. Under some circumstances, one must accept matrydom for any commandment.
12

I think incest is the fourth.

13

Minor footnote to CDextHavn’s minor footnote of Zev’s comments:

There are only three such commandments for which martyrdom is always required, not four.

There are, however, certain exceptional circumstances, however, when one must allow oneself to be martyred for any law. Perhaps this is the fourth case you are thinking of.

Zev Steinhardt

14

Polycarp:

I am not worthy! I am not worthy!

I think so. Mind you, performance of commandments out of less pure motives is still a good thing in G-d’s eyes, but doing so out of that “reverential love for G-d” is the attitude that we are expected to strive toward.

Libertarian:

The Midrashim definitely explain the Abiathar-David issue. I learned this in my course of study a few months ago; I’ll look it up and get back to you tonight.

CKDextHavn:

Not coming to disagree with what zav and Izzy have just posted, but probably the fourth that you heard about (in the context of a listing of four) is “Chillul Ha-Shem,” profaning G-d’s name. Which could, as zev and Izzy have said, include any commandment, under certain specific circumstances.

Chaim Mattis Keller

15

CM, CK

Thanks to both of you!

It would appear from what CK said that, in general, you do agree with the sentiment expressed by Jesus that the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.

Perhaps there is not so much that divides us after all. Often, I’ve wondered, what would the time-line have been like had Jesus been a Pharisee…

16

I’m sorry, forgive the ignorance. I’ve heard this phrase a hundred times yet I never fully understood what it meant. What, exactly, does this mean, in practical terms?

Zev Steinhardt

17

Zev

Just go up the page a bit, and you will see the actual circumstance in which the phrase was originally used. Can’t get much more practical than that, I guess! :slight_smile:

I interpret it to mean something along the lines of “God values man more than He values the Sabbath”.

18

Libertarian:

Well, Judaism certainly believes that that’s true…where the two are mutually exclusive. But he much prefers to have both concurrently. Were the disciples who were picking the grain in danger of starving to death, or were they picking the grain on behalf of someone who was? Was already-prepared food readily available in a manner that would not have been deadly for them to reach? Or was this the only manner in which they could have obtained nourishment?

Will respond about David & Abiathar tomorrow…

Chaim Mattis Keller

19

Chaim

I can’t say for certain. An educated guess would be that they were quite hungry (they walked a lot and for long hours at a time), but probably would not have died (after all, Jesus could have fed them “miracle food”).

20

But let’s not also forget that unless they did their walking within one city (probably unlikely for a long walk – cities back then weren’t like they are now), walking more than 2000 cubits outside a city limit is also forbidden on Shabbos.

Zev Steinhardt