Rebbi Shimon is concerned with character or quality – is the wild beast dangerous? Is the chametz consumable? Are the Roman advancements to civilization no more than their own narcissistic, hedonistic achievements? * Hmm… To be consistent, what should Rebbi Yehuda have said about the Romans? Shouldn’t he have castigated them?
By Rabbi Boruch Merkur
What prompted Rebbi Yehuda to pipe up first and praise the deeds of the Roman occupiers? (Shabbos 33b). Such conveniences – markets, bridges, bathhouses, oh my! Such contributions to society, to civilization. But at what cost? They were brutal tyrants who desecrated our religion and tormented our Sages.
After this episode, Rebbi Yehuda was awarded the title First Speaker, gaining privilege in Rome. Is that what compelled him to broach this subject – shameless self-promotion?
That kind of ulterior motive is precisely the rebuttal of Rebbi Shimon, who responded truthfully to Rebbi Yehuda about the Romans and condemned their motives. Rebbi Shimon said that all they constructed was for their own self-aggrandizement and frivolous delight. The Romans sentenced Rebbi Shimon to death.
Assuming Rebbi Yehuda was just naïve about the Romans, why would he endanger his colleagues by broaching such a painful, sensitive topic and eliciting a critical response? Maharsha confirms what you might have suspected: Rebbi Yehuda spoke out of fear of the Roman authority. But why say anything about them at all?
***
Rabbi YY Jacobson teaches this Talmudic story to begin a breathtaking two-hour shiur. The story introduces how the Rogatchover Gaon traces the diverging approaches of Rebbi Yehuda and Rebbi Shimon. (See Likkutei Sichos Vol. 7, pg. 188 ff.):
It says in this week’s parsha: “I will vanquish wild beasts from the land – V’hishbati chaya ra’a min ha’aretz” (Bechukosai 26:6). The Sages debate the precise meaning of the Hebrew word “hashbasa.” According to Rebbi Yehuda, the term signifies the utter cessation of a thing’s existence. Thus, Rebbi Yehuda interprets the Divine promise to “vanquish wild beasts” to mean that in the Messianic Era they will become extinct. Rebbi Shimon disagrees, maintaining that “hashbasa” refers only to vanquishing a character trait – in this case, the destructive nature of “wild beasts.” There will be beasts in the time of the redemption, but they won’t be harmful.
The Rogatchover relates this distinction to a similar dispute about eradicating leaven products for Pesach. The Torah directs us, “tashbisu s’or mi’bateichem – you shall rid your houses of leaven” (Shmos 12:15). Rebbi Yehuda again rules that “hashbasa” means to completely eliminate (through incineration), whereas Rebbi Shimon suffices with a change in the quality of the chametz, ruling that it is enough to crumble it and cast it to the wind. Here crumbs remain, yet the chametz is useless, ceasing to function as consumable food.
The Rebbe adds a third example, outlining the Sages’ dispute regarding forbidden labor on Shabbos. Rebbi Yehuda is concerned with the act itself (kamos, quantity/existence); Rabbi Shimon also considers intent (eichus, quality).
In all cases, Rebbi Yehuda is concerned with the existence of the thing – the wild beast or chametz, or the fact that the forbidden labor was done on Shabbos (regardless of intent) – and Rebbi Shimon is concerned with its character or quality – is the wild beast dangerous? Is the chametz consumable? Was the malacha done with intent? Are the Roman advancements to civilization no more than their own narcissistic, hedonistic achievements?
***
Hmm… To be consistent, what should Rebbi Yehuda have said about the Romans? Shouldn’t he have castigated them? If Rebbi Yehuda asserts himself as First Speaker, why not direct the conversation to eradicating the oppressors (along with the “wild beasts,” “the chametz,” etc.)? Instead he praises them!
Looking back to Maharsha, let’s interpret “yiras malchus – fear of the (Roman) authority” from a deeper perspective. Rebbi Yehuda was motivated by yiras malchus Shamayim, fear of Heaven. In saying, “How fine are the deeds of this nation,” notice that Rebbi Yehuda praises only their contributions to society, not the Romans themselves. Perhaps he sang the praises of their oppressors to set off the rage of the holy and powerful Rashbi, to arouse Divine retribution upon them. Thus, Rebbi Yehuda may have been hinting at vanquishing their enemy so that a worthier people could benefit from all their accomplishments, as was the case when the Jewish people conquered the Land of Canaan (inheriting their homes, property, and possessions – everything! See D’varim 6:10-11.)
As you would expect, Rashbi’s response focuses on intent, suggesting that if the Romans stopped acting like “wild beasts,” they too would have a place in a perfect world. They don’t have to be annihilated. Once they “beat their swords into ploughshares,” once they use their ability to advance humanity and civilization to positive ends, then “The wolf shall lie with the lamb,” with the true and complete redemption. ■