Torah on One Foot

This reflection is part of the ongoing Forest Hills Haftorah Series. The rest of the content can be found here: https://www.sefaria.org/groups/FHJC-Haftorah-Series .

(above: Hillel on the Knesset Menorah in Jerusalem)

A famous story is told about a Roman who decided he wanted to affiliate himself with the Judean sages of the Second Temple. However, he did not have the patience to spend an adequate amount of time immersed in their teachings and literature, so he said he would join them on condition that he be could be taught the entirety of the Torah while standing on one foot.

The first sage he approached, Shammai, thought that the gentile was not being genuine, and chased him away with a measuring stick.

The second sage, Hillel, accepted the challenge and stated the following:

The story's full context can be found in the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 31a).

While like Shammai, I personally cannot shake the feeling that this gentile was attempting to provoke, or goad, (or, as they now say, to "troll"); Hillel's wisdom and patience show us that the gentile in question was opening a door to a thought-experiment which can lead to the deeply profound. Can there be said to be some kind of underlying, common denominator from which the entirety of the Torah can be said to emerge?

Hillel answers with a resounding YES, and even states what he believes that common denominator to be.

I am fascinating by Hillel's answer. In traditional Halacha (Jewish law), commandments are divided up between those which are between man and God (בין אדם למקום) on one hand, and between man and man on the other (בין אדם לחברו). According to Hillel, interpersonal, human relationships is the priority (the "עיקר").

But where did he get this from? I would have expected a Scriptural verse for support, but we get none. Hillel leaves it to us to speculate.

I have a thought. Consider the very first moment when mankind is mentioned in the Torah:

Could Hillel have had this concept in mind? If so, his answer to the gentile's question is quite brilliant, in possibly being able to merge the two realms; Respect for the Almighty, and respect for other human beings, into one. Since every individual is created in God's image, perhaps one can be said to be respecting God by refraining from acting hateful to his or her fellows.

Hillel was not alone in his attempt to boil the Torah down to one all-encompassing thought. Nor was he alone in believing that the way we treat each other is of paramount importance. Compare this with Rabbi Akiva's reaction to reading Leviticus 19:18:

Here's something interesting; In the previous century, Jesus was asked, while before a crowd, what the greatest of the commandments are. According to the narrative in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he responded with two verses. First, the shema; "Listen, O Israel! YHWH is our god; YHWH alone!" (Deut 6). And second, with Rabbi Akiva's verse above.

Yet another sage, Rav Simlai of the 3rd century, would pour through the TaNaKh to try to find cases of kings and prophets who give alternative answers to the question posed to Shammai and Hillel above.

(Also - on a side note - Have you ever wondered about the origin of there being 613 commandments in the Torah? Who first counted them up and publicized this number??? The midrash we will look into is that very source!)

Here is how it starts:

Rav Simlai then goes on to give several instances from the TaNaKh of kings and prophets who try to abbreviate all 613 commandments as much as possible. Let's take a look at them.

First, there's King David:

Do you see how Rav Simlai is reading Psalms 15? It is quite clever! In this Psalm, which has the superscription connecting it to King David, we get a list of requirements which enable one to dwell with God in His Tabernacle, His home-on-Earth.

It might not have been as easy as Hillel's one-liner, but it is a reasonable passage to recite while standing on one foot. And according to Rav Simlai, incorporates the whole Torah!

But King David is just the first in Rav Simlai's list. Let's see who else he quotes, and how they continually "one-up" each other by abbreviating the Torah even further.

Next is Isaiah:

(above: Isaiah as conveyed by Michaelangelo in the Sistine Chapel)

Note how similar this passage from Isaiah is to the Psalm attributed to King David above. They both begin with a question, inquiring as to who is truly worthy to dwell with God, followed by a list of the necessary attributes.

Isaiah is one of the Four Greats of Judean and Israelite prophets who lived and preached during the 8th century CE. One of his contemporaries, Micah, cuts down Isaiah's list of 6 in half, and states the following (which is included in this week's Haftorah):

What happens next in this midrash is quite funny; We go back to Isaiah, who will not let himself be out-done by his colleague, and therefore revises his earlier statement:

I mentioned above that there are Four Greats of the 8th century. Amos, another of the four, does not want to be left out of the action, and so he now joins the discussion:

Remember how we started? With Hillel stating that the entirety of the Torah can be summarized by stating, Don't do to others that which you find hateful.

Well we now have Rav Simlai interpreting Amos as stating that the whole Torah can be encapsulated into the mandate to seek God. In other words, the עיקר is between man and God, not man and man. It is from this that all else follows.

What's fascinating is that some of the commentators on the Talmud have attempted to fit Hillel himself into this mold. Rabbi Shlmo Yitzhaki (Rashi, 11th century, France) offers two interpretations of Hillel's statement. One of them is what you would expect; Namely, just don't do hateful, or despicable things to the people around you. But take a look at his alternative explanation:

Rashi cites a verse from Proverbs to demonstrate that "friend" of an Israelite can be said to be the Almighty, Himself. His comment on that line expresses such a beautiful idea:

And finally, one more statement quoted by Rav Simlai; That of the prophet Habakkuk (of whom we know almost absolutely nothing about):

So let's go back to the question originally posed to Hillel: Can you teach me the whole Torah on one foot?

Rav Simlai presents us with six different possible answers from some of the greatest, most refined minds in our history, four of them abbreviating the Torah into 3 mandates or less!! :

Micah:

1. Do justice;
2. Act Mercifully;
3. Walk wisely with God

Isaiah

1. Do justice;
2. Do righteousness

Amos

1. Seek God (and live)

Habakkuk

1. Live with trust

(below: How Moses might have answered the question)

Rav Simlai's list is not all inclusive. There are certainly other moments in the TaNaKh when the Israelites are implored to show loyalty to God, and told that this is not too complicated or burdensome a request. Another example, which I love, comes from Jeremiah 7:

If one approaches the "Torah," which translates to "Instruction," with the mindset that it is a systematic legal-code, it can be quite overwhelming. As Rav Simlai points out, depending on how one counts, you could end up with a list of hundreds (!!!) of mandates! Furthermore, the laws of one passage might flat-out reject the laws of another! (To give just one example, the priests tell us in Leviticus 11 that it is permitted to eat an animal which died of natural causes. But in Deuteronomy 14 we are told that this is strictly forbidden!)

What Jeremiah and the other prophets above remind us is that there is always a much bigger picture. When we feel overwhelmed or overburdened by an extensive list of specific things that it seems God, by way of the prophets in the TaNaKh wants from us; Just pause, and take a step back, and reflect on what might be the underlying purpose, or the real goal, to the totality to all of the details.

Personally, I think Jeremiah is spot on in this one. God wants to be in relationship with Israel. The prophets throughout the TaNaKh, as well as the books of the Torah, provide us with different pathways or paradigms as to how to pursue this relationship. But each Israelite is different. Jeremiah's path might have been different from Amos, or David, or from Hillel or Rav Simlai.

So given all of this; How do you think you would answer, had you been in Hillel's position? If you were asked to summarize the whole Torah while standing on one foot? Would you share any of the verses above? Is there another verse in TaNaKh which you would feel is more appropriate? Or would you, like Hillel, state a principle that might not exist explicitly in Scripture, but that might concisely and adequately state that which all the rest (or most of the rest) could be said to be based on?

Appendix: Verses quoted above