Signs of a Nation
1. Signs and Gifts
The Gemara states:
There are three signs that mark this [Jewish] nation: they are merciful, bashful, and do kindness. Merciful — as it is written, “He shall grant you mercy, and be merciful to you, and multiply you”; bashful — as it is written, “in order that His awe shall be upon your faces” [as we say in Nedarim: “in order that His awe shall be upon your faces…” — this is bashfulness, etc. — for the awe which is discernible on the face is bashfulness]; doers of kindness — as it is written, “so that he will command his children and his household [after him]…” Anyone who possesses these three signs is fit to cling to this nation.
This is likewise codified as halachah in the Rambam, with regard to families of valid lineage (as discussed below, Section 2).
Now, this teaching is also cited in the Yerushalmi, but there (as in several midrashim) the sign of “doers of kindness” (gomlei chasadim) is derived not from the verse (concerning Avraham), “so that he will command his children and his household,” but from the verse, “And the L-rd your G-d will keep for you the covenant and the kindness.”
It may be said that this disparity is connected to another distinction between the exposition of the Bavli and that of the Yerushalmi: the Bavli states, “there are three signs in this nation,” whereas the Yerushalmi (and likewise several of the midrashim just mentioned) uses the expression, “three good gifts G-d gave to the Jewish people.”
For the Bavli, the main emphasis lies in the fact that these traits are “signs” of the intrinsic character of the members of “this nation.” It therefore brings its proof from what is said concerning Avraham (“so that he will command…”): that Avraham, of his own accord, was a doer of kindness, and that he likewise charged his household after him {to do the same}. This proves that Avraham was intrinsically kind by his very nature; and consequently, that kindness is a sign of the nature of the soul of the members of this nation.
The Yerushalmi, by contrast, makes a point of stating that these traits are “good gifts [that] G-d gave to the Jewish people.” If so, the subject is not the trait of kindness inherent in Avraham’s soul (and in his descendants after him) in and of itself, but rather a trait of kindness that is a special gift from G-d to the Jewish people. It therefore brings the verse, “And the L-rd your G-d will keep for you the covenant and the kindness.”
This requires explanation:
a) What is the substance of the distinction between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi — whether the subject is Avraham’s natural trait of kindness, or a trait of kindness bestowed as a gift from Above? What practical difference does this make?
b) With regard to mercy and bashfulness: here too the Bavli cites verses indicating that they are a gift from G-d to the Jewish people. For mercy — “He shall grant you mercy”; and for bashfulness — “in order that His awe shall be upon your faces,” which refers to the Giving of the Torah, whose thunder, lightning, and the like brought it about that “His awe shall be upon your faces.”
Granted, with regard to bashfulness this is understandable, in light of what the Maharsha explains — that the trait of bashfulness was indeed fixed in the soul of the Jewish people solely through the Giving of the Torah. For the Jewish people, of themselves, are, on the contrary, the “boldest” of the nations [which is why the Sages inferred that “one who has no sense of shame — it is certain that his ancestors did not stand at Mount Sinai”].
But with regard to mercy — this is the very nature of the soul of the members of this nation, which they inherited from Avraham Avinu, as the Sages state explicitly, “Anyone who is merciful to others, it is certain that he is of the seed of Avraham Avinu.” In the simple sense, [the Gemara] specified “the seed of Avraham Avinu” because Avraham Avinu was merciful by nature — as the Maharsha explains, that “[the Gemara] specified in its statement ‘the seed of Avraham’… for with Avraham the trait of tzedakah is stated explicitly: ‘For I have known him, so that he will command his children…’” Yet the Bavli brought the verse “He shall grant you mercy…” (which implies that the subject is the trait of mercy as a gift from Above).
2. Not One of the Three
There is a further difference between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi:
The Bavli concludes, “Anyone who possesses these three signs is fit to cling to this nation.” The Yerushalmi, by contrast, concludes, “and these [the Gibeonites] had not one of them; immediately [David] arose and distanced them” — that is, the Yerushalmi states explicitly that the Gibeonites possessed not one of these three signs.
On this basis, there would seem to be a practical halachic difference between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi: according to the Yerushalmi, one distances a person only when he possesses not one of these three traits (but if he lacks only one of them — or even two — one does not distance him); whereas the simple meaning of the Bavli’s wording, “Anyone who possesses these three signs is fit to cling to this nation,” is that a person must possess all three signs.
However, it may be argued that this is not necessarily so, because:
a) The reading in Ein Yaakov is: “(Anyone who possesses… is fit…) one who does not have these three signs is not fit to cling to him” — which can be interpreted (like the Yerushalmi) to mean that only if he possesses none of the three signs is he unfit to cling to. And one ought not to multiply disputes between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi, as is known from the established principle in this regard.
b) The Rambam writes that “the signs of the Jewish people, the holy nation, are: bashful, merciful, and doers of kindness; but of the Gibeonites it says, ‘And the Gibeonites were not of the Jewish nation,’ because they were brazen-faced… and did not have mercy on the sons of Shaul and did not act kindly toward the Jewish people, etc.” Thus the Rambam is precise (like the Yerushalmi) that the Gibeonites possessed not “one of them” — which implies that one does not distance [a person] unless all three of these traits are lacking.
[And so the Rambam writes there, according to the accurate manuscripts: “anyone who has brazenness of face and cruelty [not ‘or cruelty,’ as in the widespread printings of the Rambam] and hates people and does not act kindly toward them — we strongly suspect that he may be a Gibeonite” (and so is the reading of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch) — for we suspect him only if he possesses not one of the three traits.]
If so — assuming this is a dispute between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi — why did the Rambam rule like the Yerushalmi against the Bavli (especially since he adopted the Bavli’s wording, “the signs of the Jewish people”)?
It is therefore reasonable to say that the Bavli, too, holds that the reason David distanced the Gibeonites was that “they had not [even] one of them.” On this basis, however, there remains a difficulty: why do we not find this emphasis stated explicitly in the Bavli, but only in the Yerushalmi?
One should also note the Rambam’s wording just cited — “the signs of the Jewish people… bashful, merciful, etc.” — in which he differed from the order of the traits found in the Talmud (both Bavli and Yerushalmi), placing “bashful” before “merciful.” And although we do find such a version in one place in a midrash, it is puzzling: why did the Rambam not adopt the version prevalent in the Talmud (and the midrashim)?
3. Bound Together or Apart
The explanation of all this may be proposed as follows:
The crux of the distinction between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi is this: the Bavli is precise in stating, “there are three signs in this nation” (and not “three traits,” or the like) — meaning that the point is not the merit of these traits in themselves, but rather that they serve as “signs” (of something else). And since all three are a sign of one thing, it follows that all three traits stem from a single, particular quality. The Yerushalmi, by contrast, says, “three good gifts G-d gave to the Jewish people” — meaning that the point is these three traits in themselves; and if so, each can be a virtue in its own right (for otherwise it would be a single quality merely subdivided into three gifts).
Now, this corresponds to a distinction in the way these three traits function as well, which can be in one of two ways (as we plainly observe):
a) In the usual manner, the three traits are interdependent, such that one trait brings about the next of its own accord — for example, one who possesses bashfulness and tenderness of soul is thereby merciful, and by virtue of his trait of mercy he does kindness to those in need.
b) At times these three traits are independent of one another — a person does kindness to his fellow because he wishes to benefit him, and not because he has mercy on him (and likewise with the rest) — for ultimately bashfulness, mercy, and kindness are three distinct traits, and one trait can therefore exist without another.
And this is the distinction between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi: the Yerushalmi emphasizes that each of the three traits is a virtue (and gift) in its own right, since it is speaking of the traits themselves, each one distinct from the others; whereas in the Bavli they are “three signs” of a single characteristic, in which case the traits (as a rule) all come together in a chain of cause and effect, one from another.
4. One Inseparable Entity
It may be said that this is the reason the Bavli brought the verse “so that he will command…” (concerning Avraham) only with regard to “doers of kindness,” and not with regard to “the merciful”:
The relationship of “doers of kindness” to the traits of mercy and bashfulness (when they come together in a chain of cause and effect) is such that the doing of kindness is the result of mercy and bashfulness. That is, the intent of “doers of kindness” is not the feeling of kindness in the heart, but rather the practical act of kindness that one performs with his fellow (as is the simple meaning of “doers of kindness”) — for the cause of performing kindness is the feeling of mercy in the heart and the trait of bashfulness in the soul (as will be explained at length below, Section 5).
The verse “so that he will command his children and his household…” can therefore be brought only with regard to doers of kindness (which is the act of kindness, as above) and not with regard to mercy and bashfulness (which are the feeling in the heart and the nature of the soul) — for in the simple sense, Avraham’s command to his household after him was that they conduct themselves with kindness and mercy, etc. (and not regarding the feeling in the heart and the nature of the soul, to which a command is not applicable).
[This also clarifies why the Yerushalmi did not bring the verse “so that he will command…” as proof for “doers of kindness”: because in the Yerushalmi the intent of “doers of kindness” is the trait of kindness in the heart. For the fact that every Jew has a feeling of kindness in his heart is not due to Avraham’s command to his children and household after him, but because G-d implanted it in the heart of every Jew — “And the L-rd your G-d will keep for you the covenant and the kindness.”]
On the basis of the aforementioned distinction between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi, we can also understand why specifically the Yerushalmi needed to specify that the Gibeonites “had not even one of them,” whereas in the Bavli there is no such emphasis:
Even according to the Bavli, the Gibeonites did not have even “one of them.” But since [the Bavli] is precise that they are “three signs” — that is, as above, that all of them are the result of a single point [and the distinction between the three signs is only in their “place” within the person’s soul: doers of kindness is in deed; merciful — the feeling in the heart; and bashfulness — the nature of the soul] — it is self-understood that they are a single entity that cannot be separated one from another.
For when this point (quality) is present, all three “signs” — the traits (in all parts of the soul) — come of their own accord; and if it is lacking, the opposite comes about: the brazenness in him begets a feeling of cruelty in the heart, which in turn causes hatred of others and the absence of performing kindness. Consequently, there is no need to emphasize that the Gibeonites “had not [even] one of them,” because they are all one single entity.
Whereas in the Yerushalmi, which speaks of these traits as each being a (virtue and) gift in its own right — there it is necessary to emphasize that the Gibeonites did not have even one of the three traits, for it is possible for one to be found without the other two.
5. Dust and Ashes
In light of all the above, it may be said that this is the Rambam’s intent in changing the order of the traits and placing “bashful” before “merciful” — in order to emphasize that what is being discussed here (in the “signs of the Jewish people”) is the three traits as they come in a chain of cause and effect, one from another. In that case their order is: bashful, merciful, and doers of kindness — for, as above, doers of kindness refers to the act of kindness, whose cause is the feeling of mercy in the heart, and the thing that causes the heart to be aroused with mercy for another is the very nature of the tenderness within the soul — bashfulness.
It may be said that this order is also relevant to the content of what the “signs” signify: these three traits are signs of the Jewish people only when the doing of kindness is a result of mercy, and the mercy is the offspring of bashfulness.
For it is possible for the doing of kindness to come (not from mercy and bashfulness, but, on the contrary) from a sense of self and from pride — like the kindness of Yishmael, and as the Sages said that all the charity and kindness the nations do is only to aggrandize themselves and to glorify themselves with it. And in a similar vein, there is mercy that comes specifically from pride, for since one regards himself as great and exalted above the people, he therefore sees another as a lowly person who is to be pitied.
This is what the Rambam teaches us — that the signs of “the holy nation” depend upon this: that the cause of the kindness is mercy, and the source of the mercy is the nature of a person’s bashfulness and tenderness.
On a deeper level it may be said: as explained above, the three traits are “signs” of a single point — which is the point of the essence of a Jew. And this point is the concept of bittul {self-nullification} — that he is not an entity unto himself, but rather his entire being is to serve his Maker, as Avraham Avinu said, “and I am but dust and ashes.”
This is why the Rambam placed the trait of bashfulness before mercy and kindness — for the feeling of bashfulness (which indicates the nature of tenderness and the negation of brazenness, etc.) expresses the point of bittul in a revealed way. It is therefore the first and primary sign of the Jewish people; and the completeness of the sign is when the point of bittul permeates one’s entire being, to the extent that even his mercy and his kindness are not from pride but solely from bittul — “and I am but dust and ashes.”
6. When Mercy Humbles
But on this basis a difficulty arises from the other direction — why does the Gemara place “merciful” before “bashful”?
Simply put, it may be said that the primary wrong of the Gibeonites, on account of which King David distanced them, was their cruelty — that they were not merciful, and killed the sons of Shaul.
But a further reason may be offered (in a manner of mussar): that with this, the Gemara negates a feeling of pride that can come as a result of mercy (true mercy). When a person is aroused with a feeling of genuine mercy for another (to the point that he does kindness with him) — then, out of his contemplation of the other’s situation, he can come to a feeling of self-importance, since through this contemplation he sees and recognizes how far removed the other is in worth. Therefore, specifically after the mercy, one must arouse within himself a feeling of bashfulness and bittul.
And on a still deeper level it may be said — that there is a “bashfulness” which is a result, coming as a direct effect from the mercy itself. This is based on what is explained in the Midrash, that the reason G-d created poor people in the world is that “kindness and truth preserve him” — “were all to be wealthy… who could do kindness?”
It results that the other’s being in a state of needing mercy is only in order to confer merit upon the wealthy, that they be able to fulfill the mitzvah of tzedakah; so that the wealthy person is himself the cause of his fellow’s being in a state of pain and distress!
And when one contemplates this well, he will at once be aroused with a measure of true bashfulness — for in order to confer upon himself the merit of the mitzvah of kindness, his fellow is made to suffer, that he be in a situation and state in which one must have mercy upon him!
I heard from the Frierdiker Rebbe, that when he was aboard the ship on his way back from his visit to the Holy Land (in the year 5689), and word reached him of the pogroms that occurred at that time in Chevron, may G-d protect us, he became ill from the intensity of the anguish. Aboard the ship there was a G-d-fearing doctor who attended to him with remedies, etc., until he recovered.
After some time, the doctor came in to my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, in order to ask for a rectification. To my revered father-in-law the Rebbe’s question — for what, and why? — he replied: “It is obvious that the Rebbe, being a leader of the Jewish people, whom the public need, must be healthy; and if so, had I not been aboard the ship together with the Rebbe, and there would have been no possibility of healing by natural means, the Rebbe would not have fallen ill in the first place. It emerges that the fact that I was aboard the ship caused the Rebbe to suffer for a period of time — and for this (he concluded) I have come to ask for a rectification…”
And this is the order of “merciful” and then “bashful” — for when a Jew has bittul within him, the mercy itself begets in him a feeling of true bashfulness and bittul.
(From a sichah delivered on Shabbos Parshas Vayakhel-Pekudei 5747)
