In the September 10 issue of The New York Times, the well-known journalist Jeffrey Goldberg (whose career got its start in these pages) published a long and grim op-ed column about the dangers of a terrorist nuclear attack on American soil. Compared with such a prospect, he wrote, “Everything else — Fannie Mae, health care reform, energy independence, the budget shortfall in Wasilla, Alaska — is commentary.”
The phrase “everything else is commentary,” or, as it is more frequently encountered, “the rest is commentary,” has in recent years become such a part of the English language that many people are unaware of its Jewish roots. Yet these origins are indisputable and are clearly traceable to the talmudic story about the two first-century-BCE rabbinic sages, Hillel and Shammai, contemporaries paired together by Jewish tradition as archetypical opposites: Hillel the tolerant and liberal “loose constructionist” of the Law, Shammai the exacting and inflexible “strict constructionist.” In one story about them, a gentile comes to both and asks, with the obvious intention of provoking them, to be taught the whole Torah while standing on one leg. Shammai is indeed provoked and gives the man an angry whack with a measuring rod. Hillel replies, “That which is hateful to you, do not unto another: This is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary — [and now] go study.”
It is interesting to see how “the rest is commentary” has taken on an English meaning of its own that is subtly different from Hillel’s and sometimes even opposed to it. In the Aramaic of the Talmud, “The rest is commentary – go study” (ve’idakh perusha hu, zil g’mor) is a single statement whose first half cannot be separated from its second half. Calling the rest of the Torah “commentary” has nothing dismissive about it. On the contrary, Hillel is clearly saying that commentary is crucial and that ultimate wisdom lies in it. Although not doing to others what is hateful to yourself may be the Torah’s overarching message, it is not one that can be treated in isolation from the vast body of practice and learning that surrounds it.
Yet, in our current American usage, “the rest is commentary” often means “the rest is trivial,” or at least, as Jeffrey Goldberg appears to intend it, “the rest is less important.” This isn’t just a matter of the second half of Hillel’s statement being forgotten; it is also one of its being deliberately disregarded. This disregard goes all the way back to the New Testament, in which Jesus is asked to name “the greatest commandment in the law” and replies:
“‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind’: This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
There is no “go study” here, even though Jesus surely knew what Hillel had said. For Jesus — and for Christianity — “the rest is commentary” really does mean that the rest is unimportant. Commentary — the Mishnah, the Talmud, rabbinical exegesis — is for the nitpicking Jew. Loving one’s neighbor is for the spiritual Christian.
This is not, of course, what Hillel had in mind. And yet one might ask why he, too, did not cite the verse from Leviticus “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” in his answer to his gentile questioner, though he knew it as well as Jesus did, preferring instead the more negatively phrased, “What is hateful unto yourself, do not unto your neighbor” — words that do not come from the Bible at all. What made him do this?
Here, I think, lies the true cunning of the talmudic tale. For what Hillel really is doing is, at one and the same time, tactfully rebuking Shammai while letting the gentile know that, provocateur though he is, the insult he has received is inexcusable in Jewish terms. Had Hillel said, “Love thy neighbor as thyself: This is the whole Torah,” the point would not have been made. Shammai, after all, cannot be expected to love a gentile who is making fun of him, nor can the gentile expect to be loved by him. But the gentile can expect Shammai, who would not like to be struck by a measuring rod, to know better than to strike someone else, even a mocker, and it is a mark of Hillel’s sensitivity that he addresses himself, without saying so explicitly, to this precise issue.
The story in the Talmud ends with the gentile’s converting to Judaism, which at first glance may seem strange. What, after all, has Hillel said to win him over so quickly? On second thought, however, we realize that he has said the most appropriate thing that could have been said, and that in doing so he has made the gentile feel that Judaism is a religion that can speak to his own situation.
This, too, of course, is commentary — in this case, my own — but of commentary we can never get enough. “Go study” is what Judaism is all about.
Questions for Philologos can be sent to philologos@forward.com.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
When Hank Greenberg Met Jackie Robinson
Columbia Seeks To End 'Whites Only' Fellowship
Reconsider Decision on Rabbis and Intermarriage
Ultra-Orthodox Men Ditch All-Black Attire as Fashion Trumps Tradition
Israel's Shas, Right-Wing Kingmaker Party, Takes Sharp Turn to Left
You've successfully signed up!
Does the incident of the gentile, Shammai & Hillel in Shabbat 31A include a play on "regel" ? The gentile asks to be taught while standing on one "regel" (foot). Shammai chases him with a carpenter's rule which I think in Latin is "regula". Finally, Hillel teaches one rule which I think can also be expressed as "regula" in Latin. Am I stretching too far ? Todah rabbah.
I checked a glossary of Greek and Latin words found in the Mishnah and could not find regula, but I really like the idea of Hillel making puns. Yasher koakh, Avraham b Yaakov!
Indeed "regel" is likely to have come from the Latin regula. See "Hillel's Rule" by Raphael Jospe, The Jewish Quarterly Review, LXXXI, Nos. 1-2 (1990)45-57.
Todah, Gilad. From the first page of the article —readable at the JSTOR website— I see Mordecai Kaplan is credited with the idea of Hillel as a punster, and that Hillel seems to have committed at least one other pun in Pirkei Avot. I'm going to chase down the article in JQR and present our Rabbi with it during next summer's discussion of Avot.
Todah, Gilad. From the first page of the article —readable at the JSTOR website— I see Mordecai Kaplan is credited with the idea of Hillel as a punster, and that Hillel seems to have committed at least one other pun in Pirkei Avot. I'm going to chase down the article in JQR and present our Rabbi with it during next summer's discussion of Avot.
Here is the link to the 1st page of Jospe's article at JSTOR: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1455253 Also, I first heard this described about 30 years ago by Dr. Zanvel Klein, alav hashalom, at the University of Chicago. Todah rabbah, Jack & Gilad.
You state "... [and now] go study.” Other translations use "go learn." As you know "learning" is a step above "study," in fact, you published a Forward article on the difference. I taught a class, "Torah for Non-Jews and Jews" and pounded into the students that an aspect of Judaism is questioning which leads to learning.
A divergent reading : the responses of Shammai and Hillel are not opposed but dialectically linked. Shammai's response is necessary, as it brings the gentile to a halt in his provocation. Only the blow that left the gentile speechless can Hillel restore speech : firstly in the general axiom, then in the directly addressed commandement (to study). For is it so sure that we (or Shammai) only expect others to treat us with gentilness and subtil reasoning? More often, by our provokations, we seek a violent response to awaken ourselves to acceptable limits. See Proverbs 13:24: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." Hillel's reply thus remains a comment on Shammai's action and applicable to both of those present, but it in no way annulls the initial violent reaction that in reality gives his lesson its foundations.
You do yourself no favours when you quote someone without providing the context of the quote, then make it appear to be relevant to the argument you are making when the context clearly indicates that it is not. It is known as misrepresentation. The Jew known as Jesus was Torah trained. He is addressed by Jewish leaders as both Rabbi and Doctor (of the Law). The context of your quotation is a direct question from a Torah expert as to which the greatest of the commandments is. It is a straight question to which a straight answer is given. There is no discussion recorded. The issue is not whether study is needed (of course it is), but whether that alone suffices. Jesus made it clear that the Law had also to be 'written on the heart' by the Spirit, as the prohet Jeremiah had foretold. I can see no quarrel with that concept!