The rabbinic sage Hillel summarizes the Torah in two powerful sentences:
That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow [your neighbour]. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn [study it].
Was dir nicht lieb ist, das tue auch deinem Nächsten nicht. Das ist die ganze Tora und alles andere ist Erläuterung; geh und lerne sie.
The papercut shows the original text from the Babylonian Talmud, written in Aramaic (Tractate Shabbos 31a).
The Talmudic story begins with a non-Jewish man approaching Shammai, a rabbinic sage and contemporary of Hillel. He asks to be taught the whole Torah while standing on one leg.
Perhaps, the person questioning Shammai was somebody, who is always ready to doubt the truth or existence of something. Or he was genuinly interested, but 2000 years ahead of the times by requesting the “elevator pitch” about Judaism. There is also the feeling that he wanted to provoke.
Shammai drove him away with a measuring rod.
Hillel replied: “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and study it.”
Two sentences and the questioner was so convinced by Hillel´s “elevator pitch” that he set any reservations aside and converted to Judaism. Hillel´s answer is very powerful and complex.
The golden rule
“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.” This is the pinnacle of human ethical behaviour. This concept is expressed in many religions as an ideal for inter-human relationships. The third of five books of the Torah, Vayikra / Leviticus, writes “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” [chapter 19:18]. Rashi comments on it by citing Rabbi Akiva: “This is a fundamental principle of the Torah” [Torath Kohanim 19:45].
But why did Hillel turn the Levitucus 19:18 quote onto it´s head by phrasing it negatively, which is not written anywhere in the Bible. Maybe Hillel wanted not only to refer to this most fundamental principle of the Torah, but also wanted to rebuke the rather pushy questioner for this rather provocative question (or Shammai for his reply?).
The rest is the explanation; go and learn!
This is also often translated as “the rest is commentary” whilst the “go and learn” is mostly omitted. Both is wrong in several respects. Firstly, our modern use of the words explanation” and “commentary” imply an addittional, optional, explanation, to which one may refer to or not. It also has an undercurent of not being so important or even being trivial. In contrast, Hillel uses it as an essential principle and makes it clear by requesting that the questioner must go and study, learn, the Torah. It´s part of the same sentence and the first part can not be divored from the second part. In contrast to the subsequently emerging religions Christianity and Islam, Judaism explicily endorces and encourages critical study by everybody.
Judaism encourages new interpretations, probing questions, and dispute! Hillel and Shammai are an excellent example. Despite having studied with the same teachers, from whom they learned the Oral Tradition , they developed different interpretations and thoughts, which then developed in two different schools of interpretation. There are more than 300 differences in opinion recorded in the Talmud between the schools of Hillel and Shammai.
Hillel versus Shammai
In general, Shammai was the more stringent of the two. He tended towards “strict constructionism” or towards what is today called ultra-orthodoxy. The questioner did not measure up to Shammai´s standards he requested from himself and his students. The Talmud hints at this interpretation as Shammai selects – from all the tools has at his disposal (he was a builder) – a measuring rod to chase teh questioner away. In my papercut, I hint at the measuring rod by the pattern on the left and right edges, whose regular pattern resembles the regular pattern found on measring tools.
Hillel focussed instead on the potential of the questioner. He saw the positive, the possibility for growth. He was happy to guide him towards the right path instead of expecting him to be perfect. The questioner must have realized the wisdom behind Hillel´s reaction and got so convinced that he converted to Judaism.
In general, the rabbis of the Talmud sided with Hillel and his school, but they also believed that both views were valid. In the 16th century, the kabbalist Rabbi Isaac Luria stressed not only that both views are valid, but also that each has its own time and place. The two concepts are different sides of the same coin, as so often happens in the Torah (most prominently the different genesis stories including the two different ways Eve was created). Hillel represents the concern and kindness (“chesed”) for others, which is a fundamental requirement in Judaism. Shaddai is more inward oriented and requires from himself and – by extension – from others high standards. This is also an important attribute in Judaism (as Rabbi Ben Zoma would say: “Who is strong? One who overpowers his inclinations….”, Pirkei Avos 4:1).