The Sages themselves constantly used the title Moshe Rabbenu – Moses our teacher – yet Hillel the Elder did not choose him as the model to be emulated, but rather Aaron. Why?
By REUVEN HAMMERMoses or Aaron – justice or mercy?(photo credit: PEPE FAINBERG)
One of my favorite rabbinic sayings – perhaps the favorite – is Hillel’s statement: Be of the disciples of Aaron: Loving peace and pursuing peace, loving humankind and drawing them close to the Torah. (Avot 1:12). Hillel is addressing his students, future Sages, future leaders of Israel, and he is holding up for them the image of what kind of person, what kind of leader they should be. And who is it? Strangely enough, Aaron of all people. Not Moses – the obvious model – nor even any of the Patriarchs, Judges or prophets. Aaron the Priest, who facilitated Israel’s terrible act of apostasy – the building of the golden calf. Aaron whom Moses condemned, “What did this people do to you that you have brought such a great sin upon them? (Exodus 32:21) and whom the Torah explicitly condemned, “Aaron had let them get out of control” (Exodus 32:25). While of Moses the Torah says, “Never again did there arise in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord singles out, face to face…(Deut. 34:10). He was indeed “the servant of the Lord” (Deut.34:5). The Sages themselves constantly used the title Moshe Rabbenu – Moses our teacher – yet Hillel did not choose him as the model to be emulated, but rather Aaron. Why?Hillel’s description of Aaron seems far removed from the Aaron of the Biblical narrative. He calls him a man of peace, one who loves people and spends all his energy in bringing them to an understanding of the Torah and to following its ways. Anyone acquainted with rabbinic literature will surely know, however, that the Sages – although devoted to the text and searching every word of it – frequently departed drastically from what scholars would say is the simple, original, meaning of the Torah text. Nor do the Sages always agree with one another about the proper interpretation of Torah verses. Often they give diametrically opposed interpretations. For me, that is one of the most wonderful things about rabbinic texts – freedom of interpretation so that there is no one correct understanding that everyone must agree upon. And – although some say otherwise – there is no one rabbinical authority who has the right to say that he alone knows what the text really means. But to return to our problem – why Aaron?My assumption is that Hillel had a vision of what proper religious leadership should be, a vision he embodied in his own life. It was characterized by love, patience and peaceful actions. See Shabbat 31b for stories about Hillel in which he embodies these ideals. Hillel must also have been aware that the priest on whom the Torah lavished praise and whose actions were emulated by many, such as the Maccabees, was Pinhas, a man whose ways were extreme and violent (see Mac.1 2:26). His slaying of an Israelite man and his Midianite woman paramour is praised by God, “I grant him My pact of peace…because he took impassioned action for his God…(see Numbers 25:11-13). Therefore, Hillel wanted his students to pattern themselves not after Pinhas but after a different figure, so he offers a portrait of another priest, one whose very passivity could be interpreted in a positive fashion. Hillel could also build on the description of the perfect priest found in the prophet Malachi, understood as referring to Aaron, “He served Me with peace and with loyalty and held many back from iniquity…” (Malachi 2:6).Taking this one step further, the Sages in Avot D’Rabbi Natan-A 12 told detailed stories of how Aaron acted. He makes peace between husband and wife, between quarrelling neighbors; he greets sinners in an attempt to keep them from sinning; he goes out of his way to teach Torah to all who will listen. Even if he had wanted to use Moses as his model, Hillel could not because Moses is so frequently depicted as angry, as losing his temper, as castigating the people. That is the opposite of the ideal that Hillel had in mind.As a matter of fact, in many places in rabbinic literature the Sages paint the contrast between Aaron and Moses so that Aaron is favored as the one who is loving and forgiving – the very epitome of the quality of mercy – while Moses becomes the symbol of strict justice. Much is made of the fact that when Moses dies, the Torah says that “the sons of Israel” mourned him, which could mean only the men, while when Aaron dies it says explicitly “all the house of Israel” wept for him (Numbers 20:29). Therefore, the Sages taught: This was because Moses rendered his judgments strictly according to truth, but Aaron never said to anyone, man or woman, “You have acted improperly” (Avot D’Rabbi Natan-A 12). It is almost as if the figures of Aaron and Moses have become symbolic of mercy and justice, just as Hillel and Shammai are seen as embodying patience and love vs. quick temper and strictness. We read, for example, “‘Justice’ refers to Moses…‘Peace’ refers to Aaron…” (Midarah Psalms 2:12). In the Talmud there is a discussion of the difference between compromise and judgment. Moses, they say, took the stance that there can be no compromise, rather “Let justice rend the mountain asunder!” while Aaron “made peace between people” (Sanhedrin 6b).Similarly, in Seder Eliyahu Rabba 14, Aaron is said to have been greater than Moses because “he made peace between Israel and their Father in heaven, between one Jew and another, between a common Jew and a Sage, between man and man, between husband and wife.”“Be of the disciples of Aaron” seems like a mild and fairly bland statement, but it really is not. On the contrary, it was quite revolutionary, asking the religious leadership of Hillel’s time to adopt a new image and model of religious leadership, one devoid of extremism, one depending upon persuasion rather than coercion, one which favors mercy over justice, compromise over strictness. Is it too much to say that that message, delivered 2000 years ago, has not lost its meaning and is just as relevant today as it was then? Is it not as needed today in Israel just as it was needed then?I do not know if Hillel was right about the nature of Aaron or if the idea that Aaron represented mercy while Moses was the symbol of strictness is historically correct. Nor is that particularly important. I do know that the figure of Aaron that Hillel and others after him created is the figure that we need to see as the appropriate religious leadership for Judaism today in Israel and elsewhere. Strictness, exaggerated demands, the use of power rather than persuasion is seen all too often and, when combined with governmental power, becomes oppressive and counter-productive. It should be replaced by the ways of Hillel himself as he depicted them in his description of Aaron, the man of love, peace and mercy.Reuven Hammer, is a former president of the Rabbinical Assembly and a member of its Committee on Jewish Law and Standards. Two of his books won the National Jewish Book Award. His most recent book is ‘Akiva: Life, Legend, Legacy,’ available both in English (JPS) and Hebrew (Yedioth Books). His most recent volume, ‘A Year With the Sages’ (JPS), will appear in the Spring
