Q&A: An (Apparently) Egocentric Mishnah!
An (Apparently) Egocentric Mishnah!
Question
In the Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah 2:7, it says that even after they had already accepted one group of witnesses regarding the new month, they would still continue questioning the other groups that had come, “not because they needed them, but so that they should not leave disappointed, so that they would become accustomed to coming.”
And this bothered me: isn’t “so that they should not leave disappointed” enough of a reason? Are we busy giving someone else a good feeling only because it pays off for us?
I’d be glad to know how the Rabbi interprets this.
Answer
The fact that there are two reasons does not mean that one of them would not have been sufficient on its own. Do you want them to hide a good reason in order to emphasize the second reason?
Beyond that, I wrote here in the past about the Sages’ practice of tying things to a halakhic need rather than to morality. For example, see Sanhedrin 21a in the explanation of the prohibition against taking collateral from a widow. And similarly regarding the priest’s reading aloud of the first-fruits passage for the bringer (so that people would not refrain from bringing them, and not in order to prevent embarrassment).
Discussion on Answer
It should be read: “and so that they would become accustomed to coming.” Here too there is no problem if they leave disappointed — after all, they just won’t come. Exactly like with the reading of the first-fruits passage. But that isn’t right, because there will be some who won’t come, and there will be some who leave disappointed or are embarrassed. They were concerned about both things.
And regarding the widow: why were they not concerned about her actual need for the utensils, but only about her good name? Again, some will return them and some won’t.
If there were two reasons here, it would have said “and so that”; when it says “so that,” the meaning is that “so that they should not leave disappointed” is not the end of the rationale (since that is a reason in itself), but that this itself also requires a reason — why they were taking that disappointment into account.
Where did the Rabbi expand on this “practice of the Sages”? (As an additional reason, is it also their practice to give a moral reason?) I’d be glad to look into it, because I didn’t understand the examples. After all, the reason for “you shall not take a widow’s garment as collateral” is plainly moral — so that a bad reputation should not spread about her among her neighbors! (And if it is halakhic, what moral reason could have been given that nevertheless was not given?)
And regarding the reading aloud of the first-fruits section: they would not have been embarrassed; they simply would not have brought them. So how is it relevant to explain it as being in order to prevent embarrassment?
Thank you very much.