"Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself" as a Meta-halachic Principle?
There’s a famous statement in the Sifra on Kedoshim:
[יב] "לא תקם ולא תטר את בני עמך" – נוקם אתה ונוטר לעכו"ם. "ואהבת לרעך כמוך" – רבי עקיבא אומר זה כלל גדול בתורה. בן עזאי אומר "זה ספר תולדות אדם" – זה כלל גדול מזה.
12) "You shall not take revenge and you shall not bear a grudge against the children of your people": You may take revenge of and bear a grudge against others (idolators). "And you shall love your neighbor as yourself": R. Akiva says: This is an all-embracing principle in the Torah. Ben Azzai says: (Bereshith 5:1) "This is the numeration of the generations of Adam" — This is an even greater principle.
Also in Yerushalmi Nedarim. It is often misquoted, as if Rabbi Akiva was the innovator of the statement ואהבת לרעך כמוך. But, of course, it is part of a pasuk in Vayikra 19:18!
The idea of it being a klal gadol can be understood in several ways. For instance, that it is the operating principle behind many other mitzvot. Why return a lost item? Why not oppress the orphan and widow? Why lend without interest?
Similarly, the reversed version of the statement, which is the entirety of Torah, as expressed by Hillel (Shabbat 31a).
שׁוּב מַעֲשֶׂה בְּגוֹי אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא לִפְנֵי שַׁמַּאי. אָמַר לוֹ: גַּיְּירֵנִי עַל מְנָת שֶׁתְּלַמְּדֵנִי כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ כְּשֶׁאֲנִי עוֹמֵד עַל רֶגֶל אַחַת! דְּחָפוֹ בְּאַמַּת הַבִּנְיָן שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ. בָּא לִפְנֵי הִלֵּל, גַּיְירֵיהּ. אָמַר לוֹ: דַּעֲלָךְ סְנֵי לְחַבְרָךְ לָא תַּעֲבֵיד — זוֹ הִיא כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, וְאִידַּךְ פֵּירוּשָׁהּ הוּא, זִיל גְּמוֹר.
There was another incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai and said to Shammai: Convert me on condition that you teach me the entire Torah while I am standing on one foot. Shammai pushed him away with the builder’s cubit in his hand. This was a common measuring stick and Shammai was a builder by trade. The same gentile came before Hillel. He converted him and said to him: That which is hateful to you do not do to another; that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation. Go study.
It could also be understood as a principle that applies as we apply halacha or interpret verses. Similar to deracheha darchei noam, as for instance Abaye applies it in Sukkah 32a:
וְאֵימָא כּוּפְרָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״דְּרָכֶיהָ דַרְכֵי נוֹעַם וְכׇל נְתִיבוֹתֶיהָ שָׁלוֹם״ כְּתִיב.
The Gemara asks: And say the verse is referring to the branch of the date palm [kufra] that has not yet hardened completely and could still be bound, albeit with difficulty. Abaye said that it is written in praise of the Torah: “Its way are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace” (Proverbs 3:17). At that stage of development, some of the leaves are thorns that potentially wound. The Torah would not command to use that type of branch in fulfilling the mitzva.
The reason I’m thinking of this is the recent derasha, repeatedly enunciated by Rav Nachman citing Rabba bar Avuah citing Rav in different context of methods of execution — or perhaps only once or twice, but invoked / applied by the Talmudic Narrator across the board for methods of execution, for instance in Sanhedrin 52:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ״, בְּרוֹר לוֹ מִיתָה יָפָה.
Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), which teaches that even with regard to a condemned prisoner one should select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. The method of burning described in the mishna is certainly faster and less painful than the burning of the entire body.
I think I get the pun here, what I call the hidden derasha. Namely, al tikrei kamocha ela kemosecha, read not “as yourself” but “as you execute”. This would be by inserting a letter tav into the word, so love your fellow as you kill him.
I can similarly say it is a specialized derasha in the other famous occurrence, about a man not betrothing a woman until he’s seen her. Kiddushin 41a:
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בְּהָא אִיסּוּרָא נָמֵי אִית בֵּהּ, כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אָסוּר לָאָדָם שֶׁיְּקַדֵּשׁ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה עַד שֶׁיִּרְאֶנָּה, שֶׁמָּא יִרְאֶה בָּהּ דָּבָר מְגוּנֶּה וְתִתְגַּנֶּה עָלָיו, וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ״.
There are those who say: With regard to this particular mitzva of betrothal, it also involves a prohibition, in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is forbidden for a man to betroth a woman until he sees her, lest he see something repulsive in her after the betrothal, and she will become repugnant to him, which will cause him to hate her. And to prevent this violation of what the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), the Sages ruled that a man must betroth a woman in person, to ensure that he approves of her.
I think that there’s a “hidden derasha” of לְרֵעֲךָ as beloved, as in Shir Hashirim,
אֲנִ֥י יְשֵׁנָ֖ה וְלִבִּ֣י עֵ֑ר ק֣וֹל ׀ דּוֹדִ֣י דוֹפֵ֗ק פִּתְחִי־לִ֞י אֲחֹתִ֤י רַעְיָתִי֙ יוֹנָתִ֣י תַמָּתִ֔י שֶׁרֹּאשִׁי֙ נִמְלָא־טָ֔ל קְוֻצּוֹתַ֖י רְסִ֥יסֵי לָֽיְלָה׃
I was asleep,
But my heart was wakeful.
Hark, my beloved knocks!
“Let me in, my own,
My darling, my faultless dove!
For my head is drenched with dew,
My locks with the damp of night.”
If it is an overarching meta-halachic principle, I would have expected it to be invokes more often, and more consistently. Here is what Sefaria has, though. In general, you need to divide each of these numbers by 3, since it is reporting Talmud without nikkud, with nikkud, and with nikkud and punctuation (where they’ve gotten to that point), so 3 is really 1, and 21 might really be 7. Similarly in Yerushalmi, they report the Gugenheimer version, Mechon Mamre, and Venice edition, three separate digital texts, so divide by 3. Searching for the full phrase ואהבת לרעך כמוך.
We should explore these to see what they are. But we have seen Kiddushin, and we have seen most of the Sanhedrin occurrences. Pesachim, Ketubot, Sota, and Bava Kamma’s instance is also choosing the good execution method. And Niddah’s example has to do with intercourse during the day, but also with sight, and is the same application as Kiddushin’s example.
Randomly, here is the Yerushalmi Sota occurrence — it is the same one:
מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָן. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. הָאִישׁ מְכַסִּין אוֹתוֹ מִלְּפָנָיו. וְהָאִשָּׁה מִלְּפָנֶיהָ וּמִלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵין. תַּמָּן מִכָּל־מָקוֹם לְמִיתָה הִיא מְתוּקֶּנֶת. בְּרַם הָכָא שֶׁמָּא תִימָּצֵא טְהוֹרָה וְיִתְגָּרוּ בָהּ פִּירְחֵי כְהוּנָּה. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּתְהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן. תַּמָּן אִינּוּן אָֽמְרִין. הָאִישׁ נִסְקַל עָרוּם וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִסְקֶלֶת עֲרוּמָה. וְהָכָא אִינּוּן אָֽמְרִין הָכֵין. תַּמָּן וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֶעֲךְ כָמוֹךָ. יָבוֹר לוֹ מִיתָה קַלָה שֶׁבְּקַלּוֹת. בְּרַם הָכָא וְנִיוַּסְּרוּ כָּל־הַנָּשִׁים וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂינָה כְּזִימַּתְכֶינָה.
The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There, he says: “One covers a man in front and a woman front and back.” And here, he says so? There, she goes to her death anyhow, but here, maybe she will be found to be pure and the young priests would attack her. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There, they say: “A man is stoned naked but no woman is stoned naked.” And here, they say so? There, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself,” choose for him the easiest death. But here, “all women should be taught and not do as your whoring.”
This instance, from Sanhedrin 84b, approaches a general principle:
דְּאִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ בֵּן מַהוּ שֶׁיַּקִּיז דָּם לְאָבִיו רַב מַתְנָא אָמַר וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ רַב דִּימִי בַּר חִינָּנָא אָמַר מַכֵּה אָדָם וּמַכֵּה בְהֵמָה מָה מַכֵּה בְהֵמָה לִרְפוּאָה פָּטוּר אַף מַכֵּה אָדָם לִרְפוּאָה פָּטוּר
The Gemara explains: As a dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to whether a son may let blood for his father? Is he liable for wounding his father? Rav Mattana says that it is written: “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18); just as one would want others to heal him when the need arises, one must heal others when the need arises. It is prohibited for one to do to others only those actions that he would not want done to him. Therefore, it is permitted for one to heal his father even if the procedure entails wounding him. Rav Dimi bar Ḥinnana says: This is derived from the juxtaposition between one who strikes a person and one who strikes an animal. Just as one who strikes an animal for medical purposes is exempt from paying restitution, so too, one who strikes a person for medical purposes is exempt from liability.
Unless there is a hidden derasha I am missing. I think this might be so, because most people (including rabbis and rishonim) miss most hidden derashot, so why should I expect to be any different.
There’s an idea when it comes to pesukim, that a principle or law can be stated in one place and be a binyan av. But two places, or perhaps three places, it is just those places. Here as well, having just these approximately three or four instances / applications, leads me to think of these as exceptions, maybe because of a rereading of the verse, rather than a general principle.