מפני דרכי שלום
- Mipnei darkei shalom calls us to move from transactional relationships to ones grounded in mutuality. What does this look like in your own life or community?
- When do you think compromising or yielding "for the sake of peace" strengthens justice and community—and when might it come at too high a cost?
- Are there concrete examples where peace is not just the absence of conflict but the presence of justice or mutual flourishing?
- Why do you think the rabbis were concerned about the well-being of non-Jewish neighbors?
- Can you think of moments where your Jewish commitments have drawn you outward, toward greater engagement with broader society?
- Democracies thrive on principled disagreement and debate—but also risk being torn apart by polarization. How might mipnei darkei shalom help us navigate disagreement in ways that are constructive rather than divisive?
- Are there limits to compromise with regard to mipnei darkei shalom? What issues might be too important to yield on, even for the sake of social harmony? How do we hold our values while still living peacefully with those who do not share them?
(ח) וְאֵלּוּ דְבָרִים אָמְרוּ מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. כֹּהֵן קוֹרֵא רִאשׁוֹן, וְאַחֲרָיו לֵוִי וְאַחֲרָיו יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. מְעָרְבִין בְּבַיִת יָשָׁן, מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. בּוֹר שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב לָאַמָּה, מִתְמַלֵּא רִאשׁוֹן, מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. מְצוּדוֹת חַיָּה וְעוֹפוֹת וְדָגִים יֵשׁ בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל, מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, גָּזֵל גָּמוּר. מְצִיאַת חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל, מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, גָּזֵל גָּמוּר. עָנִי הַמְנַקֵּף בְּרֹאשׁ הַזַּיִת, מַה שֶּׁתַּחְתָּיו גָּזֵל, מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, גָּזֵל גָּמוּר. אֵין מְמַחִין בְּיַד עֲנִיֵּי גוֹיִם בְּלֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה, מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם:
(ט) מַשְׁאֶלֶת אִשָּׁה לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ הַחֲשׁוּדָה עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית, נָפָה וּכְבָרָה וְרֵחַיִם וְתַנּוּר, אֲבָל לֹא תָבֹר וְלֹא תִטְחַן עִמָּהּ. אֵשֶׁת חָבֵר מַשְׁאֶלֶת לְאֵשֶׁת עַם הָאָרֶץ, נָפָה וּכְבָרָה, וּבוֹרֶרֶת וְטוֹחֶנֶת וּמַרְקֶדֶת עִמָּהּ, אֲבָל מִשֶּׁתַּטִּיל הַמַּיִם, לֹא תִגַּע עִמָּהּ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַחֲזִיקִין יְדֵי עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה. וְכֻלָּן לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. וּמַחֲזִיקִין יְדֵי גוֹיִם בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, אֲבָל לֹא יְדֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְשׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹמָן, מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם:
(8) Having mentioned a series of enactments instituted by the Sages for the sake of the betterment of the world, the Gemara continues: These are the matters that the Sages instituted on account of the ways of peace, i.e., to foster peace and prevent strife and controversy: At public readings of the Torah, a priest reads first, and after him a Levite, and after him an Israelite. The Sages instituted this order on account of the ways of peace, so that people should not quarrel about who is the most distinguished member of the community. Similarly, the Sages enacted that a joining of courtyards is placed in an old house where it had regularly been placed on account of the ways of peace, as will be explained in the Gemara. The Sages enacted that the pit that is nearest to the irrigation channel that supplies water to several pits or fields is filled first on account of the ways of peace. They established a fixed order for the irrigation of fields, so that people would not quarrel over who is given precedence. Animals, birds, or fish that were caught in traps are not acquired by the one who set the traps until he actually takes possession of them. Nevertheless, if another person comes and takes them, it is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery. Similarly, a lost item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is not acquired by him, since he lacks the legal competence to effect acquisition. Nevertheless, taking such an item from him is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery. If a poor person gleans olives at the top of an olive tree and olives fall to the ground under the tree, then taking those olives that are beneath it is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery.One does not protest against poor gentiles who come to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe’a], although they are meant exclusively for the Jewish poor, on account of the ways of peace.
(9)A woman may lend utensils to her friend who is suspect with regard to eating produce that grew in the Sabbatical Year after the time that such produce must be removed from the house and may no longer be eaten. The utensils that she may lend her include: A winnow, a sieve, a mill, and an oven. Lending her such utensils is not considered aiding in the commission of a transgression. But she may not select the grain from the chaff or grind wheat with her, i.e., she may not actively assist her in the performance of a sin. The wife of a ḥaver, one who is devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially the halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes, may lend the wife of an am ha’aretz, one who is not scrupulous in these areas, a winnow and a sieve, and she may even select, grind, and sift with her. But once the wife of the am ha’aretzpours water into the flour, thereby rendering it susceptible to ritual impurity, the wife of the ḥavermay not touch anything with her, because one may not assist those who commit transgressions. And all of the allowances mentioned in the mishna were stated only on account of the ways of peace.And one may assist gentiles who work the land during the Sabbatical Year, but one may not assist Jews who do this. Similarly, one may extend greetings to gentiles on account of the ways of peace.
- Many of these enactments in this text protect relationships and reduce conflict—even when legal ownership or technical justice might say otherwise. Why do you think the Sages valued peace over strict legal definitions in these cases?
- How might the principle of mipnei darkei shalom apply in current communal or civic disputes? Can you think of times when your community made decisions "for the sake of peace"?
- The Mishnah notes that we don’t protest non-Jews taking agricultural gifts technically reserved for Jews. How might that precedent influence your approach to sharing limited resources or participating in coalitions today?
דְּתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: ״וְהוֹדַעְתָּ לָהֶם״ – זֶה בֵּית חַיֵּיהֶם, ״אֶת הַדֶּרֶךְ״ – זוֹ גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, ״אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ״ – זֶה בִּיקּוּר חוֹלִים, ״בָּהּ״ – זוֹ קְבוּרָה, ״וְאֶת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה״ – זֶה הַדִּין, ״אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשׂוּן״ – זוֹ לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין. אָמַר מָר: ״אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ״ – זֶה בִּיקּוּר חוֹלִים, הַיְינוּ גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים! לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְבֶן גִּילוֹ, דְּאָמַר מָר: בֶּן גִּילוֹ נוֹטֵל אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים בְּחׇלְיוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמֵיזַל לְגַבֵּיהּ. ״בָּהּ״ – זוֹ קְבוּרָה. הַיְינוּ גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים! לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְזָקֵן וְאֵינָהּ לְפִי כְּבוֹדוֹ. אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשׂוּן זוֹ לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא חָרְבָה יְרוּשָׁלַיִם אֶלָּא עַל שֶׁדָּנוּ בָּהּ דִּין תּוֹרָה. אֶלָּא דִּינֵי דְּמָגִיזְתָּא לְדַיְּינוּ?! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: שֶׁהֶעֱמִידוּ דִּינֵיהֶם עַל דִּין תּוֹרָה וְלָא עֲבַדוּ לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין.
As Rav Yosef taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and shall show them the path wherein they shall walk and the action that they must perform” (Exodus 18:20). The baraita parses the various directives in the verse. “And you shall teach them,” that is referring to the structure of their livelihood, i.e., teach the Jewish people trades so that they may earn a living; “the path,” that is referring to acts of kindness; “they shall walk,” that is referring to visiting the ill; “wherein,” that is referring to burial; “and the action,” that is referring to acting in accordance with the letter of the law; “that they must perform,” that is referring to acting beyond the letter of the law.The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: With regard to the phrase “they shall walk,” that is referring to visiting the ill. The Gemara asks: That is a detail of acts of kindness; why does the baraita list it separately? The Gemara answers: The reference to visiting the ill is necessary only for the contemporary of the ill person, as the Master said: When one who is a contemporary of an ill person visits him, he takes one-sixtieth of his illness. Since visiting an ill contemporary involves contracting a bit of his illness, a special derivation is necessary to teach that even so, he is required to go and visit him.It was taught in the baraita: With regard to the phrase “wherein,” that is referring to burial. The Gemara asks: That is a detail of acts of kindness; why does the baraita list it separately? The Gemara answers: The reference to burial is necessary only to teach the halakha of an elderly person, and it is in a circumstance where it is not in keeping with his dignity to bury the dead. Therefore, a special derivation is necessary to teach that even so, he is required to participate in the burial. It was taught in the baraita: “That they must perform”; that is referring to acting beyond the letter of the law, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Jerusalem was destroyed only for the fact that they adjudicated cases on the basis of Torah law in the city. The Gemara asks: Rather, what else should they have done? Should they rather have adjudicated cases on the basis of arbitrary decisions [demagizeta]? Rather, say: That they established their rulings on the basis of Torah law and did not go beyond the letter of the law.
- This text emphasizes going "beyond the letter of the law" (lifnim mishurat hadin) as a core value. How is this idea connected to mipnei darkei shalom?
- Rabbi Yoḥanan claims that Jerusalem was destroyed because people followed the law but didn’t exceed it. In our polarized society, what might it look like to “go beyond” the letter of the law in order to preserve the greater civic or communal good?
- Are there public debates today where people are technically “right,” but still failing to create peace or justice? How might mipnei darkei shalom offer a different lens?
אֵין מְמַחִין בְּיַד עֲנִיֵּי גוֹיִם בְּלֶקֶט בְּשִׁכְחָה וּבְפֵאָה, מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם: תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְפַרְנְסִים עֲנִיֵּי גוֹיִם עִם עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמְבַקְּרִין חוֹלֵי גוֹיִם עִם חוֹלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְקוֹבְרִין מֵתֵי גוֹיִם עִם מֵתֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם.
The mishna teaches: One does not protest against poor gentiles who come to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe’a], although they are meant exclusively for the Jewish poor, on account of the ways of peace. Similarly, the Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 5:4): One sustains poor gentiles along with poor Jews, and one visits sick gentiles along with sick Jews, and one buries dead gentiles along with dead Jews. All this is done on account of the ways of peace, to foster peaceful relations between Jews and gentiles.
- This text advocates for feeding, visiting, and burying non-Jews alongside Jews for the sake of peace. How might we interpret the values that these practices represent in our implementation of mipnei darkei shalom today?
- In what ways does your Jewish community (or could it) actively build peaceful relationships with non-Jewish neighbors, especially in times of tension or disagreement?
- What does it mean to care for others—even those outside your in-group—without erasing differences? How can mipnei darkei shalom help with that balance?
(יב) שְׁנֵי עַכּוּ"ם שֶׁבָּאוּ לְפָנֶיךָ לָדוּן בְּדִינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְרָצוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן לָדוּן דִּין תּוֹרָה דָּנִין. הָאֶחָד רוֹצֶה וְהָאֶחָד אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה אֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לָדוּן אֶלָּא בְּדִינֵיהֶן. הָיָה יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַכּוּ"ם אִם יֵשׁ זְכוּת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּדִינֵיהֶן דָּנִין לוֹ בְּדִינֵיהֶם. וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ כָּךְ דִּינֵיכֶם. וְאִם יֵשׁ זְכוּת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּדִינֵינוּ דָּנִין לוֹ דִּין תּוֹרָה וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ כָּךְ דִּינֵינוּ. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין כֵּן לְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם דָּנִין לוֹ בְּדִינֵיהֶם. וְכֵן יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁנּוֹהֲגִין עִם גֵּרֵי תּוֹשָׁב בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶרֶץ וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. שֶׁהֲרֵי אָנוּ מְצֻוִּין לְהַחֲיוֹתָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד, כא) "לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ". וְזֶה שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין כּוֹפְלִין לָהֶן שָׁלוֹם בְּעַכּוּ"ם לֹא בְּגֵר תּוֹשָׁב. אֲפִלּוּ הָעַכּוּ"ם צִוּוּ חֲכָמִים לְבַקֵּר חוֹלֵיהֶם וְלִקְבֹּר מֵתֵיהֶם עִם מֵתֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּלְפַרְנֵס עֲנִיֵּיהֶם בִּכְלַל עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. הֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר (תהילים קמה, ט) "טוֹב יהוה לַכּל וְרַחֲמָיו עַל כָּל מַעֲשָׂיו". וְנֶאֱמַר (משלי ג, יז) "דְּרָכֶיהָ דַרְכֵי נֹעַם וְכָל נְתִיבוֹתֶיהָ שָׁלוֹם":
(12) Should two idolaters come before you to have their dispute judged according to Jewish law. If they both desire to be judged according to Torah law, they should be judged accordingly. If one desires to be judged according to Torah law and the other does not, they are only forced to be judged according to their own laws. If there is a dispute between a Jew and an idolater: If the Jew will fare better according to their laws, they are judged according to their laws. When the judgement is rendered, the judges explain: 'Your law obligates this judgement.' If the Jew will fare better according to our laws, they are judged according to Torah law. When the judgement is rendered, the judges explain: 'Our law obligates this judgement.' It appears to me that this approach is not followed in regard to a resident alien. Rather, he is always judged according to their laws. Similarly, it appears to me that in regard to respect and honor and also, in regard to charity, a resident alien is to be treated as a Jew for behold, we are commanded to sustain them as Deuteronomy 14:21 states: 'You may not eat any animal that has not been properly slaughtered... give it to the resident alien in your gates that he may eat it.' Though our Sages counseled against repeating a greeting to them, that statement applies to idolaters and not resident aliens. However, our Sages commanded us to visit the gentiles when ill, to bury their dead in addition to the Jewish dead, and support their poor in addition to the Jewish poor for the sake of peace. Behold, Psalms 145:9 states: 'God is good to all and His mercies extend over all His works' and Proverbs 3:17 states: 'The Torah's ways are pleasant ways and all its paths are peace.'
- Maimonides permits Jewish courts to choose the legal system most favorable to the Jew in disputes with idolaters. What ethical concerns arise from this practice? How does it challenge or support your understanding of mipnei darkei shalom?
- Can a system that puts the needs of Jewish people first still be committed to peace? Why or why not?
- Maimonides clearly distinguishes between “idolaters” and ger toshav (a non-Jew who lives ethically in Jewish society). How does this affect your understanding of Jewish civic obligations toward non-Jewish neighbors today?
- What categories do we use today (implicitly or explicitly) to decide who deserves care and inclusion in Jewish communal life?
- This passage emphasizes honoring, visiting, burying, and supporting even non-Jews—mipnei darkei shalom. How might these teachings shape Jewish participation in interfaith work, social services, or local civic engagement?
- Maimonides ends with the verse, “Its ways are ways of pleasantness, and all its paths are peace.” What does it mean that peace is not just a political or practical aim, but a Torah value?
- How might Jewish civic leadership change if mpnei darkei shalom—seeking the path of peace—was explicitly centered as both a practice and a means to an end?
(ז) מְפַרְנְסִין וּמְכַסִּין עֲנִיֵּי עַכּוּ"ם עִם עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. וְעָנִי הַמְחַזֵּר עַל הַפְּתָחִים אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ לְמַתָּנָה מְרֻבָּה אֲבָל נוֹתְנִין לוֹ מַתָּנָה מֻעֶטֶת. וְאָסוּר לְהַחֲזִיר אֶת הֶעָנִי שֶׁשָּׁאַל רֵיקָם וַאֲפִלּוּ אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לוֹ גְּרוֹגֶרֶת אַחַת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהילים עד כא) "אַל יָשֹׁב דַּךְ נִכְלָם":
(7) We provide sustenance and clothing for the poor of the gentiles together with the poor of the Jewish people as an expression of the ways of peace. When a poor person begs from door to door, we do not give him a large gift. Instead, we give him a small gift. It is forbidden to turn away a poor person who asks [for charity] empty-handed. Even giving him one fig [is sufficient], as [Psalms 74:21] states: "Let not the dejected turn away in shame."
- Why does Maimonides insist on providing for the poor of non-Jews together with the Jewish poor? What might this teach about communal identity and responsibility in a pluralistic society?
- What would it mean today to truly integrate the needs of others into Jewish tzedakah and mutual aid systems?
- The text insists we never turn a beggar away empty-handed, even if all we can offer is a fig. What civic or spiritual value is created by this kind of attention to human dignity?
- In today’s polarized world, how can small gestures rooted in kindness become acts of darkei shalom?
- Where might this value challenge the boundaries we often draw around “community”? Who is included in Jewish communal giving, hospitality, and compassion—and who is not?
- How does this text speak to contemporary Jewish conversations about refugees, immigrants, unhoused individuals, and marginalized populations?