Daniel Epstein about André Hajdu 07-17

I do not remember when or how, but in any case we had set a study together in pairs. We were studying the book I hold in my hand, the "Book of Justness of the Just," written by Rabbi Zadok Ha Cohen.

Before I met Andre, I had already studied this book. For Andre, it was something completely new.

But something strange happened: One Saturday morning we sat down because we were studying on Saturday morning before Morning Prayer and we were a little confused about the role of everyone in this study. I was supposed to explain some of the topics on this book. We were drinking coffee. I had forgotten the contents of the page that I had to explain to him. This is page one hundred and eighty-five. Thanks to G.od, we have studied this passage at length.

This passage begins by explaining that there are three levels concerning a Torah scholar: "Rabbi" (rabbi), "Haver" (friend), "Talmid" (pupil). This passage is linked to what is written in the Maximus of the Fathers: "Make yourself a rabbi, buy yourself a friend." But this passage of the Maximus of the Fathers should have mentioned the rabbi, the friend and the pupil. Where is the rabbi? "Make yourself a rabbi." Where is the friend? "Buy yourself a friend." Then it is written: "Judge every person with indulgence."

We see, therefore, that these are not three situations. There are three levels in the life of man. Every man begins as a pupil. Then he chooses a rabbi. A student looks for a rabbi, a teacher. The teacher, as it can be understood, is a man, like the others, like the pupil. It is also the book that is studied; the student and the teacher sit and study it face to face. The book is thus also the teacher.

So if we add the book that we have both studied, then we can consider that there are three people: Andre, I, and the book. The book was our teacher to both of us.

At first, you are a student, you ask someone for help. Afterwards, your teacher becomes your friend. This is the situation of the study in pairs. We are friends, then teachers. The teacher, the third level, is the level at which one teaches.

André fulfilled all three roles. He wanted to learn, be a friend, and be a teacher. He was not only my teacher.

A long time ago, before we began studying the Book of Justness of the Just, Rabbi Zadok Ha Cohen, we were studying another book, "Beth Yaakov". One day André said to me, "Do you know that a friend of mine is coming from the United States soon? He would like to join us in our study. ". I knew there was a specificity to be studied in pairs. But I nodded. I told him that his friend could join us, but on one condition: questions in the middle of the study are forbidden, so he just may listen to us. André's friend came to join us. He was very nice. He sat with us silently. He listened to us. Then at the end of the study, he said, "You told me not to ask questions, but now that you have finished the study, may I ask you a question? » I replied, "Yes, of course, ask your question." He replied: "I listened to you, you translated it for me, it's very nice to you, but what you said was not at all related to what is written in the book ". Then I said to André, "I told you, he would not understand what we are doing, because at the end of our study, every time, a new book comes out."

This is how we understand the three roles.

How this story, which I have just related, is related to the passage of the Maximus of the Fathers: "Judge every person with indulgence"?

The first point I wanted to mention, in connection with André, is that he was the pupil of everyone, as well as the friend of everybody. He was also the teacher of many people. For many who have learned with him, he has become a teacher.

How can we do that? In my opinion, this sentence: "Judge anyone with indulgence", is quite adequate. Andrew chose a definite sort of friends, a definite sort of pupils, and a definite sort of teachers. What does it mean to "judge anyone with indulgence"? Which value has the other one to be tried with indulgence? He teaches me. So he's my teacher.

The Talmud relates, in connection with a teacher, who was considered by our Sages to be the ultimate teacher. This is Rabbi Meir. The Talmud speaks of him in several places. The Talmud hesitates, and wonders what the real name of Rabbi Meir was. Was it really Rabbi Meir, or did he have another name? The Talmud replies that it was called "Meir" because it corresponds to the verb "to enlighten", and that it "enlightened the eyes of the Sages by his wisdom". This then raises the question: why was he the decision maker and the first one in his generation? The answer is that no one has been able to hold on to his positions.

In my opinion, if there is one thing that can be said about André, it is because I could not hold on to his positions. What were André's positions? He said, "I know, believe me." That is his position.

Why, with respect to Rabbi Meir, no one could hold on to his positions? For what was impure, he called it pure, and what was pure, he called it impure. Tossefot's commentators, Rashi's grandchildren, commented on this in the following way: "This logic is not intelligent; we must call the pure from pure and the impure from impure!"

Saying that pure is pure and impure is impure can be boring. But, we discover some aspects, as André did. At first I explained the texts to him in such a way, and immediately aroused doubts in him. For it was certainly possible to say that in another way. He said to me: "You explain it like that, it's good, but it is possible to explain it otherwise".

The Talmud says that Rabbi Meir "enlightened the eyes of the Sages by his wisdom." So Rabbi Yehuda ha Nassi explains that his value in extending his understanding was due to the fact that he knew all the reasons for all the explanations. He adds that he always saw Rabbi Meir back, and that if he had had the merit of seeing him face to face, he would have been even wiser.

What does it mean to see Rabbi Meir back? Why does he say that? What is the difference between seeing back and front? Rashi answers that. If I had not read this answer while studying the Talmud, I would never have believed that Rashi was able to say such a thing. From where Andre is located, I am sure he is smiling while hearing me evoking this explanation of Rashi.

Rashi's explanation is: "I saw Rabbi Meir back, which means that when I studied in front of him, I was sitting in the row behind him." This does not correspond to the logic of Aristotle well known in France. It’s impossible to say one thing, its opposite, and then conclude that it is one and the same thing. It is impossible to study in front of a teacher, and be at the same time behind him. We can play on words. It is written, "I studied in front of him". It’s not written "I sat opposite him." It can be qualified as a metaphor.

This reminds me of the situation of a study in pairs. Everyone studies in front of the other. Then everyone can say that he has studied in front of the other. But when you say, "I was sitting behind him," in what was he before me in a specific purview? This means that he has always been a row before me, and that I have never seen him face to face. This means that studying in front of him means that he was seated in front of him; he was able to receive something from the teaching, to consider that he understood the teaching. But this teaching was not really him. He always stood a row ahead. He made sure he was understood. But his head was not like that of others.

So I was able to learn from him.

One day, at the beginning of our study in pairs, Andre reminded me of someone he had studied in the past and who seemed to be very different from me. He then said to me: "Anyone related to myself, each of my friends, is a part of me. For example, the friends I had in France are still part of me. The friends I had in Tunis are also. ".

That sounded strange to me. What does it mean: "Anyone related to myself, each of my friends, is a part of me"? It is as if he had an inner city, mixed with several people. I did not understand his intentions by saying that. I did not understand the meaning of this sentence. In my heart I asked him, "Really, part of you?" ".

Over the years, I have been able to deepen this. I understand that, although I do not understand his intentions, it is related to his way of living relationships. There was not a single Andrew at all. There were several "André". All these "André" have entered into one man, who has become a new man. Like Rabbi Meir.

This doesn’t mean that he was against what he wanted. This means that he was able to do what most people do not know how to do.

Most people are in one place each. This is already good. Everyone wants his place, his opinions, his thoughts ... Everyone wants to be installed. It's good. It is good that each one can find his place in the world.

Andre was not like that. He had not only crossed phases. Everyone crosses phases in his life. He crossed his French phase, his Israeli phase... Each of these phases continued to exist in him, and each one was present.

How it’s possible? It was possible to be entirely at the same time André the Hungarian, Andrew the Ashkenazi, André the French, André the Tunisian ... All existed and were together. They all spoke together in him. It took time, when he was talked to, to know what Andrew was talked to. They could be André the Yeshiva student, André the musician, André the father, André the grandfather… All were together. He was able to do that. He had special abilities in his brain, not in his heart or in his feelings.

This means that everyone can be "ultimate" in what he is. This is the infinite. Everyone can bring the infinite into himself. At the same time in music, in study, in friendship… The infinite can be brought everywhere.

Generally, I conclude a funeral oration with certain types of words, but I would like to finish in a slightly different way than usual.

André wanted to "pack" life. What does that mean?

We are life. Through this gathering, I can say: "You had not only taught me, but you’re still going on teaching me. You did not only open a book that I thought I already knew, but you’re still opening it. ".

With André, one can continue unceasingly to teach each other and learn from the other one. There are several "André", much more than believed. Everyone receives something, part of his value.

I wish his children and loved ones to keep on receiving from André.