Overstating the principle

We all read and interpret the mishnayot of Avot in our own ways. That is only natural. However, we are duty-bound to respect the message that they are intended to convey, and shouldn't allow our personal feelings and sentiments to carry us away. 

I recently came across the proposition, in a letter to a Jewish online newspaper, that "The most precious gift of the Torah is peace", a proposition for which the cited authority was Avot 1:12.  In company with most other Avot-readers (and others), I am a great admirer of peace; I pray for it several times a day. However, I would hesitate to stretch the teaching in Avot 1:12 so far.  This mishnah urges readers to be like Aaron the High Priest: love peace, to pursue it, love one's fellows and bring them close to the Torah -- but that it is as far as it goes. 

The author of the letter may have been thinking of another mishnah -- "The Holy One, Blessed be He, found no better vessel in which to hold blessing for Israel than peace" (Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta, Uktzin 3:12) -- but even that doesn't quite do the job!

The ruling classes

What form of government best suits the Jewish people? Some folk maintain that we must move with the times and ensure that we adopt to fully democratic model; others hanker for a theocracy, in which the principles of the Torah will provide a framework for all civil and public life. Then there are those who point to the monarchy as being most appropriate, recalling the glory days of David and Solomon and the promise that the sceptre will never leave the Tribe of Yehudah.

The Torah does not specify that we adopt any one form of government to the exclusion of others. Rather, it demands that the interests of truth, justice and peace be placed at the helm of whatever regime we operate. This is made plain by Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel (Avot 1:18), who identifies truth, justice and peace as the three qualities on which the world depends for its continued existence.

We can conclude that the nature of any system of governance is less important than its functionality: we judge it by its results. If it is fair, respects truth and delivers peace, that is as much as we can hope for. We can also surmise that, if this is the case, even a bad system of governance that is manned by good people will deliver better results than a good system run by bad people. 

As for taking up leadership roles, Avot advises avoiding public service and governmental matters if one can (see eg Avot 1:10, 3:6). However, the tractate recognises that someone has to do this work: as Hillel says, "In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man" (Avot 2:6). Public positions cannot be shunned where they leave a leadership vacuum -- and they must be filled even if this means putting aside one's commitment to Torah learning.

The Ages of Woman

The Seven Ages of Woman,by Jacinta Crowley-Long

Last week I posted an item on Yehudah ben Tema's mishnah (Avot 5:25) on the Ages of Man. It has since occurred to me that, had the Tannaim been composing and recording their mishnayot in the early years of the present millennium, there might well have been a corresponding mishnah that lists the Ages of Woman.  We learn that a girl takes on responsibility for the performance of mitzvot at the age of 12, but there is so much more to a woman's life today than accepting the yoke of such mitzvot as she is obliged to perform.  Readers' suggestions are welcomed -- preferably if they are supported by sources drawn from Tanach or the Oral Torah -- as to which other ages should be included.

Freedom: what it means to us

"Freedom", in the wider world, is not merely a word but a battle-cry and a political slogan: everyone wants to be free, and some would regard freedom as the highest state of human existence. The term is emotive and has generated a list of provocative quotes, though not all are of an entirely positive nature. For example:

"Man, born free, is everywhere in chains" (Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract)

"Freedom is nothing else than a chance to be better" (Albert Camus)

"Freedom, freedom, prison of the free" (Lawrence Durrell)

"Freedom (n.): To ask nothing; To expect nothing; To depend on nothing" (Ayn Rand)

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" (Kris Kristofferson, 'Me and Bobby McGee')

But what does Avot have to say on the subject? In the view of our Sages the highest form of freedom is that which is obtained by dedicating oneself to the study of Torah. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi teaches (Avot 6:2), "You can have no freer person than one who engages in Torah study". 

This statement is on its face difficult to comprehend. How can a person be free if he spends his entire time sitting in front of books that contain the canon of Jewish learning? Apart from anything else, he has no time that is "free" to do other things like going to the beach or cinema.  It would seem then that this teaching is not addressing issues like free time or freedom of mobility: rather, it addresses freedom to serve God and fulfill His requirements in the most free and unfettered manner. In this sense a person can be incarcerated in prison yet still be free, if only he has some means of learning Torah and carrying out such mitzvot as are available to him.  Incidentally, elsewhere in Avot we see a teaching that reinforces this message, that a person can never complete his service of God, yet nor is he "free"  to desist from it (2:21).

Conveniently, Hebrew has two words that are translated into English as "freedom" -- but they carry quite different connotations. The word used in Avot to connote freedom to serve God is cherut, while the word employed to describe the setting free of slaves and prisoners is shichrur. Effectively, shichrur is an emancipation, a "freedom from", while cherut is a "freedom to". The two concepts should never be confused with one another.

Which Rabbi Yishmael?

In the ninth mishnah in Perek IV, Rabbi Yishmael has some harsh things to say about over-enthusiastic judges.  There seems to be a consensus that the Rabbi Yishmael in question is the son of Rabbi Yose ben Chalafta -- the author of the previous mishnah.  However, I'm sure that many years ago I spotted an opinion that this was not so, and that the Rabbi Yishmael in question was the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka.

If any reader has seen this opinion, can they please point me in its direction? Thanks!

The Ages of Man

In Avot 5:25, Yehudah ben Tema lists the condition of man from his infancy to extreme old age. It is not as famous as Shakespeare's Seven Ages of Man ("All the world's a stage, And the all men and women merely players ..."), but it is considerably more detailed. It runs as follows:

Age	Significance
5	Learn Written Torah
10	Learn Oral Torah
13	Bar mitzvah
15	Learn Gemara
18	Get married
20	Go out to work
30	Be in full vigour
40	Gain understanding
50	Give advice
60	Reach old age
70	Reach vintage old age
80	Achieve spiritual strength
90	Lose one’s powers
100	Cease to be of account

Naturally, not all these ages are carved in stone. While 13 is an arbitrary age for males, not subject to choice or negotiation, other figures listed above are bound to vary as between individuals: there are precocious youngsters and late developers, people who are swiftly focused on their life challenges and those who drift for many years before they find their vocation. Also, not all of the listed activities are within a person's grasp at any given time: for example, one cannot get married in a vacuum but must find another person -- ideally the right person -- who is prepared to commit.  

Many parents of children in Jewish schools will be aware that the 5-10-15 sequence for learning Tanach, Mishnayot and Gemara is not reflected in the syllabus. Schools often pride themselves on the fact that they introduce teaching of Torah sheb'al peh much earlier than that. Despite Yehudah ben Tema's teaching on the subject, they do so without apology and generally with the consent and encouragement of parents. 

Whether the numbers themselves are still current or not, the sequence of these ages remains important.  For example, while everyone seems eager both to give advice and to have others accept it, it makes sense to acquire understanding first since advice which is based on understanding is inherently more likely to be of value than that which is based on enthusiastic or inspired guesswork.  Getting married before going out to work would seem to be the wrong way round (as Rambam observes in Mishneh Torah: it is more prudent to create an income stream before rather than after clocking up financial burdens) -- but the scenario envisioned here is that bride and groom will spend a couple of years living at the expense of the bride's father while the young couple get to know one another. This ideal is not often put into practice in today's economic and social conditions.

We can ask: if our sages today were to create their own Ages of Man table and did not have Yehudah ben Tema's table as a precedent, what might their list look like?

Narrow focus

A good many of the mishnayot in Avot -- particularly later in the tractate -- offer propositions that are supported by proof verses from the Tanach.  This is an interesting practice, in that the proposition contained in the mishnah must be taken to say something that the cited proof verse does not say, otherwise the Tanna in Avot would only be teaching as Oral Torah something that was already known from the Written Torah, which would be contrary to standard Tannaitic practice. We can conclude from this that, since a mishnah will not repeat a teaching that is clearly stated in Tanach, the proof verse can never 100% support the proposition contained in the mishnah.

I was looking at some of these supporting verses the other day in my Mikraot Gedolot Tanach, which contains the valuable commentaries of Radak, Ralbag, the Metzudot and Malbim, among others. It occurred to me that, in elucidating the verses I was checking out, none of these scholars made any references to the mishnayot of Avot or to those who had commented on them. This set me wondering: is this merely the hand of coincidence at work -- or is there any principle whereby those who explain the meaning of verses in Tanach do not look to Avot as a means of explaining or discussing them?

The meaning of 'kapdan'

In Avot 2::6 Hillel teaches that a kapdan cannot teach.  What exactly is a kapdan?  ArtScroll publications render it as "A quick, impatient person". Rabbi Jonathan Sacks' translation in the Authorised Daily Prayer Book is broadly in agreement, except that he limits the meaning to just "impatient" [question: is there actually such a thing as a slow, impatient person?].  Herbert Danby (The Mishnah) and Hyman E. Goldin (Ethics of the Fathers) agree.

There are however other renderings: Irving M. Bunim (Ethics from Sinai) favours "quick-tempered", while David N. Barocas (in his translation of Me'am Lo'ez) goes for "overparticular".  R. Travers Herford (Ethics of the Talmud) gives "passionate". Jastrow's Dictionary offers "hot-tempered" (as does the Soncino Talmud translation of kapdan in Sanhedrin p 113b), "impetuous", meanings which chime in well with his account of the related verb kefad -- for which he also offers the meanings of "to care for", "to mind".

Our Sages also display a variety of views. For example the commentary ascribed to Rashi describes a kapdan as a teacher who is katzer lev (irritable?) and who gets angry with talmidim who ask him questions many times on the same topic. The Bartenura pictures him as someone who plainly doesn't like receiving questions from his talmidim and who doesn't give clear answers. 

The same three-letter root of קפד is also present in the word kipod -- a hedgehog.  Somehow the image of this small mammal works better than any verbal formulation in expressing the qualities of a kapdan: he is a prickly individual and one has to be careful how one approaches him. From the point of view of the rabbi-talmid relationship there are serious problems if the talmid is inhibited from approaching his teacher -- which is why someone with the characteristics of a kapdan may not be best placed to teach.

Is it really Rashi?

Among the many commentaries on Pirkei Avot is one that is attributed to Rashi.  Some people are surprised to note that, while Rashi's commentaries on Tanach and the Gemara are pretty well indispensable and are found in more or less every modern printed edition of those basic works, it is not the commentary of Rashi but that of Rabbi Ovadya Bartenura which occupies the "inner track" of the printed page. The Rashi commentary is found in numerous editions, but it is clearly held in lower esteem than that of the Bartenura since it is far less often cited or turned to for guidance.

I recall that at least one major rabbinical scholar -- Rabbi Yaakov Emden -- has opined that the Rashi commentary on Avot is not by Rashi at all but has been attributed to him.  I also recall that some other scholars have taken the opposite view and have defended Rashi's authorship, some with considerable passion.  Unfortunately, when I first came across this issue I did not make note of the various contributors to this debate or to the mishnayot that generated their opinions that the Rashi was genuine or not.  

If any readers can enlighten me by posting as comments below any references to those who hold that the Rashi commentary is authentic or otherwise, I should be hugely grateful. Thanks!

Why do people die?

In a purely physical sense it is usually easy to ascribe a cause of death: indeed, every death certificate is required to state the cause (or causes) of death. But Jewish tradition has long concerned itself with death in quite different ways. For one thing, it recognises a form of spiritual death, excision of a person's soul (sometimes referred to as the nefesh or neshamah). For another, on the premises that (i) no human being is devoid of sin and (ii) sin is a factor in the date and manner of a person's death, we recognise God's role in determining how long each of us should live and how we die.

There is a principle in :Pirkei Avot that one should judge other people on the basis of their merits (being don lekaf zechut: Avot 1:6). While this is of primary practical importance in evaluating the conduct of living people, there is every reason to apply it to judging the dead as well.  When a person dies, we cannot in general assess whether this is a punishment for misconduct or an acceleration of the process whereby a righteous person is united with his posthumous reward for good conduct. There are of course exceptions, such as when the Torah itself spells out the fact that a person has died for a particular reason (eg Korach, Kozbi and Zimri, the meraglim), but for the most part we must acknowledge that God, in His inscrutable wisdom and with all the facts before Him, is the sole possessor of an explanation as to why any person should die in a specific way, in any given time and place. Our task therefore is to try not to think to ourselves "he got his just desserts" or "he got what was coming to him", but rather to remember that every human is created in God's image and with the potential to do as much good as harm: we can only ever see a fraction of a person's actions in their lifetime and, if we cannot judge them fairly, we should at least try to give them the benefit of the doubt if we can.

Coronavirus: when to stick together?

The current Covid-19 (coronavirus) pandemic raises all sorts of legal and ethical issues on top of the political, economic and health-related topics that dominate media discussion. These extra issues are of particular concern to practising Jews and one has been the subject of considerable public discussion and private anxiety: when do I do as the government says, and when do I do what my community does? In other words, when the Government imposes restrictions on communal religious worship for the sake of public health, should a person comply with those restrictions -- or should he continue to pray with an organised minyan if his co-religionists continue to do so, even though it is against the law?

Pirkei Avot offers some contrasting approaches to this dilemma. In Perek II Hillel articulates the general principle of al tifrosh min hatzibur: "do not separate yourself from the congregation" (Avot 2:5_. This itself begs the question as to who or what is a congregation.  Is the tzibur merely the collective body of people with whom one interacts on a regular basis in one's Jewish community -- or can it be said to embrace also a wider collective, and indeed even an entire nation where the vast majority of people have accepted health restrictions on themselves, however irksome or irrational they may be?  

Later in the same Perek, Hillel reminds us that, bemakom she'eno ish, hishtadel lihiyot ish: "in a place where there is no man, strive to be a man" (Avot 2:6). This can be taken as an encouragement to an individual to stand up against his community if he believes that it is about to head down the wrong path. This advice may be applicable only where the tzibur has yet to take its first steps, but not thereafter. In this light we can understand why Kalev and Yehoshua, having taken their stand against the meraglim in parashat Shelach Lecha, did not desert Klal Yisrael but remained among them.

Welcome to Avot Today

This blog is dedicated to discussion of Pirkei Avot, usually known in English as the Ethics of the Fathers.

Avot is a tractate of the Mishnah -- the compilation of Oral Jewish Law that complements the Written Law of the Torah and forms the foundation on which the Talmud is built. It deals principally with the themes of the importance of learning Torah, good practice in hearing and deciding legal disputes and the cultivation of good habits of thought and behaviour.

My contention is that Avot is not merely interesting in itself but that it has a great deal to teach us even today, getting on for two thousand years after its compilation.  Subsequent posts will examine the ways Avot is interpreted and the means by which it reflects light on current problems faced by people in their relationships with God, with each other and with themselves.

Readers' comments on this and subsequent posts are welcomed, since no-one has a monopoly of wisdom or understanding where Avot is involved.