Avot Today is now on Facebook

This blog now has a Facebook Group that is designed to facilitate participation in discussions on topics relating to Pirkei Avot. You can find this group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/avottoday 

If you would like to start any discussion about Pirkei Avot, or if you want this blog or the Facebook Group to host any ideas that you would like to share, please email me at jjip398@gmail.com

Truth, justice and peace: which is the "odd man out"?

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel teaches (at Avot 1:18) that the world is sustained by three things -- truth, justice and peace. Which is the odd one out? 

My initial thought was that there was only one "odd man out", and that was peace. Take litigation, for example. When a legal dispute goes to court, the plaintiff and defendant both believe that they are in the right, or they wouldn’t go to the trouble of engaging in court proceedings. However, they know that there can only be one outcome. This outcome can be reached in one of two ways: either the court will rule in favour of one and against the other, or they will agree to settle their differences before the court gives its decision. Either way, one starts with two perspectives as to what is true, which give rise to diverse perceptions of what is justice (“mine” and “yours,” as it were). The dispute concludes with just one result, which both sides have to accept.

With peace, however, we have a different concept. There are not “two peaces”, since peace by definition only begins at the point where there are no opposing positions to synthesize. If what is called “peace” is not universally accepted by those affected by it, it is not true peace.

It occurred to me this morning that there is another possible answer: it is justice that is the odd one out. Truth is vulnerable to distortion and denial (we can infer from Avot 5:9 that it is of no use unless it is acknowledged) and therefore needs to be protected. God is described in Psalms as the eternal guardian of truth (Tehillim 146:6). Peace must also be guarded, hence the term "mishmeret shalom" ("guardianship of peace") that is recited in the text of the Grace After Meals and the congregational response to the blessing of the Kohanim. I am not however aware of any corresponding description of any protection or guardianship for justice. Have I missed anything, and does the fact that truth and peace need to be protected, while justice apparently does not, have any repercussions for our understanding of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's teaching?

Links in the chain of tradition: why "zakenim" and not "shofetim""?

In the course of a discussion on the Judaism Reclaimed Facebook page, one of the participants in the discussion (Nate Lite) asked a good question about the chain of tradition of the Oral Torah from the Giving of the Law at Mount Sinai and ending with the Men of the Great Assembly (Avot 1:1). The chain of tradition passes through Joshua to the Prophets via the zakenim (literally "elders"). These zakenim are understood to be the Judges. Nate Lite's question is this: if the chain of tradition passed through the Judges, why does Avot 1:1 refer to them as zakenim and not as shofetim (the normal word for "Judges" in this context)?

A possible answer might be that the term "shofetim" has a somewhat negative connotation. This is apparent from commentaries on the opening verse of the Book of Ruth ("In the days when the judges judged...). Zakenim has no such  negative connotation: the word is treated as a notarikon of the Hebrew words Zeh koneh chochmah ("this person has acquired wisdom").

Another possible answer is that the shofetim were not entirely an unbroken sequence, which might suggest a break in the chain of tradition.

Any other suggestions?

Nothing to do with real women after all?

The third and final part of Avot 1:5 contains one of the more troublesome statements for modern-day readers of Avot, when Yose ben Yochanan Ish Yerushalayim counsels his pupils not to have too much sichah (idle chatter) with women, and particularly with other men's wives. There are many apologists for this teaching, though some commentators sound a little condescending in their justifications of this statement.

It is however possible to explain this part of the Mishnah in a completely different way, one that has nothing to do with women and with men’s attitudes to women. The explanation runs like this. “Woman” in this context does not refer to female human beings. Rather, it is a metaphor for the yetzer hara, the seductive evil inclination that we all possess, men and women alike. It is well known that humans cannot exist, procreate and develop their own character if they have no yetzer hara at all, or if they have one but pay no attention to it—but they should not engage overmuch with it.

Taking the metaphor further, the chachamim note that one should not engage in too much sichah with “one’s friend’s wife” either. This is because many socially destructive activities, of which adultery is the most obvious example, require the cooperation of one’s own yetzer hara with someone else’s.  Take care, therefore, not to let your evil inclination engage with the evil inclination of your friend.

Is this explanation implausible and far-fetched? One can make out a case for “woman” being a metaphor for the evil inclination, a symbol of seduction, persuasion and guile that will ensnare a good person of either gender and lead him or her off the desired path in circumstances in which brute force is not available or effective. Such a use of “woman” as a metaphor for the yetzer hara has a counterpart in the Book of Proverbs, where the temptation to abandon one’s Judaism and follow idol worship is described as “a strange woman, a foreign woman” (Proverbs 2:16-17, per Rashi, who makes the same association at 6:24), a woman who forgets the husband of her former days. The same alien woman is also depicted as “the lusting soul” whose influence runs counter to a person’s intellect (Proverbs 7:5, per Gersonides). Later, the “foolish woman” says to passers-by who are devoid of understanding: “stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten secretly is more pleasing” (Proverbs 9:13-17, this being generally taken as an allusion to the attractions of adultery). 

The question facing us today is whether we can stretch the metaphor further and generalize this sort of use of the word “woman” into an indication of every direction in which the evil inclination can pull a person. If we do, there is at least some precedent in the Cairo Geniza, where the first folio of a midrashic text (Document T-S e4.10) deals with metaphorical interpretations of the theme of the ‘wife’ in the Torah based on a treatment of the “good woman” as the good inclination and the “evil woman” is the yetzer hara.

Imrei Yaakov: another of Avot's "forgotten books"

Today one of my chavrutot showed me a copy of Imrei Yaakov, this being a commentary on Pirkei Avot by a certain Rav Yaakov Henech Cymerman. This work, which was self-published in London 1955, consists of some 220 pages of discussion of Avot reproduced alongside the commentary ascribed to Rashi.

I have never come across this work before and have never seen or heard any reference to it. Sadly this seems to be the fate of so many self-published works on Avot, written by earnest but unsung scholars and enthusiasts before the days of the social media -- that almost magical means by which people with something to say on Jewish interest topics can be connected to those who share their interests.

Jeffrey Maynard's Jewish Miscellanies weblog has some biographical information about this author, who has apparently written a commentary on the Torah, but this has nothing to add about the commentary on Avot. A Gerer chasid, Rabbi Cymerman was also a strong advocate of women's education.

Does anyone know anything about this little book on Avot, which I look forward to reading in the near future.

Bad neighbours and non-existent punctuation

 Nittai HaArbeli, at Avot 1:7, teaches three things, one of which is  הַרְחֵק מִשָּׁכֵן רָע. This is pretty well universally translated as "distance yourself from a bad neighbour", a translation that makes good sense in the context of the teaching which immediately follows it ("do not befriend someone who is wicked"). The two teachings lean in the same direction, since each advises us to keep our distance, physically and metaphorically, from a bad influence.

It just struck me today that perhaps the two teachings were supposed to stand in apposition to one another. There is no standard punctuation in the Oral Law and one can therefore read the same words in different ways by simply injecting anachronistic punctuation marks in order to allow a different emphasis. Here, the words הַרְחֵק מִשָּׁכֵן רָע can be viewed quite differently by the insertion of a dash, giving a reading that looks like this: הַרְחֵק מִשָּׁכֵן -- רָע. This suggests the following: "Distance yourself from a neighbour? That's bad!" There is not to my knowledge any support for this reading, but it does chime in well with Hillel's injunction in the second perek (at Avot 2:5) that one should not separate oneself from the congregation/community.

Fathers and funerals: a message for the living

Writing recently for the Jewish Journal ("The Examined Life", here), Rabbi Tal Sessler observed:

In Israel, when a funeral procession commences, the officiating clergy recites the following teaching from Ethics of the Fathers: “Know from whence you originate (from a drop of seed), where you are physically heading (to a place of dust, where worms consume the flesh), and before whom are you going to give spiritual accountability (before the Holy One Blessed Be He).”

This quote from Avot, which opens the third perek, startled me yesterday when it was read out at the first funeral I had attended in Jerusalem. Although it was spoken over the body of the deceased, it is actually addressed to the mourners who are present. The point of this message is that we should all remember that we are mortal and accountable. While financial accounts are submitted by businesses on a predictable basis, we have no idea when God might call us to account for our deeds and misdeeds. This was particularly the case yesterday, when the subject of the funeral was a relatively young man in apparently excellent health, the victim of a sudden and unexpected heart attack.

At this funeral -- and I don't know whether this is standard practice -- the mishnah at Avot 3:1 was not recited in the name of Akavya ben Mahalalel, even though we learn at Avot 6:6 that citing a piece of learning in the name of the person who teaches will bring redemption into the world. Any explanation?

For better or verse?

The mishnah at Avot 5:21 contrasts those who cause the community to act in an upright and responsible manner with those who lead them down the path of sin and error. Translated, it reads like this:

One who causes the community to be meritorious, no sin will come through his hand, while a person who causes the community to sin is not given the opportunity to repent.

Having stated the basic principles, the mishnah then brings verses in support of them: 

Moses was meritorious and caused the community to be meritorious, so the community's merit is attributed to him, as it says "He did God's righteousness, and His laws with Israel" (Deuteronomy 33:21). Jeroboam the son of Nebat sinned and caused the community to sin, so the community's sin is attributed to him, as it says, "Regarding the sins of Jeroboam, which he sinned and caused Israel to sin" (1 Kings 15:30). 

The two support verses appear to be cited in order to suggest that Moses caused others to do good while Jeroboam (illustrated, right, by Fragonard) did quite the reverse. Do they actually provide this support? Neither verse actually refers to the consequences of Moses' positive leadership and Jeroboam's adverse reign. Moreover, the first verse does not even refer to Moses. From its context in Deuteronomy it is clear that it refers to the tribe of Gad. Any connection between this verse and Moses himself is purely midrashic, since it seems to date from Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 28. 

The fact that this verse does not, scripturally speaking, apply to Moses does not appear to trouble the major commentators. Rambam, the commentary ascribed to Rashi, Rabbi Ovadyah Bartenura, Tosafot Yom Tov and Rabbi Shmuel di Uceda are among the many luminaries who pass no comment on this at all. 

Avot and educational policy: avoiding extremes

The first mishnah in the first chapter of Avot features, among other things, a statement by the Men of the Great Assembly can be understood in one of two ways. It can mean “raise many talmidim” as well as “raise talmidim a great deal” to ensure that their education in Torah is as full as possible. 

Taken in its first meaning, this statement foreshadows the disagreement between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah as to whether it was better to focus on the quality of budding Torah scholars or on their quantity. Rabban Gamliel’s view was that only a person whose external appearance and conduct matches his inner human qualities was fit to pursue the most advanced level of Torah scholarship. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah disagreed. In his view, the beneficial effect of Torah learning was such that it should be available to anyone who wanted it:  this view might be regarded as support for the principle that a person who commences his learning for motives other than the sake of Torah will eventually end up learning it with the right attitude.  

The dispute between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah has a parallel in a dispute between Bet Shammai (who promoted the notion of teaching only an elite cadre of talmidim) and Bet Hillel (whose policy of “Torah for all” prevailed: Avot deRabbi Natan 2:9).  Avigdor Shinan, Pirke Avot: Pirush Yisraeli Chadash, observes that modern educational policy in Israel follows Bet Hillel in this regard.

It seems to me that this argument in all its forms is between protagonists who are pressing for extreme positions that are polar opposites and that they do not consider the possibility of a compromise position that lies somewhere between them. If it can be argued that it is simply not feasible to turn everyone into a talmid chacham, but also that no-one with the inherent aptitude should be deprived of the opportunity to become one, a middle-ground solution should not be hard to find.

Avot in Retrospect: a summary of last month's blogposts

In case you missed them, here's a list of items posted on Avot Today in April 2021:

Sunday 25 April 2021: Truth and Putting People Right: What is the relationship between conceding the truth and forcing it on to others?

Wednesday 21 April 2021: Creative Quarantine and Avot as Art: Jerusalem's Kol HaOt challenges artists to compose works based on Avot under trying conditions.

Sunday 18 April 2021: Keeping Cool, Avot-Style: a rabbi references Avot in an opinion piece for City Sun Times. Which mishnah does he have in mind?

Wednesday 14 April 2021: Derech Yasharah -- the road that leads to Israel: Rabbi BenZion Meir Chai Uziel gives a modern Zionist flavour to an ancient proposition found in Avot 2:1.

Sunday 11 April 2021: The Flaming Coals -- not so bad after all? Some apparently superfluous words in Rabbi Eliezer's warning about not to mess with the chachamim are given a positive slant.

Thursday 8 April 2021: March in April: a New Book on Avot: introducing a new book on Avot with a decidedly historical focus, Who Were the Fathers? by Martin March.

Wednesday 7 April 2021: "If I am not for me": the possible and the plausible: one of Hillel's best-known aphorisms comes up for scrutiny. The Baruch She'amar offers a tantalising explanation that we have misunderstood it for the past two millennia. Does this explanation convince?

Sunday 4 April 2021: The Fantastic Mr Jackal, or "Let Sleeping Foxes Lie": Foxes appear twice in the mishnayot of Avot, but are the Tannaim actually referring to what we regard today as foxes?

Thursday 1 April 2021: Are Politicians Immune from Good Behaviour? Avot 3:15 cautions against embarrassing one's fellow humans in public. Walter Bingham wonders how, if at all, this applies to Israeli party activists.

*********************************

Avot Today blogposts for March 2021 here

Avot Today blogposts for February 2021 here

Avot Today blogposts for January 2021 here

Avot Today blogposts for December 2020 here

Avot Today blogposts for November 2020 here