Focusing on prayer: a curious irony

I have generally enjoyed the formal prayer routine prescribed by Jewish law, finding it both a useful way to clarify my thoughts and feelings and to utilise my three regular daily personal audiences with God. Usually I can focus on my prayers, on their meaning for me, for Jewish communities worldwide and for the world at large. There are however exceptions.

Earlier this week I found myself distracted and sailed through several of the 19 blessings in the weekday Amidah before realising that my mind was quite elsewhere. Where had it gone? By a strange irony the subject of my wandering mind was a search for the answer to an age-old question: how much thought and intention—if any—is needed if the words of a prayer are to be properly regarded as prayer?

The sages of the Mishnaic period were aware of this problem. At Avot 2:13 Rabbi Shimon ben Netanel urges us not to make our prayers keva(literally “fixed”), adding that they should instead be heartfelt supplications that are designed to trigger God’s mercy. This theme is echoed at Berachot 4:4 where Rabbi Shimon ben Netanel’s contemporary and fellow-student Rabbi Eliezer teaches that a prayer that is keva is not a heartfelt supplication.

Does this mean that there is no value in a prayer that is uttered from the lips only, rather than from the heart?

We are probably all familiar in our own experience of words that are spoken without feeling but which are essential to life in civilised society. Think of a situation in which a parent intervenes between two squabbling siblings or a teacher separates two pupils who are slugging away at each other. The prescribed solution to the dispute often requires one, or even two, of the combatants, to say the magic word “sorry” before they are absolved from their part in the spat and allowed to resume their daily lives. We all know in our hearts that children who are forced to say “sorry” rarely if ever do so because they are actually sorry, and we know this because we used to be children ourselves. The important thing is that the word “sorry” is spoken, regardless of the intention with which it is uttered. And now that we are grown-ups, we ask God for forgiveness three times a day in our prayers with possibly only as much sincerely-meant feeling as we did when we were children.

The gap between external conduct and inward appearance is reflected elsewhere in Avot. Shammai (Avot 1:15) tells us to greet other people with a cheerful countenance. This teaching presumably applies more to greeting those folk whom we don’t like, or at least to whom our feelings are neutral, rather than to our friends whom we would likely greet with a warm smile. And at Avot 3:16 Rabbi Yishmael tells us to greet other people with happiness. This is something internal, a feeling that we must learn to cultivate when we meet other humans who are created in God’s image. Ideally, we should feel happiness when meeting anyone and everyone but, when we can’t muster that feeling, we should at least put on a brave face and give them a smile.

Returning to prayer, we see that the same bifurcated approach exists in our own tradition. As Rabbi Chaim Volozhiner points out in his Nefesh HaChaim, one approach is to hold that the most important thing is to cultivate the right level of understanding of the words and the appropriate degree of sincerity of thought. If not, the prayer is empty and valueless. The other approach is to accept that the words of the template of the Amidah prayer, so carefully chosen and loaded with meaning by the Men of the Great Assembly, have a power and a cosmic significance of their own, a power that transcends man’s thoughts. All that need be done is to say the words.

Happily, it is possible both to vest one’s words with personal meaning and feeling and to acknowledge their inherent power, but we should not resign ourselves to a feeling of despair and believe that, if we do not manage to articulate each word from the bottom of our hearts and with full understanding, we have wasted our time.

The voice within

Rabbi Elazar ben Arach teaches (Avot 2:19) 

הֱוֵי שָׁקוּד לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה. וְדַע מַה שֶּׁתָּשִׁיב לְאֶפִּיקוּרוּס. וְדַע לִפְנֵי מִי אַתָּה עָמֵל, וּמִי הוּא בַּֽעַל מְלַאכְתֶּֽךָ שֶׁיְּשַׁלֶּם לָךְ שְׂכַר פְּעֻלָּתֶֽך

In translation: “Be diligent in the study of Torah. Know what to answer a heretic. And know before whom you toil, and who is your employer who will repay you the reward for your labour”.

The first two parts of this tripartite teaching are often taken together, the idea being that it is only through careful and dedicated study that a believing Jew will be able to handle questions that a non-believer may aim at him in order to undermine his faith.

Rabbi Reuven Melamed, whose Melitz Yosher commentary on Avot I have often cited, makes reference to a sharp observation by the Ponevez mashgiach. We generally assume that the epikuros, the non-believer, poses an external threat to one’s faith in God and His Torah. We should not however discount the danger of the epikuros who lurks within. This is the power which every person possesses to challenge and undermine even a person’s deepest-held convictions. If we do not truly understand and internalise what we believe and our reasons for holding our beliefs, they are always potentially vulnerable to self-doubt.

As several scholars have pointed out, the quality of non-believers and heretics has changed greatly over the past two millennia. In the era of the Tannaim to whom we attribute our mishnayot, religion and religious rites played a far greater role in the lives of Jews and non-Jews alike. Any challenge by an epikuros was therefore far more likely to be made by a person who was knowledgeable and quite familiar with Jewish beliefs and who was therefore able to take issue with an individual’s faith on a detailed, granular level. Nowadays the challenge is more likely to come from those who have neither faith nor knowledge of how faith works, and who argue from more general philosophical or scientific principles. Such an epikuros cannot be impressed or fended off by one’s knowledge of Torah because that knowledge is not relevant to the sort of challenges that the modern epikuros might make. Torah knowledge and understanding will however remain relevant when a person faces his or her own internal doubts and uncertainties.

A seasonal reading suggestion

Chanukah is the Jewish Festival of Light. We celebrate the miracle of the Temple oil that burned for seven extra days following the Maccabees’ victory over the occupying Greek aggressors. Today we no longer have the Temple services but that does not stop us commemorating our success by singing Hallel, lighting our chanukiot, indulging our children with toys and games—and of course feasting on sufganiyot.

No festival in the Jewish calendar is more remote from the pursuit of mussar than is Chanukah. Most practising Jews put aside their copies of Pirkei Avot three months ago and it will be another three months before they open them again. But that does not mean that Avot has no message for us. Ethical behaviour in accordance with a moral compass is demanded of us all day, every day, come rain come shine. Three months without learning Avot taxes our memories as well as our middot.

In his commentary on Avot, the Bartenura observes that we Jews are not alone in having rules of good conduct. Non-Jewish cultures have them too—and their rules are often the same as ours. So what is the difference between us and them? We believe ours to have been handed down to us at Mount Sinai along with the written Torah, whereas theirs were the product of intellectual endeavour and not inconsiderable creativity. Does this make a difference? I suggest that history has shown that it does.

Some of the greatest works of ancient times address many of the same issues as Avot. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and Plato’s Apology guided not merely Greek thought but that of most of the Western world for centuries, while Seneca and Marcus Aurelius added significant contributions from Rome. But who reads them now? Only a small number of theologians, academics and philosophy students, most of whom may only access them in translation. Have you ever met anyone who admits to following the moral lead of these profound ancient thinkers? Almost certainly not, for the world has left them behind.

How different from Avot, which continues to drive the moral dynamo of contemporary Judaism even in its original Hebrew form!

Like Waze, Avot steers us gently and discreetly along the path we are to travel. It offers a variety of valid routes towards our destination since we, as individuals, have our own priorities and preferences, feelings and foibles. So here’s a suggestion for anyone who might be in need of a little push in the right direction: why not pour yourself a seasonally-appropriate beverage, grab a doughnut or two, then curl up in your most comfy chair, in full view of a cheerfully blazing chanukiah, and peruse a few pages of Avot?

Doing something wrong? Then go with the flow

One of the three teachings we learn in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Netanel at Avot 2:18 is אַל תְּהִי רָשָׁע בִּפְנֵי עַצְמֶֽךָ. Most commentators and English translators take much the same view of the Tanna’s message. Typical of this consensus are the following:

• “Do not be wicked in your own eyes” (chabad.org; Rabbi Lord Sacks substitutes ‘evil’ for ‘wicked’)
• “Do not judge yourself to be a wicked person” (ArtScroll)

Some go further and incorporate further guidance. Thus:

• “Do not be wicked in your own esteem [lest you set yourself a low standard of conduct]” (Philip Birnbaum, HaSiddur HaShalem)
• “Do not consider yourself as wicked when left to depend on your own efforts” (Rabbi Shimshon Refael Hirsch, The Hirsch Pirkei Avos, tr. Hirschler/Haberman)

One aspect of this teaching that invites further discussion is the choice of the words “בִּפְנֵי עַצְמֶֽךָ”. This is the reflexive part of the mishnah. Rendered “yourself”, “in your own esteem” or “in your own eyes” in the translations quoted above, the words literally mean “before yourself” or “in front of yourself”—words that do not flow comfortably in English.

An interesting interpretation of these words in the context of this teaching appears in Rabbi Reuven Melamed’s Melitz Yosher. Here follows my expansion of his brief words.

We believe that, when a person performs a mitzvah or a generally meritorious act, this deed will attract a reward. Not all actions are equally rewarded. Those good deeds that are practised by everyone on a regular basis may be regarded as the products of good habits. They are unlikely to require a person to struggle against their yetzer hara, their evil inclination, in order to perform them. On the contrary, since everyone else around them is carrying on with the same conduct, there may even be peer pressure to continue do to those meritorious acts that attract rewards. This being so, since the effort involved in performing them is likely to be small, the reward for doing them will be small too. Only where the effort is great, and where a person exceeds the standards set by others, will the reward be great (“According to the effort, so is the reward”: Avot 5:26).

The same principles apply, mutatis mutandis, to averot (misdeeds) and generally poor conduct. Where a person’s breach of legal or social standards of behaviour is commonplace, shared by most or all fellow humans, it may have been the product of nothing worse than bad habits. All the miscreant is doing, after all, is to go with the flow. For such misdeeds, the punishment may be expected to be small. Indeed, as the Pele Yo’etz comments, a person who performs the same wrongful deeds as everyone else does at least have the virtue of respecting Hillel’s precept (Avot 2:5) of not separating himself from the rest of the community. However, if a wrongful act requires effort, initiative and individual action that goes beyond the norm of even bad behaviour, the punishment should be much bigger.

The teaching of Rabbi Shimon ben Netanel is therefore a wake-up call to anyone who is contemplating the performance of any wrongful act. We should ask ourselves whether our behaviour is normatively bad or whether it is בִּפְנֵי עַצְמֶֽךָ, a stand-out deed that others are not also doing. If it is, we should seriously think twice before doing it since the prospect of severe punishment lies ahead. The fact that we are in effect "going solo" should be sufficient warning.

Keeping the kernel, discarding the peel

Last week my attention was caught by a striking paragraph in Rabbi Abraham J. Twerski’s popular commentary on Pirkei Avot, Visions of the Fathers, at Avot 4:27 (where Rabbi Meir teaches: “don’t look at the vessel but at what is inside it …”):

…R’ Meir accepted Torah teaching from Elisha ben Avuyah, and … came under criticism for this. The Talmud explains that R’ Meir had the unique capacity to “eat the fruit and discard the peel; i.e. he was able to take what was good from Elisha and reject everything that was tainted with his heretical concepts. R. Meir was unique in being given this latitude. For everyone else the rule remains intact: One does not accept Torah teaching from anyone who does not live a Torah-true life.

Is it really true that only Rabbi Meir was allowed to do this, and that no one else, in his generation or thereafter, might do the same? If so, it is arguably against the spirit of Pirkei Avot itself. Rabbi Meir’s mishnah comes almost at the end of the fourth perek, which opens with prima facie contradictory advice since Ben Zoma teaches: “who is wise? The person who learns from everyone”. This teaching is unqualified and is not restricted to learning Torah, while Rabbi Twerski’s statement that one does not learn from someone who does not live a Torah-true life would appear to apply only to learning Torah. In practice it can be difficult to delineate the two, since Torah is of all-embracing application and, in its widest sense, includes all the natural sciences and a good deal more.

If one assumes that Rabbi Twerski’s statement is correct, it is still appropriate to ask how far it applies in practice. Here are a few thoughts on the subject.

1.     1. In his commentary on the Jewish prayer book, Baruch She’amar: Tefillot Hashanah, Rabbi Baruch HaLevi Epstein addresses the issue of learning from the wicked (whom, we may assume, are not leading Torah-true lives). Theren he discusses whether it is proper to open one’s daily prayers with the verses of praise of the Jewish people first uttered by Balaam. In the course of this discussion—one of the longest in his book—he lists a considerable number of features of Judaism that have been learned from less-than-ideal sources. From this we might infer that it is proper to learn from these sources. It may be that the lessons we derive from the wicked, as recorded in Tanach, are somehow more acceptable because they are not the fruit of a personal relationship between teacher and talmid.

2.      2. Rambam, in the introduction to his Shemonah Perakim, explains why he has chosen not to cite the sources on which he draws: “By mentioning the name of an author of whom a particular author might not approve, I might cause him [to reject the concept, thinking] that it is harmful and that it contains an undesirable intent”. It is generally assumed that some of these sources are non-Jewish and, by definition, not leading Torah-true lives. If they were Jewish and were leading such lives, it is hard to imagine that Rambam would need to issue such a blanket exclusion.

3.    3.   There may be a distinction between learning halachah and middot. As I have often mentioned before, the Bartenura points out that many principles of good and moral behaviour which we hold dear are shared by other nations in the world. To the extent that Jewish ethical teaching runs in parallel with other cultures it may be possible to learn from such cultures, even though we should not seek to learn Torah from them. And if we can learn good middot by observing the behaviour of non-Jews (e.g. learning to honour one’s father from Dama ben Netina: Kiddushin 31a) and even animals (Eruvin 100b), should we not be entitled to learn the same thing from people who do not live Torah-true lives?

I should very much like to hear what readers have to say on this topic. Do please share your thoughts!

Good eye, good heart

In my previous post (“Finding that elusive good path”, 5 December 2022), I discussed the mishnah (Avot 2:13) in which Rabban Yochanan asks his five leading talmidim to “go out and take a look at the good path to which a person should adhere”. Rabbi Eliezer suggests a “good eye”, Rabbi Yehoshua “being a good friend”, Rabbi Yose HaKohen “being a good neighbour”, Rabbi Shimon ben Netanel offers “ability to see what’s coming” and Rabbi Elazar ben Arach proposes “a good heart”. Rabbi Elazar ben Arach’s answer is preferred to the other four on the basis that it is broad enough to embrace them too.

To the modern English reader, if the terms “good eye” and “good heart” are taken literally they convey no relevant meaning in this context. I therefore explained “good eye” as “generosity” and “good heart” as “spirit of magnanimity”.  Eagle-eyed reader Claude Tusk swiftly spotted that, in an earlier post, I had explained that the term “good eye” referred to "magnanimity".  I had indeed done this because I was struggling to find blanket terms both for “good eye” and “good heart” in such a way as to enable the first of these terms to fall within the scope of the second.

I’ve just been looking at what I wrote in my book on these two concepts. First, there is the “good eye”, which I describe in terms of both generosity and magnanimity:

The “good eye”

Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus’ recommendation for the good path was that a man should have a “good eye.” This phrase probably means that he should view others in a generous and magnanimous way, sharing their happiness at their good fortune rather than being jealous of it and, when judging their actions, giving them the benefit of the doubt. The opposite of this expression, a “bad (or evil) eye,” is the term used by Rabbi Eliezer’s fellow talmid Rabbi Yehoshua to indicate ill-will towards others. That same term is also employed in a later Mishnah to describe both the attitude of someone who wants to give to a charity but does not want others, by giving too, to share the reward for their generosity, and to someone who wants others to give so generously that he need not give at all. It is possible that, in making this suggestion, Rabbi Eliezer was looking not out into the wide world but deeply into his own soul. From what we know of him – which is a considerable amount more than we know of most Tannaim – magnanimity and generosity were not among his defining characteristics. Identifying this, he may have proposed the path of the “good eye” out of recognition that this should be his own personal route to redemption [emphases added; footnotes omitted].

 I then turn to the “good heart”:

A “good heart”

If the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Arach are to be given their literal meaning, they must be interpreted widely enough to embrace the words of all four other talmidim. On this basis, the “good heart” may refer to the heart as a metaphor for the focal point of a person’s disposition, just as in English one might describe a person as being “good-hearted.” Rabbi Elazer’s suggestion would therefore be a counsel of perfection: in short, the best path is to do what is right at all times in a warm, friendly and accommodating manner, being slow to anger, quick to forgive, willing to share, foresighted and prudent in all his dealings, and as happy at the good fortune of others as he would be at his own [footnotes omitted].

Rabbi Reuven Melamed (Melitz Yosher) mentions a comment of the mashgiach of Ponevez, who treats “good friend” and “good neighbour” as meaning having a good friend or neighbour rather than being one. If one wishes to maintain one’s relationship with such a person, one will be influenced by that person into following their path. In contrast, the advice of Rabbis Eliezer and Elazar appears to be to follow a path of moral excellence that is not determined by others. This is not however the case, he adds, since it is only by learning from the example of others—presumably good friends and good neighbours—that one is able to latch on to the virtues of generosity and magnanimity which those rabbis prescribe.

There should be no doubt that magnanimity is a broader category of good-heartedness than is generosity. For example, where two protagonists are engaged in a game of chess, if the loser can feel genuine warmth towards the winner and share the latter’s happiness at winning, he is said to be magnanimous in defeat. To say that he is generous might rather suggest that he gave the game away.

As ever, readers’ comments and perspectives are welcome.

Finding that elusive right path

At Avot 2:13, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai gives five of his illustrious talmidim a task: “go out and take a look at the good path to which a person should adhere”.

All five give good answers. In brief, Rabbi Eliezer suggests a “good eye” (i.e. generosity), Rabbi Yehoshua “being a good friend”, Rabbi Yose HaKohen “being a good neighbour”, Rabbi Shimon ben Netanel offers “ability to see what’s coming” and Rabbi Elazar ben Arach proposes “a good heart” (i.e. a spirit of magnanimity). Rabbi Elazar ben Arach’s answer is preferred to the other four on the basis that it is broad enough to embrace them too.

In his Melitz Yosher al Pirkei Avot, Rabbi Reuven Melamed observes that this selection of answers is surprising. Each of these five talmidim is a giant of Torah, a man of immense learning. Yet not one of them gives the answer that probably most contemporary rabbis would be likely to give: “learning Torah”.

This omission, Rabbi Melamed suggests, is highly significant. Even at the highest level of Torah scholarship one is not a complete person until a further level is added. That is the level at which a person strives to perfect his relationship both with fellow humans and with God. Each of Rabban Yochanan’s five disciples was offering a pathway to achieve this end: for four of them that path was more narrowly defined. The fifth suggested not so much a pathway as a general attitude.

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 NOVEMBER 2022: 

Tuesday 29 November 2022: Out of sight. Why is it that the sages of Avot give so much more attention to what we hear and what we say than to what we see?

Friday 25 November 2022: Dayan Chanoch Ehrentreu: a Perek Man Personified. Avot Today recalls a great Torah personality.

Wednesday 23 November 2022: When Perek meets Pardes. A remarkable application by the Malbim of an apparently simple mishnah in Avot provides a chance to contrast two ways of learning a mishnah: extracting a meaning from it and injecting a meaning into it.

Tuesday 22 November 2022: Not just what his rebbe taught him. Avot Today takes note of a recent book on Pirkei Avot that is quite outspoken and provocative in places.

Sunday 20 November 2022: Ask no questions? How should we respond when someone asks us a totally unnecessary question?

Wednesday 16 November 2022: Pirkei Avot, politics and a job not yet done: does the use of maxims from Pirkei Avot in political speeches reduce them to mere platitudes?

Monday 14 November 2022: Dealing with insults. On the second anniversary of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks' passing, we recall one of his most Avot-friendly attributes.

Friday 11 November 2022: Cull, control or cultivate: what should we do about self-esteem? Rabbi Abraham J. Twerski and Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks appear to hold different views regarding self-esteem -- but these positions are not necessarily in conflict with one another.

Wednesday 9 November 2022: Psyched for Avot: a new series. Rabbi Dr Mordechai Schiffman launches a regular feature, to appear in the Jewish Press, which looks at Avot through the eyes of a Torah scholar who is also a licensed psychologist.

Monday 7 November 2022: Can we all be winners? Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks' predilection for zero-sum outcomes and cooperative action is gently reflected in a teaching of Ben Zoma at Avot 4:1.

Thursday 3 November 2022: After the event: what next? The Israeli general election is now over. How should the winners and losers behave--and by what standards should the incoming government be measured?

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

Avot Today blogposts for October 2022
Avot Today blogposts for September 2022
Avot Today blogposts for August 2022
Avot Today blogposts for July 2022 
Avot Today blogposts for June 2022 
Avot Today blogposts for May 2022