Last year the most frequently-cited teaching from Avot on the English-language social media was that of Hillel the Elder:
אִם
אֵין אֲנִי לִי, מִי לִי, וּכְשֶׁאֲנִי לְעַצְמִי, מָה אֲנִי, וְאִם לֹא עַכְשָׁו,
אֵימָתָי
“If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if
I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?” (Avot 1:14)
This teaching
has always been well known in Jewish circles, and not only on account of its
enigmatic nature and catchy words. Put to music, it has been joyously sung by
chasidim and many composers and musicians, including such luminaries as
Mordechai Ben David, Isaac Bitton, Benny Friedman and Shloime Gertner have
given it their own personal treatment.
The mishnah
has clearly spread in terms of public familiarity. It has also broadened the
scope of its applicability.
The idea
that Hillel is addressing himself as an individual is hard to deny. Of the 14
words in his three-part dictum, 5 of them are “I”, “me” or “myself”. Both the Bartenura and the commentary ascribed
to Rashi initially explain the mishnah in personal terms, almost as though
Hillel is talking only about himself, but then allude to its wider application
to humankind as a whole, a position endorsed by Rambam, Rabbenu Yonah and all
subsequent commentators.
Can we take
Hillel’s teaching further and apply it to corporate entities and even state actors?
I have been unable to find any
commentary that answers this question but in principle it is hard to object to
doing so. Individuals must balance their self-interest with the complementary
or even conflicting interests of others; they must also act in good time—as many
people who have made a late payment of tax have discovered. So too must local
and national governments, businesses, schools, sports clubs and other collective
bodies do likewise.
Writing in
yesterday’s Jerusalem Post Eliot Penn does just that. His article,” Israel must
take its security into its own hands”, opens as follows:
Hillel the Elder, the first-century sage,
offered three insights for living as cited in the ancient book of rabbinic
wisdom, Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers). The first two come as a pair: “If
I am not for myself, who shall be for me? But if I am only for myself, what am
I?”
Hillel’s first two maxims are often understood
as directives to the individual to take personal responsibility for their life,
balanced with concern for others. These astute ideas apply beyond individual
living to fit the State of Israel quite well.
So far as I
know, Eliot Penn is neither a scholar nor a sage, but I can think of no good reason
why Hillel’s teaching should not apply to corporate entities as well as to individual
ones. After all, the actions of collective and corporate bodies are all
initiated by individuals. If Hillel’s teaching is addressed to each of them,
surely it is fitting to address it to them as a whole.
If any
reader knows of any commentary—traditional or otherwise—that has discussed
this, can he or she please let me know?
*********
********* ********* ********* *********
Eliot Penn’s
article can be read in full here: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-782438
For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.
