Are you there in body only?

Every schoolkid knows that two plus two make four, while two plus zero make just two. This is why Avot 5:17 is so surprising. This anonymous mishnah goes as follows:

אַרְבַּע מִדּוֹת בְּהוֹלְכֵי בֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ: הוֹלֵךְ וְאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה, שְׂכַר הֲלִיכָה בְּיָדוֹ. עוֹשֶׂה וְאֵינוֹ הוֹלֵךְ, שְׂכַר מַעֲשֶׂה בְּיָדוֹ. הוֹלֵךְ וְעוֹשֶׂה, חָסִיד. לֹא הוֹלֵךְ וְלֹא עוֹשֶׂה, רָשָׁע

There are four types among those who attend the house of study: The person who goes, but does nothing, gets a reward for going. The person who does [study], but does not go to the house of study hall, gets a reward for doing so. The person who both goes and does is a chasid [pious]. One who neither goes nor does is wicked.

So, while the mishnah talks of four folk who attend the Bet Midrash, the house of study, only two of them actually get there. This doesn’t add up. Does this mean that something has gone wrong with our mishnah?

Many fine minds have pondered over this question over the centuries. R’ Ovadyah MiBartenura doesn’t worry over the arithmetic: in his commentary on Avot 5:16 he says our mishnah is simply talking about that practice of going or not going in general.  Irving M. Bunim (Ethics from Sinai) puts it slightly differently: the mishnah describes four contrasting attitudes struck by people regarding the question whether they should go to the Bet Midrash or not.

The Tiferet Yisrael (R’ Yisrael Lipschitz) sticks to the number four and takes it literally: all four types are there—but two of them are there in body only. Their minds are planted firmly elsewhere. Why do they bother going? In the words of R’ Yisrael Meir Lau (Yachel Yisrael):

“[T]hey intend to meet friends, engage in small talk, maintain their reputation, or even to gather impressions so that they can later mock those whom they saw there”.

Maharam Shik agrees that the two “missing” attendees are there in body only, though he expresses himself in another way. When it comes to learning Torah and turning up in a house of study, there are two attitudes that one can strike. A person can say “I’m doing this because I want to fulfil my duty to God”—or “I’m doing this so that other people can see me and think what a great person I am”.  If one’s only motives are ulterior, not for the sake of God, it is as though one is not really there.

I also found an explanation in R’ Abraham J. Twerski’s Visions of the Fathers that calls for thought because it appears to avoid the two-plus-zero makes four issue entirely:

“Some commentaries interpret the word holech [which literally means “going” or “walking”] to mean “progressing” and they point out that in contrast to angels who are static (omdim), a human being should grow and advance in character development…”

“The second category in this mishnah refers to someone who is oseh [literally “doing”], who seemingly does what he is supposed to do, yet he does not appear to be advancing spiritually and improving himself in any way”.

R’ Twerski then asks:

“Why are there observant people who seem to be deficient in middos (character traits)?”

No indication is given as to which commentators give holech and oseh these meanings and, to be honest, I can’t offhand recall who does. If any reader can jog my memory, I’d be grateful.

As for what R’ Twerski says, if you read “progressing” for “going”, the meaning of the mishnah is changed completely—and it certainly speaks to us today.  R’ Twerski writes that the four propositions in the mishnah provide the answer to his question, but it is not obvious to me how exactly they do so and I’m not sure that I have understood what R’ Twerski has said. Again, if any readers can help me clarify my thoughts, that would be great.