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?
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.
For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook click here.
