A concept decomissioned: fear of sin

At Avot 3:11 we find the first of three similar and arguably related teachings by Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa:

כֹּל שֶׁיִּרְאַת חֶטְאוֹ קוֹדֶֽמֶת לְחָכְמָתוֹ, חָכְמָתוֹ מִתְקַיֶּֽמֶת. וְכֹל שֶׁחָכְמָתוֹ קוֹדֶֽמֶת לְיִרְאַת חֶטְאוֹ, אֵין חָכְמָתוֹ מִתְקַיֶּֽמֶת

One whose fear of sin takes precedence over his wisdom—his wisdom endures. But one whose wisdom takes precedence over his fear of sin—his wisdom does not endure.

To the contemporary reader there is a sort of imbalance between the two halves of this equation. We all know what wisdom is. We value it, pursue it if we can, make great personal sacrifices in order to obtain it and are prepared to pay handsomely for the advice and guidance of those who have more of it than we do. Many of the most respected and highly-paid professions in the modern world are wisdom-based: physicians, lawyers, accountants, actuaries, economists provide obvious examples.

Fear of sin, in contrast, is a closed book to most people who live in the world today. The concept is incapable of bearing any meaning unless one first ascertains what is meant by “sin”, an idea that has faded from Western society along with the religion-based morality of what was once the domain of Christianity. While “fear of sin” still has some traction in those small pockets of society that practise Judaism, it cannot compete for popularity against the tide of moral relativism that promotes the notion that, if it feels right, do it because it’s right for you. For society at large, “fear of sin” is a concept that, to all intents and purposes, has been decommissioned and put out to graze in the Garden of Ideas that have Outlived Their Usefulness.

When this mishnah was first taught, its audience would have understood clearly that fear of sin meant fear of transgressing the laws and mores of the Torah. This could be viewed as fear of losing one’s Olam Haba (World to Come), fear of punishment or retribution, or fear of falling short of the expectations of a God who, though kind, merciful and forgiving of sin, was entitled to expect more of His people than that they throw His kindness back at him. But what is the connection between wisdom and fear of sin that demands that the former will not take root, as it were, in the absence of the latter?

Rabbi Shlomo P. Toperoff (Lev Avot) asks this question and offers an answer if, perhaps a little rhetorical, is also a little prophetic, given the way the world has evolved since he wrote these words in 1984:

“It is generally conceded that wisdom is pursued by many people today. We possess a plethora of schools, colleges and universities, but too often the wisdom acquired is divorced from the fear of sin, resulting in angry and rebellious students who are ready to overthrow the Establishment…

Wisdom built on the rock foundations of fear of sin will endure and save civilisation, but wisdom not preceded by fear of sin will eventually destroy the world”.

Like the mishnah, Rabbi Toperoff does not specify any particular sin. But in the quest for wisdom, one can hypothesize that no human understanding can pass the test of being regarded as wisdom unless it first confirms to the criteria of truth—and failure to respect and accept the truth is the sin that most effectively devalues anything that purports to be wisdom. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (Avot 1:18) already classes truth as one of the three virtues that is a necessary condition for sustaining the world, and the mishnah at Avot 5:9 stigmatises one who fails to accept the truth as a golem, an unformed, incomplete being.

The events on campus that have unfolded since 7 October 2023, conspicuously in the United States but also in many other countries, have shown that objective, analytical scholarship and debate have too often given way to selective use of sources, confirmation bias, fake news that is taken to be genuine until the contrary is proven, and the pre-emptive adoption of partisan conclusions that are accepted as being self-evident and therefore in no need of verification. One wonders how much of the accepted wisdom of the day will ever stand up to scrutiny in the long run, when scholarship based on fear of falsehood is allowed to have its say. Or will it all be too late by then?

For comment and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.

From a stranger to a good friend

When Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai asked his five top students to get out of the Beit Midrash in order to go and see what was the good path that one should choose for oneself, he received a range of answers. The relevant mishnah in Avot (2:13) reads like this:

אָמַר לָהֶם: צְאוּ וּרְאוּ אֵיזוֹ הִיא דֶּֽרֶךְ טוֹבָה שֶׁיִּדְבַּק בָּהּ הָאָדָם. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶֽזֶר אוֹמֵר: עַֽיִן טוֹבָה. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ אוֹמֵר: חָבֵר טוֹב. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: שָׁכֵן טוֹב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הָרוֹאֶה אֶת הַנּוֹלָד. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: לֵב טוֹב. אָמַר לָהֶם: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ מִדִּבְרֵיכֶם, שֶׁבִּכְלַל דְּבָרָיו דִּבְרֵיכֶם

[Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai] said to them: “Go and see which is the best trait for a person to acquire”. Said Rabbi Eliezer: “Magnanimity of spirit [literally A good eye”]. Said Rabbi Yehoshua: “A good friend”. Said Rabbi Yose: “A good neighbour”. Said Rabbi Shimon: “To see the consequences of one’s actions”. Said Rabbi Elazar: “A good attitude [literally A good heart”].  [Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai] said to them: “I prefer the words of Elazar the son of Arach to yours, for his words include all of yours”.

Rabbi Elazar ben Arach might appear to be the “winner” in this “contest”, but that would be to over-simplify a complex mishnah. Each of the five answers which Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai received is valid and correct. The essential difference between them is that Rabbi Elazar ben Arach’s answer is expressed in general terms, whereas each of his four colleagues points to a specific example or instance of a “good path” to pursue in fulfilling one’s aims in life.

Of the “losers”, Rabbi Yehoshua seems to have the least to offer. In the first place his words are so epigrammatic that we do not know what they mean. Is he referring to the virtues of having a good friend, or of being a good friend to someone else? Secondly, is not friendship arguably sufficiently covered within Avot and Jewish ethical literature in general to be taken as read?

In an attempt to make something of this teaching, commentators in our times have greatly enriched it. For example Rabbi Yisroel Miller (The Wisdom of Avos) writes:

Picture one of your acquaintances whom you don’t dislike but are not particularly close to. His life seems to be going OK as far as you know. Now imagine that you read in his diary: “My bones shudder. My soul is utterly confounded… I am wearied with my sigh, every night I drench my bed in tears. My eye is dimmed because of anger, aged by my tormentors”. Besides your surprise at his poetic writing style, wouldn’t you feel a wave of compassion for this tormented soul whose sufferings you were totally aware of?

 This man’s words, Rabbi Miller reminds us, are part of the regular Tachanun we recite most days—and our sages of old told us to say them because, for every one of us in one way or another, they are a true expression of our feelings.  We should therefore look at this casual acquaintance and appreciate that he too, like every human, experiences feelings like this without our awareness of them. Rabbi Miller continues:

Look again at your neighbour, bring out your compassion, and say “I can’t take away his pain (especially since I don’t know what it is, but I can add a small measure of joy and comfort to his life by trying to be his friend”. After focusing on one acquaintance, move on to another, and little by little your circle of love begins to grow and you become transformed.

I’m very moved by these words. Has Rabbi Miller simply provided a fanciful and idealistic cadenza with which to grace a somewhat mundane teaching, or is there more to it?  Recalling how Rabbi Yehoshua befriended the poor young Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, as mentioned in the Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer, I should like to think that he would warmly welcome Rabbi Miller’s explanation.

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

Being watched and keeping watch

 Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi at Avot 2:1 offers the following cautionary advice:

הִסְתַּכֵּל בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים, וְאֵין אַתָּה בָא לִידֵי עֲבֵרָה, דַּע מַה לְּמַֽעְלָה מִמָּךְ, עַֽיִן רוֹאָה וְאֹֽזֶן שׁוֹמַֽעַת, וְכָל מַעֲשֶֽׂיךָ בְּסֵֽפֶר נִכְתָּבִים

Contemplate three things and you will not come to the grip (literally ‘hands’) of transgression. Know what is above from you: a seeing eye, a listening ear, and all your deeds being inscribed in a book.

With modern technology and the widespread use of surveillance devices and data capture, most of us have spent so long being watched, recorded and digitally summarised that we have become accustomed to this state of affairs and are little concerned with it. Our indifference is a product of the fact that we do not feel personally watched, listened to or data-captured: all of this is done by third parties for their interest. We are watched and overheard in the name of public safety and security, and our data is stored and retrieved principally by online businesses that offer a quasi-symbiotic relationship: we give them our data and they, in return, seek to offer us news, opinions and products that are more likely than not to appeal to our preferences and our prejudices.

Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi was not concerned with third-party interests. He viewed constant and detailed surveillance as something of which we should be aware. Indeed, even if were not there at all, we should adjust our behaviour so as to take it into account. This would be to our benefit since, being conscious of our every act and word being a matter of record, we should take great care what we do and say.  Professional footballers at the highest level have already learned to appreciate this.  They have long known that there is little to be gained, and much to be lost, by committing a foul against a player from the opposing team when the referee is watching them. And now, with the introduction of VAR technology, they can expect their every indiscretion to be recorded and played over again and again in slow motion.

Our mishnah supports this practice and goes further. Surveillance and the compilation of a permanent record is the prerogative of God Himself. It is axiomatic that God is omniscient and therefore possesses a perfect record of every facet of our existence in this world. Since He is also our judge, his perfect record of our every moment constitutes the evidence upon which our lives are assessed. The evidence is incontrovertible and there is no mechanism by which it might be challenged. All we can do, when faced with it, is offer an explanation or excuse.

Arguably, even the attempt to explain or mitigate our more reprehensible conduct is futile since there is nothing we can say, or even think, that is not already known to God. The Sefat Emet derives support for this proposition from our mishnah. Expanding on his words, it seems that the three-part list of a seeing eye, a hearing ear and a complete record corresponds to the three ways a human can serve God: through actions, speech and thought. The divine seeing eye can perceive the innermost and most private thoughts we harbour in our brains; the divine ear catches every syllable and every sound we generate when communicating with God, with others and even with ourselves; and God also records for eternity. We should strive to bear all three in mind. Our consciousness of the seeing eye and the hearing ear should be sufficient to motivate us to do that which is correct and good in at least our own eyes—but if that doesn’t inhibit us from doing wrong, we should remember the perfect record.  

Other commentators have read this mishnah differently. The Me’iri, for instance, sees the references to the seeing eye, hearing ear and the record book as having a less practical but more theologically focused meaning. In a lengthy and detailed appraisal of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi’s words, he connects their three reference points, respectively, to belief in God’s existence, belief in God’s providence and belief that sin is followed by punishment. He specifically rejects the Sefat Emet’s approach, objecting that if the record book refers to God’s knowledge, it effectively duplicates the role of the seeing eye, and it is presumably in response to this objection that the Sefat Emet crafts his explanation that the eye, ear and record correspond to the thoughts, words and actions through which we serve—or disobey—the Almighty.

Of the two approaches, I confess that I do prefer that of the Sefat Emet, if only because, in addressing the way to avoid sin, it obliquely embraces the prospect of God recording the good things we do, say and think too.

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

I did it all myself

At Avot 4:1 Ben Zoma succinctly and a little surprisingly defines four personalities that are well known in Jewish circles: the wise, the strong, the rich and the respected. Of the rich person he teaches:

אֵיזֶהוּ עָשִׁיר, הַשָּׂמֵֽחַ בְּחֶלְקוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: יְגִֽיעַ כַּפֶּֽיךָ כִּי תֹאכֵל, אַשְׁרֶֽיךָ וְטוֹב לָךְ, אַשְׁרֶֽיךָ בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, וְטוֹב לָךְ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא

Who is rich? One who is happy with his lot, as it states (Psalms 128:2): "If you eat of the effort of your hands, you are happy and it is  good for you" (Tehillim 128:2); "you are happy" in this world, "and it is good for you" in the World to Come.

Rabbi Yehudah Leib of Gur maintains that this statement is demonstrably true. It’s only when a person makes the effort to do something himself that he truly appreciates its value: he has invested a bit of himself in it.  In contrast, the pleasure one gets from acquiring something that one has not made is of a lesser quality: it is people who acquire without effort who tend to be dissatisfied with what they have and always want more.

Anyone who has ever had a small child—or been one—may recall a common experience. Picture the following scenario. It is Friday night, the table is laid and the silverware sparkles in the light of the Shabbat candles. The smell of fresh warm challot pervades the house. Enter one small child, clutching a grubby item that vaguely resembles a challah roll, baked by the child at school. Proudly the child shoves his own manufacture under the challah cloth along with the sleek brown loaves baked by his mother.  It’s time for hamotzi and the challah cloth is lifted. Beaming with the happiness of achievement, the child looks with pride at the result of his handiwork. He knows that his mother’s challah is of a far higher quality but he will insist on eating his own—and maybe on others taking a nibble too—because it is a monument to his own achievement.

As adults we tend to grow out of this phase and regard it as a natural part of growing up. Don’t we become more discerning as we mature? Isn’t it, well, childish to take pride in something we can objectively assess as being second-rate?  No, it isn’t. And we should never allow ourselves to lose the connection between the effort we expend and the pleasure we derive from it. As Ben He-He says at Avot 5:26,

לְפוּם צַעֲרָא אַגְרָא

According to the effort, so is the reward.

This need not mean a Divine reward for the fulfilment of mitzvot and the performance of good deeds. It can equally mean the internal reward one receives in terms of the satisfaction experienced by doing something oneself.

For comment and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.

A golem in the Human Zoo: are we all on the spectrum?

Avot 5:9 is an anonymous mishnah and it reads like this:

שִׁבְעָה דְבָרִים בְּגוֹלָם וְשִׁבְעָה בְּחָכָם, חָכָם: אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁגָּדוֹל מִמֶּֽנּוּ בְּחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן, וְאֵינוֹ נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ דִּבְרֵי חֲבֵרוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ נִבְהָל לְהָשִׁיב, שׁוֹאֵל כְּעִנְיָן וּמֵשִׁיב כַּהֲלָכָה, וְאוֹמֵר עַל רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן וְעַל אַחֲרוֹן אַחֲרוֹן, וְעַל מַה שֶּׁלֹּא שָׁמַע אוֹמֵר לֹא שָׁמַֽעְתִּי, וּמוֹדֶה עַל הָאֱמֶת, וְחִלּוּפֵיהֶן בְּגוֹלָם

There are seven things that characterize a golem, and seven that characterize a wise man. A wise man does not speak before one who is greater than him in wisdom or age. He does not interrupt his fellow's words. He does not hasten to answer. His questions are relevant and his answers are to the point. He responds to first things first and to later things later. As for what he did not hear, he says "I did not learn [this]." He concedes the truth. With the golem, the reverse of all these is the case.

No doubt there is a perfectly good reason why we do not learn this mishnah in the name of the person who taught it. Perhaps it was unclear which of several Tannaim had authored it. Maybe it is a composite mishnah culled from a variety of sources. Nowadays such a mishnah might be best taught under cover of anonymity for fear of its author being tarnished with the broad brush of political rectitude. Would the woke brigade permit the stigmatising of the golem?

The golem in this mishnah is best left untranslated, since the word even in its untranslated form is so redolent of secondary shades of meaning.

For most commentators on Avot, this mishnah is an invitation to consider how a person should behave in polite society. The seven behaviours listed here are a sort of code of conduct that can be read as the point of departure for a relationship between teacher and student, two fellow students or indeed any individuals who wish to exchange thoughts and ideas with one another. When a relationship matures, these rules of conduct may easily be relaxed without giving offence—but they should be observed until cordial familiarity is established.

For Rambam, however, this mishnah may mean more than this. The following passage in Menachem Kellner’s Maimonides’ Confrontation with Mysticism caught my eye:

“Maimonides’ radical intellectual elitism … is another example of a position forced upon him by the epistemology of the theory of the acquired intellect. … [I]ndividuals born of human parents who have not achieved a minimum level of intellectual perfection are subhuman”.

Kellner then quotes Rambam’s Moreh Nevuchim i.7:

“You know that whoever is not endowed with this form [of the intellect] … is not a man, but an animal having the shape and the configuration of a man”

Kellner then quotes further from the Moreh Nevuchim at iii.51, where Rambam states that such people, whose intellect has not been perfected,

“…do not have the rank of men but have among the beings a rank that is lower than the rank of man but higher than the rank of apes”.

But what does Rambam say specifically about the golem in his commentary on the mishnah?

Rambam is clearly concerned to distinguish from one another the various characters who have either failed to perfect their intellects or have succeeded in doing so. While most of his comments on Avot are short and to-the-point, he opens his discussion of our mishnah by distinguishing the boor, the am ha’aretz, the golem, the chacham and the chasid—of whom only the golem and the chacham are of immediate relevance.

The golem is someone who possesses some ethical and intellectual virtues, but neither are perfected: they are confused, mixed up and somewhat lacking and Rambam labels him as “crude” (translation of R’ Eliahu Touger), rather like a utensil made by a craftsman but still in an unfinished, incomplete state. A possible English rendition of this is that such a person is a “rough diamond”. Thus the golem stands in contract with the chacham, the wise man, is a person who has perfected both his intellectual and his moral qualities.

The golem cannot therefore be equated with the subhuman entity described in the Moreh Nevuchim. Could that role be designated for the boor (fortuitously the word means roughly the same in English and Hebrew)?  Of him Rambam writes, in our mishnah, that he possesses neither intellectual nor moral virtues—but nor does he demonstrate any intellectual or moral vices. He is to all intents and purposes empty, like a field that lies fallow. But being empty of intellectual vices and virtues does not make him subhuman. This is because being empty of a behavioral quality or characteristic is surely not the same as being unable to acquire it at all.

In the modern world the exercise of dividing humanity up into different types has become more nuanced and we ask questions that did not trouble most of our earliest scholars. For example, what does this mishnah teach us about the person who ticks only three or four of the ‘golem boxes’? Is it possible that a person is part golem, part chacham? And are all seven indicators of equal weight or are some of greater, if not critical, importance? We would probably agree today that any given person will possess signs of both the chacham and the golem, and that we are all located at different points on the ‘chacham-golem spectrum’.

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

Gehinnom: Some like it hot...

Writing in this week’s Jewish Press, Rabbi Moshe Meir Weiss (“Investing in ‘Hell Insurance’”) writes:

Every month, we pray when we bentch Rosh Chodesh that Hashem should grant us “Yiras Shamayim v’yiras cheit – Fear of Heaven and fear of sin.” Practically speaking, fear of sin includes fear of punishment which results from our sins. Sometimes, that punishment translates into retribution in this world, primarily for sins between us and our fellow man. For sins against Hashem, we fear the frightening retribution of Gehinnom, “hell.” Since the Mishna in Pirkei Avos informs us that the fires of Gehinnom are 60 times hotter than the fires in this world, that means they are 60 times hotter than the oven in the matzah bakery. That’s very hot indeed! [emphasis added]

I was astonished to read this. There is no such mishnah in Avot and I consider it quite reprehensible for a rabbi, a teacher of Torah and a person whose qualifications and learning give him access to so large an audience, should so mis-state the content of Avot.

Gehinnom does get a mention in Avot. Thus in Avot 1:5 the chachamim in the mishnah of Yose ben Yochanan Ish Yerushalayim teach that

כָּל הַמַּרְבֶּה שִׂיחָה עִם הָאִשָּׁה, גּוֹרֵם רָעָה לְעַצְמוֹ, וּבוֹטֵל מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, וְסוֹפוֹ יוֹרֵשׁ גֵּיהִנֹּם

“…everyone who talks too much with his wife causes evil to himself, neglects his Torah learning, and his end is that he will inherit Gehinnom.”

This mishnah certainly does not refer to sins between man and God, and offers no indication as to the temperature of the netherworld.

Two further mishnayot in the fifth perek make reference to Gehinnom. The anonymous mishnah at Avot 5:22 concludes with a warning to the disciples of Balaam:

אֲבָל תַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל בִּלְעָם הָרָשָׁע יוֹרְשִׁין גֵּיהִנֹּם וְיוֹרְדִין לִבְאֵר שַֽׁחַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְאַתָּה אֱלֹהִים תּוֹרִידֵם לִבְאֵר שַֽׁחַת, אַנְשֵׁי דָמִים וּמִרְמָה לֹא יֶחֱצוּ יְמֵיהֶם, וַאֲנִי אֶבְטַח בָּךְ

“…but the disciples of the wicked Balaam inherit Gehinnom and descend into the well of destruction, as it states: “And You, God, let them go down into the well of destruction—men of bloodshed and deceit, they will not live half their days. And, for my part, I will trust in you”.

This mishnah doesn’t even specify any transgressions that will condemn a person to Gehinnom; rather, it discusses bad attitudes.

A nearby mishnah, in the name of Yehudah ben Teyma ( Avot 5:24) also addresses bad attitudes, which is not surprising if one remembers that this tractate is about behaviour and attitudes rather than commandments and transgressions. It teaches:

עַז פָּנִים לְגֵיהִנֹּם, וּבֽוֹשֶׁת פָּנִים לְגַן עֵֽדֶן. יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶֽיךָ, יְיָ אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ וֵאלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵֽינוּ, שֶׁיִּבָּנֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בִּמְהֵרָה בְיָמֵֽינוּ, וְתֵן חֶלְקֵֽנוּ בְּתוֹרָתֶֽךָ

“The brazen [go] to Gehinnom; the bashful, to paradise. May it be Your will, Lord our God and God of our fathers, that the Holy Temple be rebuilt speedily in our days; and grant us our portion in Your Torah”.

Neither of these two mishnayot amplify on the nature of Gehinnom. The source upon which Rabbi Weiss might wish to rely is a passage of aggadata in the Babylonian Talmud, at Berachot 567b. It reads there:

“Five things are a sixtieth part of something else: namely, fire, honey, Sabbath, sleep and a dream. Fire is one-sixtieth part of Gehinnom. Honey is one-sixtieth part of manna. Sabbath is one-sixtieth part of the world to come. Sleep is one-sixtieth part of death. A dream is one-sixtieth part of prophecy”.

The reference to Gehinnom is not picked up elsewhere in this sugya, which is located in the middle of a fascinating stream of consciousness passage on the substance, quality and meaning of dreams.

Without in any sense wishing to minimise the seriousness of offences against Hashem, I do feel that embellishing the message with non-existent references to Avot is not the best way to go about getting the message across.

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

When people eat each other

Avot 3:2 is one of those mishnayot that seems to generate a surprising amount of comment and analysis, despite its brevity. There Rabbi Chanina segan HaKohanim teaches:

הֱוֵי מִתְפַּלֵּל בִּשְׁלוֹמָהּ שֶׁל מַלְכוּת, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא מוֹרָאָהּ, אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵֽהוּ חַיִּים בְּלָעוֹ

Pray for the peace of the government; for were it not for fear of it, a man would swallow his neighbour alive.

This mishnah is not one of those cryptic messages that sages have sought to decipher for the past two millennia: it is apparently straightforward in its meaning. The rule of law is a condition of civilised life. Indeed, it is fundamental to not just the Jewish world but to all adherents of the Noahide Code. Without government there is anarchy. We talk of man eating his fellow man, but the nations of the world have a more apt metaphor, that of dog-eat-dog. When we devour each other, we are no better than animals.

Not so straightforward is the explanation given by Rabbi Moshe Leib of Sassov, cited by Rabbi Mark Dratch in Foundations of Faith, a collection of insights into Avot by Rabbi Norman Lamm. For this early Chassidic master the word מוֹרָאָהּ (mora’ah, “fear of it”) does not refer to fear imposed on citizens by the government, but rather to the fear experienced by the government authorities themselves—this being fear for their own survival. As Rabbi Lamm puts it,

“[Reb Moshe Leib] reads the mishnah thus. Pray for the peace of the government, for if not for fear of its own survival it would permit every man to swallow his neighbor alive. Politicians, all those in authority, do not care for anything more than their own welfare, the survival of the establishment of which they are a part. They could not care less if society as such would fall into total disarray, one man swallowing the other alive. It is just that this anarchy and chaos would jeopardize the government itself, and that is why they are interested in “law and order”. Nevertheless, better a selfish government, whose only motivation is perpetuation of its own political rule, than the wild chaos of anarchy. That is why Judaism has ordained: pray for the peace of the government”.

I’m not sure that this is right.

In the first place, we have seen in our own lifetimes how some governments—notably those of the Assad regime in Syria and what passes for government in Haiti—would appear to depend on the preservation of a situation in which the government’s opponents are played off against each other, thereby weakening both themselves and their enemies. Where governments thrive on anarchy and depend on it for their own survival, we must be careful what we pray for.

Secondly, one can challenge the unsupported proposition of “better a selfish government, whose only motivation is perpetuation of its own political rule, than the wild chaos of anarchy”.  Do the facts on the ground suggest that the regimes of Hitler and Stalin are in any meaningful sense ‘better’ than anarchy? And why should it be assumed that the emotive term ‘anarchy’ is to be equated with ‘wild chaos’? China before the Red Revolution had a largely agrarian peasant population that practised an ancient and apparently stable way of life before it was organized into a regime of Communism. The real threat there was poverty, a condition that is sadly endemic in most parts of the world.

Nonetheless, it is incumbent on us to pray for the peace of the realm. Peace, in its true and absolute form, is one of the three pillars on which the world stands (Avot 1:2)—even if it is in short supply.

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

Addendum: here's a list of earlier posts on the same mishnah

• Canadian canaries in the coalmine here
• Praying for the welfare of a bad government here
• Syria after Assad: a question for Avot here
• On the march with Pirkei Avot here

Soul Purpose

Soul Purpose, subtitled “Your Daily Dose of Wisdom from Pirkei Avot”, is the latest text on that popular tractate to emanate from Mosaica Press. The author, Ruchi Koval, is no stranger to the printed word: this is her third title, following Soul Construction and Conversations with God.

So what does Ruchi bring to Avot? Quite a lot, it seems. Her goal is not to produce a learned tome on the subject, replete with footnotes and scholarly reference points. Rather, it is to slice and dice Avot into concise and accessible messages—rarely more than a page in length—that, taken cumulatively, are intended as an aid to personal growth and spiritual reflection. There is a message for every day of the calendar year (including 29 February), each one closing with a personal resolution along the lines of “Today I will/won’t” do A, B or C.

Ruchi’s inspiration is the commentary on Avot by Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch. The reason for this is not immediately obvious, since there is no similarity of style or repetition of content. Rather, she points to functionality. What was Rabbi Hirsch seeking to do? He was striving to seize and retain the attention of a readership consisting in the main of secularly educated and cultured Jews who may have committed little time to detailed analysis and speculation on issues of Jewish ethical philosophy. In seeking to do so, Rabbi Hirsch was constrained by considerations of space: his commentary was to be wrapped around the text of Avot in the Siddur Avodas Yisroel. With limited scope for spreading the message of the mishnah, every word had to count.

Taken individually, each day’s message bears contemporary relevance, particularly (but by no means exclusively) for the typical educated middle-class Anglo-American Jew with one foot planted firmly in the secular world and the planted perhaps a little less firmly in the world of commitment to Torah study and to the more serious aspects of Jewish lifestyle. Some mini-essays are easier than others to relate to the underlying mishnah, but this is inevitable if repetition is to be minimised.

For the reader who takes this book seriously and actually reads it at the rate of just one page a day, stopping to think about the moral underlying each mishnah (or part thereof), there can be great personal benefits to be derived. But woe to the reader who is tempted to go from day to day at a single sitting: the potential for personal improvement will be in danger of being drowned in a sea of noble aspirations.

For further details of Ruchi Koval click here.

For Ruchi Koval books on Amazon click here.

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

“I love you because”

Senior readers may recall a song, penned in 1949, with the title “I Love You Because”. It became a minor hit in the 1960s and has since subsided into respectable obscurity. Its theme was that of the ranking of reasons for loving another person, culminating in an endorsement of unconditional love as the highest form (“I love you most of all because you’re you”).

There’s a fascinating anonymous mishnah in the fifth perek that addresses this very them. It reads thus:

כָּל אַהֲבָה שֶׁהִיא תְלוּיָה בְדָבָר, בָּטֵל דָּבָר בְּטֵלָה אַהֲבָה, וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ תְּלוּיָה בְדָבָר, אֵינָהּ בְּטֵלָה לְעוֹלָם. אֵיזוֹ הִיא אַהֲבָה שֶׁהִיא תְלוּיָה בְדָבָר, זוֹ אַהֲבַת אַמְנוֹן וְתָמָר, וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ תְּלוּיָה בְדָבָר, זוֹ אַהֲבַת דָּוִד וִיהוֹנָתָן

Any love that is dependent on something—when that thing ceases, the love also ceases. But a love that is not dependent on anything never ceases. What is [an example of] a love that is dependent on something? The love of Amnon and Tamar.  And one that is not dependent on anything? The love of David and Jonathan (Avot 5:19).

There is an obvious problem for any modern reader who is familiar with the back stories of these relationships, both of which are found in the Tanach in the Books of Samuel. The comparison appears inappropriate in that, while David and Jonathan’s feelings towards one another were reciprocated, there was no loving relationship between Amnon and Tamar. We would describe Amnon’s feelings toward his half sister in terms of infatuation and a lust to possess her sexually, while there is no record of Tamar having any warm feelings towards Amnon at all.

Are there better examples of relationships that failed when the condition that underpinned them no longer prevailed? That of Shimshon and Delilah works no better than our case here, since again we have no indication that Delilah actually loved Shimshon or that Shimshon ceased to love Delilah. Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau (Yachel Yisrael) however hits the target in Megillat Esther, where he points out that Haman has lots of friends (ohavov, which also means ‘lovers’) when he is in the ascendant at 5:14. However at 6:13, once it becomes apparent that things are going against him, he still thinks of having such friends but they are not. Having seen the beginning of Haman’s downfall they are now chachamov, men who are wise to him.

Reverting to our mishnah, since no love was felt by Tamar towards Amnon, the only thing that could be described as “love” in their relationship was Amnon’s desire to possess her. But on what did that desire depend? Presumably on her unavailability to him, and once that unavailability had been forcibly removed, Tamar no longer appealed to him, The Alshich (Yarim Moshe) puts it another way: it was not her unavailability that drew Amnon to her but her innocence which, once lost, was irretrievable. Additionally, Amnon may have assumed that, once he possessed Tamar, her eyes would be opened and she would see him through fresh, admiring eyes. When this did not happen, he may have felt inadequate and humiliated himself. We shall never know.

Bartenura suggests that Amnon’s attraction was based on Tamar’s beauty, which indicates that the element on which the love was contingent can be subjective. Unless Tamar’s appearance altered radically as a result of the rape, we are given to understand that what changed was not her beauty but Amnon’s subjective assessment of it. Rabbi Eliezer Liepman puts it differently: what changed was Amnon’s self-induced delusion that his feeling towards her was one of love.

Does it actually matter whether we know the trigger that destroyed Amnon’s desire for Tamar, or whether it is what we might today call ‘love’ or not?  Perhaps not. For Rabbi Shlomo P. Toperoff (Lev Avot) we should focus on the message of the mishnah as a whole and not on the inexcusable behaviour of Amnon. He writes:

“The reader of the mishnah is struck by an obvious omission. The act of Amnon and Tamar is not characterised as shameful, nor is the friendship of David and Jonathan hailed as extraordinary. The mishnah neither castigates the one nor praises the other. The failure of the one and the success of the other rests on our approach to God and man. Do we love God? Do we love our fellow man? This is the burden of our mishnah”.

He continues at length by citing Devarim 6:5 (“You should love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might”) and implying that this is the yardstick against which we humans should ideally measure our feelings towards one another. In this context he cites the love we owe to the stranger, the violent and even the criminal. It may be a tough challenge, but we should ask what is expected of us and what is needed by others in any relationship we may have with them.

I doubt that this is precisely the message that the author of our mishnah intended to convey, but it is a powerful one. The yardstick of our love for God is an uncomfortable one to measure ourselves against, since it is axiomatic that God is unchanging and represents the highest quality of truth and justice while we humans are, well, human—and we all know in our heart of hearts that there are times when it less easy for others to love us. Thoughts, anyone?

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

Licence to hate?

Rabbi Asher Weiss is one of the most popular and respected of contemporary Torah scholars, and rightly so. His opinions are highly sought-after and greatly valued. I have recently been reading his two-volume exegesis on Avot, Rav Asher Weiss on Avos, and was intrigued as to what his take on this fascinating segment of the Oral Law might be.

I think that it is fair to say that, on the whole, the reader will not be treated to a wide variety of personal opinions. Rav Weiss’s objective is to lay Avot open as a platform for the teachings of the Tannaim who composed it and of a selection of the most widely followed commentators who discussed it, rather than to use it—as I try to do—as a means of reflecting how ancient morality plays out in modern times, or as a soapbox from which to promulgate one’s personal prejudices and preferences.

Because Rav Weiss has chosen to follow this path, I tend to place great significance on those relatively infrequent occasions when he chooses to depart from it. One such departure is in his commentary on Avot 3:18 (it’s 3:15 in his book) in which Rabbi Akiva teaches this:

חָבִיב אָדָם שֶׁנִּבְרָא בְּצֶֽלֶם, חִבָּה יְתֵרָה נוֹדַֽעַת לוֹ שֶׁנִּבְרָא בְּצֶֽלֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: כִּי בְּצֶֽלֶם אֱלֹהִים עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם. חֲבִיבִין יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ בָנִים לַמָּקוֹם, חִבָּה יְתֵרָה נוֹדַֽעַת לָהֶם שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ בָנִים לַמָּקוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: בָּנִים אַתֶּם לַייָ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם. חֲבִיבִין יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּתַּן לָהֶם כְּלִי חֶמְדָּה, חִבָּה יְתֵרָה נוֹדַֽעַת לָהֶם שֶׁנִּתַּן לָהֶם כְּלִי חֶמְדָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: כִּי לֶֽקַח טוֹב נָתַֽתִּי לָכֶם, תּוֹרָתִי אַל תַּעֲזֹֽבוּ

Beloved is man, for he was created in the image [of God]; it is a sign of even greater love that it was made known to him that he was created in that image, as it says, "For in the image of God, He made man" (Bereishit 9:6). Beloved are Israel, for they are called children of God; it is a sign of even greater love that it has been made known to them that they are called children of God, as it is stated: "You are children of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1). Beloved are Israel, for they were given a precious article; it is a sign of even greater love that it has been made known to them that they were given a precious article, as it is stated: "I have given you a good purchase; My Torah, do not forsake it" (Mishlei 4:2).

On this lengthy mishnah Rav Weiss goes off-piste for a moment and focuses sharply, if discreetly, on the world we live in today. He writes:

“The question was posed by someone who employs a non-Jewish manager in one of his businesses. This fellow serves him with great devotion and efficiency. Naturally, the employer feels gratitude and love toward this employee. But his conscience is disturbing him, and he asks whether it is permitted to love this non-Jew or is it perhaps a mitzvah to hate him.

Before you ask whether it is permisslble to love a non-Jew, you should first ask whether it is actually a mitzvah to love him. For hating anyone—even a non-Jew—is a shameful character trait.

I am aware that among those keepers of the faith, those who are exacting in the performance of mitzvos great and small alike, the idea has taken root that we should hate the non-Jews, and that anyone who says otherwise is suspected to be a ‘modernizer’ worthy of scrutiny. However, I will cite two reliable and holy witnesses who have testified otherwise”.

Rav Weiss invokes in support of his position the authority of Rav Chaim Vital and Rabbeinu Elimelech of Lizhensk, following which he delves back into the Talmud Yerushalmi, where the commentary of the Korban HaEidah reminds us of the primacy of the principle that all humans come from the same father.

In an era where hatred, suspicion and distrust of the other seem to have become so deeply and indelibly ingrained in the human psyche, it is refreshing and welcome to see Rav Weiss endorse so positive an attitude.

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

Going strong?

At Avot 4:1 Ben Zoma asks and answers four questions, of which the second is this:

אֵיזֶהוּ גִבּוֹר, הַכּוֹבֵשׁ אֶת יִצְרוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: טוֹב אֶֽרֶךְ אַפַּֽיִם מִגִּבּוֹר, וּמוֹשֵׁל בְּרוּחוֹ מִלֹּכֵד עִיר

Who is a gibor (“strongman”)? Someone who overpowers their inclinations. As it states (in Mishlei 16:32): "Better one who is slow to anger than a strongman, and one who rules over his spirit [is better than] than one who captures a city."

For the Sefat Emet this is obvious in quantitative terms: every individual is an olam katan (a miniature world). Anyone who can keep a lid on his own inclinations has thus conquered a whole world—which is a far greater achievement than merely conquering a city. Such a person is a true gibor.

The word gibor literally means “strong” in a physical sense. However, the notion that real strength lies outside the realms of the purely physical can be traced back to the Torah and appears frequently in Tanach. Thus we are taught that power lies in reliance on God rather than on numerical superiority, weapons and chariots (Tehillim 20:8), and that God desires the respect or fear of his subjects, not their might or their horsepower (Devarim 7:7, Tehillim 147:10-11).  The Jewish people are likened to a sheep surrounded by 70 wolves, their protection being contingent on the strength of their belief in God (Midrash Tanchuma, Toledot 6; Esther Rabbah 10:11). The related word gevurah (“strength”) is regarded as the special attribute of one of the three Patriarchs, Yitzchak: his strength as portrayed in the Torah is an inner strength that enables him to place his trust firmly in the hands of his God-fearing father Avraham, letting himself be led unresistingly to what appeared to be a proposed act of human sacrifice in which he was the intended victim (Bereshit 22:1-19).

Ben Zoma adds a further ingredient to this mix: gevurah is a person’s ability to control himself—the exercise of bechirah (“free will”)—that marks him out as truly strong. There are many facets to this degree of self-control and they go way beyond the trifling victories on which it is so easy to congratulate oneself. Politely refusing that deliciously inviting third slice of cake in the company of friends, even though one would rather have liked to eat it, is not solely the result of self-control since it is also the product of subliminal peer pressure on the part of those whose inhibiting presence cannot be discounted. Refusing the same piece of cake when there is no-one but God to watch is an entirely different matter.

Ben Zoma’s vision of strength as self-control may well be the basis for an important midrashic interpretation of a passage in Psalms (Tehillim 103:20) where the term giborei ko’ach (literally “mighty ones of strength”) is understood as a reference to those who exercise stoic self-control during the shemittah year,826 when they can neither farm their land nor stop strangers coming on to their land and eating whatever produce might be found there (Vayikra Rabbah 1:1).

Of all the personalities depicted in Tanach, the one who stands out in terms of sheer physical power is the last of the Judges, Shimshon. In Jewish tradition he is generally referred to as “Shimshon HaGibor” (“Samson the Strong”). Not only is this appellation not to be found in the Book of Judges (the first use of “Shimshon HaGibor” appears to be in the Mechilta deRabbi); in the light of this Mishnah it would appear on a plain reading of the text to be entirely inappropriate. Of all Israel’s Judges, there is none who appears as incapable of exercising self-control as Shimshon. His two unsuitable marriages, each time to a Philistine woman, appear to have been precipitated by passion, his acts of violent revenge extended far beyond the scope of retribution against those who had angered or deceived him, and he was unable to resist the persistent requests of his wife that he reveal the secret of his God-given strength.

Since the recorded description of Shimshon’s physical strength was beyond doubt, the addition of the epithet “hagibor” adds nothing to our understanding, so what is it doing there at all? Might it be that the term is being used in a manner that is ironical or euphemistic, in the same way as the words “sagi nahor” (“sufficient light”) are applied to someone who is blind?

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

The real burden?

At Avot 3:6 Rabbi Nechunyah ben Hakanah teaches:

כָּל הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עוֹל תּוֹרָה, מַעֲבִירִין מִמֶּֽנּוּ עוֹל מַלְכוּת וְעוֹל דֶּֽרֶךְ אֶֽרֶץ, וְכָל הַפּוֹרֵק מִמֶּֽנוּ עוֹל תּוֹרָה, נוֹתְנִין עָלָיו עוֹל מַלְכוּת וְעוֹל דֶּֽרֶךְ אֶֽרֶץ

Anyone who accepts upon himself the yoke of Torah—they remove from him the yoke of government duties and the yoke of worldly cares; but one who casts off the yoke of Torah is saddled with the yoke of government duties and the yoke of worldly cares.

The thrust of this mishnah is hard to miss, since it speaks of how a person can fill the day. We have a choice, so why not accept the burden of Torah study and dedicate yourself to its study? In theory, God will provide for your every need. For the purposes of reality this means that, assuming that you are truly dedicated to this task and that others around you are aware of this, they will act in accordance with God’s will, shouldering your non-Torah responsibilities on your behalf. This will leave you free to focus fully on Torah study, a pursuit that is not only commendable in itself but benefits the community that supports you.

I recently found a couple of fascinating insights in R’ Yisroel Miller’s The Wisdom of Avos which read the mishnah as meaning something quite different.

The first insight is the surprising one that saddling the person who shrugs off Torah with the burdens of civic duty and having to make a living is not a punishment or a deterrent. Rather, it is a benefit. Why? Because “human beings with too much leisure time inevitably get into trouble”.  This observation might seem strange in the context of this mishnah, but it is quite in keeping with the tone of Rabban Gamliel the son of Rebbi at Avot 2:2: there we learn of the virtue of combining Torah learning with derech eretz (pursuit of a worldly occupation) since the combination of the two makes one forget to sin.

The second insight is a psychological one:

“Too many people are obsessed with keeping up with the news and worrying about it, especially various kinds of political news (the yoke of government). And how much energy do we expend worrying about our finance and our careers (the yoke of derech eretz)?”.

To political news one might add the unceasing stream of what passes for war news, much of which consists of rumour, opinion, unverified statements, bitter accusations and untested suggestions—and which is difficult to resist, irrespective of its low veracity content and its ability to anger and upset those who are compelled to endlessly consume it.

R’ Miller continues:

“The Jew who has voluntarily accepted the yoke of Torah is not oblivious to current event, and he also puts in the necessary effort to making a living, but his emotional energy is not drained away with worry, because the focus of his day is elsewhere”.

These sentiments eloquently build on an observation made many years ago by R’ Reuben p. Bulka (Chapters of the Sages). Acknowledging that both Torah study and commitment to secular activities are capable of inducing stress, he adds:

“There are always forces which drive the individual, and anxieties which confront the individual who is faced with negotiating these forces. It is up to the individual to choose which anxiety will be the primary one”.

The challenge for each of us is to make the right choice, and then to make the best of the choice once we have made it.

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here

Holding the line

Yesterday I was waiting a little restlessly in line to pay for my purchases. I am rarely impatient, but the line was long, the day was hot and I was holding three Chocolate Magnums which I hoped to bring home in a solid state.

At the head of the line was a man who was holding us all up. His purchases had been checked through and the man at the check-out desk was awaiting payment. Our customer was however in no hurry. He was conducting a social conversation by phone to a friend of his. The phone was in loudspeaker mode so we were all regaled with this dialogue. The customer himself had a stentorian voice and it was difficult and distracting to do anything else while he was speaking. Eventually the next customer in line politely asked him if he would please lower the volume of his voice and also pay for his goods. He turned to her in rage and bellowed at her: "Who gave you authority to tell me how loud my voice should be?" At length, the man paid, took his groceries and left the store, to the manifest relief of those still there. What, I asked myself, were the provisions of Pirkei Avot that might apply to this rude and selfish behaviour? Shopping etiquette is not a topic that gets much coverage in Avot, though Rabbi Akiva (Avot 3:20) reminds us that one can't go shopping on credit and expect not to have to pay in the end. In the end, I decided that the appropriate mishnah in Avot was one authored by the saintly Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa at Avot 3:13:

כֹּל שֶׁרֽוּחַ הַבְּרִיּוֹת נוֹחָה הֵימֶֽנּוּ, רֽוּחַ הַמָּקוֹם נוֹחָה הֵימֶֽנּוּ. וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין רֽוּחַ הַבְּרִיּוֹת נוֹחָה הֵימֶֽנּוּ, אֵין רֽוּחַ הַמָּקוֹם נוֹחָה הֵימֶֽנּוּ

Someone who is pleasing to his fellow humans is pleasing to God. But one who is not pleasing to his fellow humans does not please God.

In a tractate that focuses on good behavioral characteristics and moral conduct, this teaching seems out of place. All it appears to do at first glance is to address our relationship with God. But if it belongs in Avot at all, this teaching must have a message for us in our daily lives—and this is it. Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa is actually cautioning us that, when we have a choice in how we behave, we should act in such a way as to give pleasure to others, and certainly not choose the path that will annoy or antagonise them. Why, because we will not only incur the displeasure of those whom we could have made happy, or not rubbed up the wrong way. We will also incur the displeasure of God.

Oh, and if you were wondering -- the Chocolate Magnums got home safe and sound.

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here

A message for man, a message for the many

We return to Akavya ben Mahalalel’s mishnah (Avot 3:1) which we considered here just before Pesach in the context of the human decision-making process: we asked how much time, and indeed how much honesty, we need to expend both in deciding that our actions are important enough to think about carefully and in devoting sufficient time to make them. To refresh our memories, his teaching in full reads like this:

הִסְתַּכֵּל בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים, וְאֵין אַתָּה בָא לִידֵי עֲבֵרָה. דַּע מֵאַֽיִן בָּֽאתָ, וּלְאָן אַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ, וְלִפְנֵי מִי אַתָּה עָתִיד לִתֵּן דִּין וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן.

מֵאַֽיִן בָּֽאתָ: מִטִּפָּה סְרוּחָה. וּלְאָן אַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ: לִמְקוֹם עָפָר רִמָּה וְתוֹלֵעָה. וְלִפְנֵי מִי אַתָּה עָתִיד לִתֵּן דִּין וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן: לִפְנֵי מֶֽלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא

Reflect upon three things and you will not come to the grip of transgression. Know from where you came, where you are going, and before whom you are destined to give a judgement and accounting.

From where you came—from a putrid drop; where you are going—to a place of dust, maggots and worms; and before whom you are destined to give a judgement and accounting—before the supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He.

I’ve laid out the mishnah in two sections: this shows clearly that, the first time round, the three things are listed by themselves, while second time through they are accompanied by what Akavya ben Mahalalel regards as the right thing to be thinking about.  Since Tannaim are notoriously sparing with their words, much thought has been given to the apparently long-winded presentation of this teaching, which could simply have read (in English):

Reflect on three things and you will not come to the grip of transgression. Know that you came from a putrid drop, that you are going to a place of dust, maggots and worms, and that you are destined to give a judgement and accounting before the supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He.

Some commentators have intuited that the reason for this apparent prolixity is that there are actually two separate teachings here, addressed to different people. Thus the Noam Elimelech understands that there are two archetypes among those who seek to pursue God and live in accordance with His will. One is the person whose aspirations soar ever upwards.  He views God and His creations with wonder and excitement; he rejoices that he lives in a world where he has the chance to demonstrate his love of God and his devotion to His commandments, and he looks forward to the world to come. This person can address Akavya’s issues without need for a prompt from their author since his mind admits of no doubt: where does he come from? From a miraculous process that implants a noble soul into the physical body. Where is he going? To an eternal life after death in which he, as a faithful servant, is assured of his reward? And before whom does he give an account of himself? Before God, his Lord and Master to whom he has dedicated his very existence.

The other archetype seeks closeness to God through the opposite route. He is deeply in awe of the world and its Creator and is constantly aware of his inadequacy and insignificance, and the transient nature of his bodily existence. He seeks to purify his soul through the pursuit of humility and through purging himself of even the suspicion of sin. For him, since he lives in constant terror of transgressing God’s commandments, Akavya provides the answers: remember your low, insignificant origin and the fate that awaits the body that you might be tempted to preen and pamper—and never forget that you are accountable to the Ultimate Authority for your every act, word and thought.

But there are many other possible explanations for the two-part arrangement of this mishnah.

For Gila Ross (Living Beautifully), one part—presumably the second—speaks to a damage limitation exercise regarding one’s soul, How does one return one’s soul unblemished to its Maker? The mishnah spells it out. But the other part refers to the actions that we are about to take and using the questions as a sort of check-list for examining one’s own motivation (this theme takes us back to the theme of our previous post on this topic, mentioned above).

Another example comes from Rabbi Shlomo P. Toperoff’s Lev Avot. For him, recognition by the individual of his or her personal past should be a trigger for thinking about one’s collective past too. He writes:

“[Recognition of an individual’s past] to help us to acknowledge the miracle of our collective survival.

This leads us to the historical interpretation of the words ‘Know whence you came’. We are a people of history, links in an endless chain of tradition. We cannot detach ourselves from the past with its sublime teachings and eternal truths …”.

The same applies to where we are going as a nation, and before Whom we continue to be called to account. So this mishnah, second time through, applies to each of us, while the first version applies to Israel as a collective, to the Jewish people as a whole. May we take to heart the moral of this mishnah and satisfy the giving of an account and the great reckoning that will surely follow it.

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

Illicit pleasures of the night?

Does it matter what you do in the middle of the night? And is it anyone else’s business? To any Jew who subscribes to the all-pervasive effect of Torah law and guidelines for Jewish ethics, the answer can only be a resounding “Yes!”  The binding force of Torah and the cultivation of good middot are not subject to such random considerations as whether the sky is sunny or starry, or on the direction in which the hands of the clock are pointing.

At Avot 3:5 Rabbi Chanina ben Chachinai teaches:

הַנֵּעוֹר בַּלַּֽיְלָה, וְהַמְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּֽרֶךְ יְחִידִי, וּמְפַנֶּה לִבּוֹ לְבַטָּלָה, הֲרֵי זֶה מִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ

 One who stays awake at night, travels alone on the road and turns his heart to idleness is liable for his soul.

There’s no such thing in Avot as a mishnah with a single meaning and an unequivocal explanation, and this one is no exception. Before we even get to the starting line, as it were, we have to make a big decision about a small letter: the vav (וְ). Does it mean “and”, as it usually does, or the less common “or”? In other words, is Rabbi Chanina thinking of one individual or three? If the former, what of the soul of the person who only ticks two boxes by staying awake at night and travelling alone—but would never contemplate turning his heart to idleness? We can also ask whether there is a hierarchy among the three things listed here: we all spend sleepless nights from time to time, rarely through choice, but how many of us venture out alone at night in the sort of conditions that must have pertained in the wild, lawless days of the Tannaim?

The position of many traditional commentators can easily be guessed: night-time, for one who is not fast asleep, is the perfect time for learning Torah (see eg Rabbenu Yonah, Sefat Emet)—but this is plainly not what the person described by Rabbi Chanina has in mind: a sly and furtive dodger who uses the cover of night to exploit his solo mischief.

Chasidic commentators offer their own original takes on this mishnah. Thus Rabbi Tzvi Chanoch of Bendin sees the real warning of this teaching as to make sure that you are not a yechidi—doing your own thing by yourself.  For as long as you are in the company of others, being up at night is no great problem and you are less likely to lead yourself into a life of abandonment.

As usual, contemporary commentators may not actually explain what the mishnah means, but they use it as a springboard for valuable thoughts and insights of their own. This R’ Yisrael Miller (The Wisdom of Avos) writes:

“If the sin here is bitul Torah, it would not be confined to nighttime or travel. Instead, it refers to thinking about the great questions in life we must ask ourselves, but seldom do. “Why am I here in this world? What will happen to me when I die? What does Hashem want of me? What should I change, and how should I go about it?””.

So far, R’ Miller looks as though he is basically paraphrasing the three things that Akavya ben Mahalalel lists for a person to contemplate in order to avoid sin (Avot 3:1). But then he makes his real point:

“Solitude gives us the opportunity to think about these things and, more importantly, to meditate, to turn the ideas over and over in our minds, and to try to internalize them as realities. Most people will not take the trouble to set aside times for serious thought, but when an effortless opportunity presents itself, e.g. alone on the road or late at night, to ignore it is truly a sin against one’s own soul”

A lovely thought, and a great way to put a positive slant on what might easily be taken as a negative teaching.

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

Moses -- not so humble after all?

In an anonymous mishnah at Avot 5:14 we encounter four personality types with whom we are well familiar:

אַרְבַּע מִדּוֹת בְּדֵעוֹת: נֽוֹחַ לִכְעוֹס וְנֽוֹחַ לֵרָצוֹת, יָצָא הֶפְסֵדוֹ בִּשְׂכָרוֹ. קָשֶׁה לִכְעוֹס וְקָשֶׁה לֵרָצוֹת, יָצָא שְׂכָרוֹ בְּהֶפְסֵדוֹ. קָשֶׁה לִכְעוֹס וְנֽוֹחַ לֵרָצוֹת, חָסִיד. נֽוֹחַ לִכְעוֹס וְקָשֶׁה לֵרָצוֹת, רָשָׁע

There are four types of temperament. A person who is easy to anger and easy to calm down—his loss is cancelled out by his gain. One who is hard to anger and hard to calm down—his gain is cancelled out by his loss. One whom it is hard to anger but easy to calm down is a chasid. One who is easy to anger but hard to calm down is wicked.

Maharam Shik is initially troubled by this mishnah. We are supposed to choose middot that are good, but being quick to anger and slow to cool off are part and parcel of our natural package as humans. These characteristics are surely not things we choose: they are hard-wired within us. Why then stigmatise such a person as being wicked? The answer can only be that one must fight and overcome one’s inherent nature. If we can do this, Ben Zoma (Avot 4:1) praises us for demonstrating our strength of character.

So far we have learned nothing new. Most commentators are not troubled by the designation of the quick-to-anger, slow-to-cool person as wicked: they appear to assume that this is effectively a matter of choice: you are wicked if you don’t change your fundamental character trait of anger. Though this view prevails, it has attracted further refinements. For the Alshich, we regard this person as wicked in order not to learn from his ways and copy him. For the Gemara, one who yields to his anger and serves it is to be equated with an idolator (Shabbat 105b).

Maharam Shik now takes the notion that we can indeed choose to change our nature and applies it in an entirely different context.

There is a remarkable, superficially incomprehensible midrash at the very end of Yalkut Shimoni (VeZot Haberachah 966) which refers to the final verse in the Torah (Devarim 34:12):

וּלְכֹל הַיָּד הַחֲזָקָה, וּלְכֹל הַמּוֹרָא הַגָּדוֹל, אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה, לְעֵינֵי כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל

“And by all the mighty hand, and by all the great terror, which Moses wrought in the sight of all Israel”.

According to the Midrash, God wanted to write the factually more correct verse

 וּלְכֹל הַיָּד הַחֲזָקָה, וּלְכֹל הַמּוֹרָא הַגָּדוֹל, אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יהוה, לְעֵינֵי כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל

“And by all the mighty hand, and by all the great terror, which God wrought in the sight of all Israel”.

Moses however objected and asked that he, not God, be named as the one who wielded the mighty hand and great terror—and God agreed to do this. This midrash, Maharam Shik exclaims, is astonishing. Here we have Moses, whom the Torah itself records as being the humblest of men, demanding of God that he and not the Almighty be credited for all time as the one who worked great miracles in the eyes of all Israel. How can this be?

For those who read midrashim literally, there is no hope of a meaningful reconciliation of this message with our understanding of the Torah, and even for those who look beyond the narrative there is a hard task ahead to dress it up as the vehicle to convey a deeper moral. But Maharam Shik is up to the task.

Moses was indeed the humblest of men, but he was also a consummate teacher. He alone of our ancient sages is given the epithet ‘Rabbenu’ (our teacher). So let us postulate that this midrash is telling us a tale about a teacher.

What was the greatest of the miracles that God wrought for the Israelite people during their transition from slavery in idolatrous Egypt to the foundation of an independent monotheistic commonwealth under God? Keri’at Yam Suf, the splitting of the Reed Sea.  How did this happen? What the Israelites saw with their own eyes was Moses stretching his hand out over the sea (Shemot 14:21), which then dramatically parted. They did not of course see God. 

The midrash shows us a man performing an action which produces a result that runs contrary to the natural order and indeed defies it. This scenario depicts the possibility that man can conquer the natural order and transcend the derech teva. Now, if Moses can achieve the apparently impossible through his acts, surely we can learn from this that it is possible for us too to  transcend the same derech teva—by choosing not to flare angrily up when our nature urges to do so and, if we have given in to our inner feelings, by swiftly regaining our composure.

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