In successive mishnayot in the first perek of Avot, two rabbis reflect quite different perspectives on what should go on in one’s home:
יוֹסֵי בֶּן
יוֹעֶֽזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵדָה אוֹמֵר: יְהִי בֵיתְךָ בֵּית וַֽעַד לַחֲכָמִים, וֶהֱוֵי
מִתְאַבֵּק בַּעֲפַר רַגְלֵיהֶם, וֶהֱוֵי שׁוֹתֶה בַצָּמָא אֶת דִּבְרֵיהֶם
Yose ben Yoezer Ish Tzreidah says:
Let your home be a meeting place for the wise; wrestle in the dust of their
feet, and drink thirstily of their words (Avot 1:4).
יוֹסֵי בֶּן
יוֹחָנָן אִישׁ יְרוּשָׁלַֽיִם אוֹמֵר: יְהִי בֵיתְךָ פָּתֽוּחַ לִרְוָחָה,
וְיִהְיוּ עֲנִיִּים בְּנֵי בֵיתְךָ, וְאַל תַּרְבֶּה שִׂיחָה עִם הָאִשָּׁה
Yose ben Yochanan Ish
Yerushalayim says: Let your home be wide open, and let the poor be members of
your household. And do not engage in excessive conversation with a woman (Avot
1:5). …
The plain meaning of these teachings is easy to fathom, but
how relevant are they today? After all, making one’s home a meeting house for
the wise is an aspiration which for many logistical reasons most of us never
have a chance to fulfil, while keeping open house for all and sundry is
generally regarded in our time as a course of action that is dangerous and downright
foolhardy.
A recent event involving the Avot Today Facebook Group has
caused me to reflect in depth on these two teachings.
I have long welcomed contributions to the Group by other
authors but rarely receive any. This is a pity because both me and my readers
can learn from hearing another voice and no person has a monopoly on the wisdom
of our Sages. Recently, however, I have received some from a Group member. Once
I had a chance to read a couple, I concluded that I could post them—subject to
the making of what I considered a minor editorial change that would make them
acceptable not only to me but to my readers. I informed their author accordingly, then sat
back and waited for him to thank me for my suggestions and resubmit them so
that they could be shared.
What happened next quite took me by surprise. My prospective
author was clearly insulted and upset by my editorial proposals. In short, he
disagreed with the need to make them and felt that, on the basis of his many
decades of experience, his way was efficacious. He asked me to reconsider my
decision. I have. I believe that I am correct in my assessment and that he is
not. I shall not therefore be sharing his posts. Since he has assured me that
there are other outlets through which he can share his work, no harm is done.
This takes me to the two mishnayot I have cited above. In
the age of the social media, Facebook pages function much as houses. Most are the
private property of their owners. Some are communes. Some are more like guest
houses or hotels. Yose ben Yoezer and Yose ben Yochanan are both writing, as it
were, about a property to which visitors are welcome. Yose ben Yoezer restricts
access to his house to scholars and those who, in his assessment, are best
placed to benefit from their scholarship, while Yose ben Yochanan literally keeps
open house: his Facebook page is open to anyone who cares to post on it. My
idea of Avot Today fits well with Yose ben Yoezer; my erstwhile contributor’s
idea of the Avot Today Group chimes in with the teaching of Yose ben Yochanan.
This contrast is not new, of course. The Bartenura at Avot
1:1 relates that admission to the Beit Midrash of Rabban Gamliel was restricted
only to those talmidim who matched the criterion of tocho kevaro (that their
behavior was consistent with their appearance). This restrictive approach was
abolished by Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, who opened the doors of the Beit Midrash
to all who wished to learn. This outcome was clearly in support of Yose ben
Yochanan.
Against that, we find a more analogous case in the redaction
of the Mishnah, when Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi closely scrutinized the teachings of Tannaim
of earlier generations and his own, selecting only those that he deemed
appropriate for inclusion in the Mishnah while excluding the rest. We still
have the teachings that he rejected. These are the baraitot and toseftot that
have been lovingly preserved (and learned) by subsequent generations despite
their rejection.
For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.
