THE POWER TO SAY “YES”, "NO"--AND "BETTER NOT"

Pirkei Avot opens with a recital of how the Torah was passed down from Moses on Har Sinai to the Anshei Knesset HaGadolah (the Men of the Great Assembly), who kick-started the real content of Avot—mussar and middot—with three foundational teachings:

הֱווּ מְתוּנִים בַּדִּין, וְהַעֲמִֽידוּ תַּלְמִידִים הַרְבֵּה, וַעֲשׂוּ סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה

Be deliberate in judgement, and establish many pupils, and make a fence around the Torah.

To be מְתוּנִים בַּדִּין (metunim badin, deliberate—or careful—in judgement) was traditionally seen as advice given by judges, since the Great Assembly served as a sort of Supreme Court, to judges.

More recently, this teaching has been given wider scope. After all, we all act as judges, in an informal extrajudicial manner, when evaluating and assessing the behaviour and the worth of our friends, our families and even ourselves. An interesting example of this can be found in Ruchi Koval’s Soul Purpose (a recent Mosaica publication that has the look and feel of an inspirational “women-for-women” text but has plenty to offer men too). After pointing out that our personal judgements can affect others, Koval writes:

“As a parent, I find it so much easier to say “no” than “yes”, so I really have to work on myself to check that urge. Usually the easiest thing is to strike down someone else’s idea, but we need to be more measured than that. Are we saying no because it’s the path of least resistance? Because we are protecting ourselves? Or because it is truly right and good for society? Leaders must be deliberate in their judgements and truly consider all sides before making a decision that impacts the world”.

It is tempting to generalize from one’s own experience because it is at least something that we can subjectively verify. Yet its limitation is obvious. In a disciplined religious environment where respect for parents and teachers prevails and children are not conditioned to get their own way, it may well be easier to say “no”. But observation of humanity in general uggests that, particularly for parents, it is easier to say “yes” than “no”, since a “yes” will end the dialogue and buy time, space and relief for a parent—and it is the temptation to give in, to yield to children’s persistent demands, that must be resisted.

Nonetheless there is good reason to open a debate on the point that Koval raises. In several places the Talmud enunciates the principle of shev ve’al ta’aseh—choose the course of inaction where it is not clear whether one should do something or not. This position may have much to commend it when what is done cannot be undone, while that which is not done can still be done later. However, there are many situations in which action must be taken immediately, particularly in the case of medical matters.

Elsewhere in Avot we are cautioned to avoid a situation of doubt (Rabban Gamliel at 1:16). Taking careful thought ahead of making a decision and acting upon it is the way to remove doubt—or at least to reduce the size of its penumbra).  

For me, the area in which the need to proceed with caution before taking a decision, the need to remove a doubt and the maxim of shev ve’al ta’aseh come together is that in which a rabbi is asked to give a halachic ruling on whether something is permitted or prohibited—but receives the answer “better not”.  This answer complies with the principle of shev ve’al ta’aseh but only to the extent that it discourages action, but the doubt remains unless “better not” is interpreted as a reluctant “yes”.  A “better not” answer can have big consequences for others though. Think of a situation in which the question is “Can I rely on the kashrut of this shop, or restaurant, or licensing authority?” To say “better not” is quicker and easier than to investigate and weigh up the issues, and it may not be possible for a rabbi to gain access to the facts that enable an in-depth analysis to be made before giving a true and honest answer. But it is an answer that can have financial repercussions for a business or Beit Din that was not involved in the Q-and-A process.

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

Doubt, no doubt

Avot 5:8 which lists the ten things—or is it 13, or even 14—that God is said to have created just before the onset of the first Shabbat in history. This anonymous teaching runs as follows:

עֲשָׂרָה דְבָרִים נִבְרְאוּ בְּעֶֽרֶב שַׁבָּת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת, וְאֵֽלּוּ הֵן: פִּי הָאָֽרֶץ, פִּי הַבְּאֵר, פִּי הָאָתוֹן, הַקֶּֽשֶׁת, וְהַמָּן, וְהַמַּטֶּה, וְהַשָּׁמִיר, הַכְּתָב, וְהַמִּכְתָּב, וְהַלֻּחוֹת. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף אַף הַמַּזִּיקִין, וקִבְרוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּֽנוּ, וְאֵילוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִֽינוּ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: וְאַף צְבַת בִּצְבַת עֲשׂוּיָה

Ten things were created at twilight of Shabbat eve. These are the mouth of the earth [that swallowed Korach]; the mouth of [Miriam's] well; the mouth of [Balaam's] donkey; the rainbow; the manna; [Moses'] staff; the shamir; writing, the inscription and the tablets [of the Ten Commandments]. Some say also the mazikim [spirits of destruction] as well as the burial place of Moses and the ram of our father Abraham. And some say also tongs made with tongs.

Ostensibly Pirkei Avot is a tractate that focuses on mussar and middot—moral chastisement and the cultivation of good behavioural characteristics. So how does R’ Ovadyah Bartenura, who asserts at Avot 1:1 that this entire tractate is mussar and middot, handle our mishnah here? In short, he doesn’t address the potential mussar and middot content at all. Instead, he confines himself to discussing the items that the mishnah lists. In this, he is not alone—and he is in good company. A similar approach is taken in the commentary ascribed to Rashi. Rambam, Rabbenu Yonah and the Meiri see this teaching as reflecting upon the relationship between creation, nature and the potential for change, the Meiri adding that the first ten allude to the principles of Jewish faith. In contrast R’ Chaim Volozhin, in his mussar-rich Ruach Chaim, offers no thoughts on the topic.

Some commentators do address the mishnah’s moral content, but in markedly different ways. The Alshich (Yarim Moshe), in a lengthy analysis of all the listed items, offers no overall moral instruction but does allude to separate moral messages that can be extracted from the inclusion of some of them. R’ Shimshon Raphael Hirsch says that the items enumerated in it “have the function of training man for his moral destiny”—but he gives no clue as to the means by which this is to be achieved. R’ Abraham J. Twerski (Visions of the Fathers) goes further. All these items, he states, were created only because Adam sinned; had he not done so, they would not have been needed. If Adam had only repented before the first Shabbat, it would have been as though he had not sinned, and the mishnah shows that God waits for the last moment for us to do teshuvah. This explanation has good Chasidic pedigree: it seemingly originates in the Beit Aharon of R’ Aharon Perlow of Karlin.

R' Shlomo Toperoff makes an attempt to extract some sort of moral from this Mishnah. Focusing on the fact that the listed creations are all made at twilight at the point at which Shabbat comes in, he writes in Lev Avot:

“[Twilight] is the doubtful period which is neither day nor night. This teaches us to resolve our doubts and difficulties prior to the Sabbath rest. When we reach the age of reason and are assailed by doubts and vacillation, we should buttress our faith with an implicit belief in Divine Providence which manifests itself in the constant interplay of the miraculous workings of God throughout life”.

Fine words, but does this Mishnah truly “teach us to resolve our doubts and difficulties prior to the Sabbath rest”? I have problems with this conclusion.

First, we learn here what God did, not what we do. It is frankly inconceivable that God had any doubt when creating the listed items. An omniscient God who creates night and day and distinguishes between, and who desists from work on the seventh day, will by definition have done this work before the onset of the Shabbat without having to face the challenge of doubt which assails us humans.

Secondly, the Tannaim are notoriously sparing with their words. If the need for resolution of doubts is the point of this mishnah, why is it necessary to list so many things? A single example would suffice.

Thirdly, there is already a Mishnah in the first chapter of Avot, where Rabban Gamliel teaches (at 1:16):

הִסְתַּלֵּק מִן הַסָּפֵק

Stay away from doubt.

What purpose is served by teaching here that one should resolve doubts before Shabbat when we are already advised to avoid doubts whether we have them before Shabbat or at any other time?

Fourthly, it is possible that R’ Toperoff is referring not solely to doubts in general but also, as may be the case from his concluding comments, to doubts concerning “Divine Providence and God’s miraculous workings throughout life”, If this is so, it is hard to see how the mishnah’s choice of listed phenomena is an appropriate means of removing the doubts of anyone who harbours uncertainties about God.

Is there an ideal one-size-fits-all answer to the question “what’s the moral message of this mishnah?” Possibly not, but we should commend those rabbis who at least make the effort to find one.

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