Keeping the kernel, discarding the peel

Last week my attention was caught by a striking paragraph in Rabbi Abraham J. Twerski’s popular commentary on Pirkei Avot, Visions of the Fathers, at Avot 4:27 (where Rabbi Meir teaches: “don’t look at the vessel but at what is inside it …”):

…R’ Meir accepted Torah teaching from Elisha ben Avuyah, and … came under criticism for this. The Talmud explains that R’ Meir had the unique capacity to “eat the fruit and discard the peel; i.e. he was able to take what was good from Elisha and reject everything that was tainted with his heretical concepts. R. Meir was unique in being given this latitude. For everyone else the rule remains intact: One does not accept Torah teaching from anyone who does not live a Torah-true life.

Is it really true that only Rabbi Meir was allowed to do this, and that no one else, in his generation or thereafter, might do the same? If so, it is arguably against the spirit of Pirkei Avot itself. Rabbi Meir’s mishnah comes almost at the end of the fourth perek, which opens with prima facie contradictory advice since Ben Zoma teaches: “who is wise? The person who learns from everyone”. This teaching is unqualified and is not restricted to learning Torah, while Rabbi Twerski’s statement that one does not learn from someone who does not live a Torah-true life would appear to apply only to learning Torah. In practice it can be difficult to delineate the two, since Torah is of all-embracing application and, in its widest sense, includes all the natural sciences and a good deal more.

If one assumes that Rabbi Twerski’s statement is correct, it is still appropriate to ask how far it applies in practice. Here are a few thoughts on the subject.

1.     1. In his commentary on the Jewish prayer book, Baruch She’amar: Tefillot Hashanah, Rabbi Baruch HaLevi Epstein addresses the issue of learning from the wicked (whom, we may assume, are not leading Torah-true lives). Theren he discusses whether it is proper to open one’s daily prayers with the verses of praise of the Jewish people first uttered by Balaam. In the course of this discussion—one of the longest in his book—he lists a considerable number of features of Judaism that have been learned from less-than-ideal sources. From this we might infer that it is proper to learn from these sources. It may be that the lessons we derive from the wicked, as recorded in Tanach, are somehow more acceptable because they are not the fruit of a personal relationship between teacher and talmid.

2.      2. Rambam, in the introduction to his Shemonah Perakim, explains why he has chosen not to cite the sources on which he draws: “By mentioning the name of an author of whom a particular author might not approve, I might cause him [to reject the concept, thinking] that it is harmful and that it contains an undesirable intent”. It is generally assumed that some of these sources are non-Jewish and, by definition, not leading Torah-true lives. If they were Jewish and were leading such lives, it is hard to imagine that Rambam would need to issue such a blanket exclusion.

3.    3.   There may be a distinction between learning halachah and middot. As I have often mentioned before, the Bartenura points out that many principles of good and moral behaviour which we hold dear are shared by other nations in the world. To the extent that Jewish ethical teaching runs in parallel with other cultures it may be possible to learn from such cultures, even though we should not seek to learn Torah from them. And if we can learn good middot by observing the behaviour of non-Jews (e.g. learning to honour one’s father from Dama ben Netina: Kiddushin 31a) and even animals (Eruvin 100b), should we not be entitled to learn the same thing from people who do not live Torah-true lives?

I should very much like to hear what readers have to say on this topic. Do please share your thoughts!

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