Beware of the government -- or Beware, government?

If we were editing the mishnah in place of Rebbi (Rabbi Yehudah NaNasi), would we have made the same decisions as to what to include and what to leave out? Though this is an entirely academic question, there is a point to it.  Following the well-established methodology of the Tannaic sages, Rebbi was careful to minimise the use of words but to demand in turn that each word and each teaching was given its fullest meaning. No word spoken by a Tanna could be presumed superfluous, and no teaching should be deemed redundant on account of its apparent duplication of another one.

Would we then have admitted the mishnah at Avot 2:3 into our canon. There, Rebbi’s son Rabban Gamliel teaches:

הֱווּ זְהִירִין בָּרָשׁוּת, שֶׁאֵין מְקָרְבִין לוֹ לְאָדָם אֶלָּא לְצֹֽרֶךְ עַצְמָן, נִרְאִין כְּאוֹהֲבִין בְּשַֽׁעַת הַנָּאָתָן, וְאֵין עוֹמְדִין לוֹ לְאָדָם בְּשַֽׁעַת דָּחֳקוֹ

Be careful with the government, for they befriend a person only for their own needs. They appear to be friends when it is beneficial to them, but they do not stand by a person at the time of his distress.

We might wonder if this teaching is just a verbose extravaganza, amplifying the theme of other, more succinct teachings. Shemayah (at Avot 1:10) has already taught:

אַל תִּתְוַדַּע לָרָשׁוּת

Don’t [even] make yourself known to the government.

Quite apart from that, suspicion and distrust of governments and politicians is a natural phenomenon that is almost as old as mankind itself. We might feel that, just as the common housefly needs no lessons in avoiding the hand that seeks to swat it, so too do most ordinary people instinctively shrink from embracing an institution that demands their support, expects their loyalty, taxes their income and sends them into battle.

Rabbi Yaakov Hillel suggests the importation into Rabban Gamliel’s words of an additional meaning that takes them well beyond their plain meaning while still placing them firmly within the realm of mussar.  He does this by casting the opening words, הֱווּ זְהִירִין בָּרָשׁוּת, as being addressed to politicians and those who wield power and authority.  This means translating them not as “Be careful with the government” but as “Be careful in government”.

What is the significance of this switch? Effectively it turns Rabban Gamliel’s mishnah into a message that goes like this: “Be careful when you are in government. This because you will be perceived as only befriending people when you need something from them. For this reason, don’t provide any basis for this perception to take root. In particular, make sure that you do stand by others at a time of their distress”.

Is this what Rabban Gamliel meant? And is this why Rebbi included this teaching in Avot? We can only guess, and the answer will most likely be “no”—but it’s a great lesson nonetheless.

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

A Mishnah for all seasons? Avot's political guidance in the 21st century

This piece was commissioned for the Judaism Reclaimed Facebook Group, on which it was first posted. 

A notable feature of three parshiyot that conclude Sefer Bereshit is the interaction between the early Israelites and Egyptian officials. Starting with parashat Miketz we encounter Pharaoh, the Head Butler, Joseph’s steward and vice-regal civil servants. Joseph himself operates in a dual capacity: as viceroy of Egypt and a son of Jacob, he is the linchpin around which all the action takes place.

The Torah’s account of court dialogue in these parshiyot is generally polite and formal, as befits any interaction between a group of nomadic immigrants in search of food and favours and a regional superpower which does not appear to have anything to gain by granting Israel’s requests. Even when Yehudah pleads for the release of his captive brother Binyamin—which midrashim portray as a battle royal—he is careful to observe the proprieties of correct etiquette when addressing the viceroy.

Pirkei Avot has a good deal to say about how a Jew should view interactions with officialdom:

Initially, Avot teaches that caution is the watchword when it comes to dealing with public officials and politicians. Shemayah (Avot 1:10) advises us to keep a low profile and remain out of their sight if possible. Rabban Gamliel beRebbi explains why (Avot 2:3): such people are motivated by self-interest and, while they seek our support when they need it, they don’t support us at our time of need. Shemayah adds that one should not seek office oneself, a position supported by Nechunyah ben Hakanah (Avot 3:6) on the basis that it takes us away from learning (and by implication practising) Torah.

Having taken this position, the Tannaim concede that government is a necessary evil. We should therefore pray for its well-being since, without it, humans would swallow one another alive (per Rabbi Chanina segan HaKohanim, Avot 3:2). What’s more, where there is no-one coming forward who is fit to lead, Hillel urges us to stand up and take the initiative (Avot 2:6).

Whether we are in a position of power and responsibility ourselves, or have to deal with such people, we have to bear in mind a potentially relevant teaching of Rabbi Yishmael (Avot 3:16):

הֱוֵי קַל לְרֹאשׁ, וְנֽוֹחַ לְתִשְׁחֽוֹרֶת,

The first part of this teaching is, frustratingly, capable of bearing so many meanings that we have no idea what its author intended. Indeed, the 19th century German scholar Rabbi Marcus Lehmann gives four quite different explanations of it, based on four different but equally justifiable translations, while commentators as diverse as Rashi and the Chida also offer a selection of meanings.

I believe that this can be best explained to mean something along the lines of:

“Be respectfully submissive to someone in a position of authority and be polite to someone junior to yourself”.

 In other words, don’t take liberties with others and abuse your power over them, but don’t be cheeky and uncooperative to those who have authority over you. Both halves of this explanation are broadly supported by rabbinical authority, though I have not yet identified a single rabbi who endorses it specifically.

There is a lot of room for debate and discussion as to the applicability of the advice offered by Avot to relations between citizens and governments in today’s world. Pirkei Avot itself, as well as its classic accompanying commentaries, were largely authored by people living under hostile authoritarian governments, and this is likely to have coloured at least some of their advice.

Readers of this post living in modern Western political systems may relate differently to elected authorities which wield power over us supposedly in our name and for our notional benefit. Not only has the era of democratic government and human rights led to a more positive relationship between the government and the government, but the very nature of our interaction with officials has changed, and is now conducted through the impersonal medium of the internet which diminishes potential for personal conflict or confrontation. All of this leads to the question of how the advice of Pirkei Avot might have been presented had it written in today’s political settings.

Finally, it must be noted that Avot’s advice guiding the interactions between private citizens and the state was authored when the Jews were living at the mercy of an unsympathetic Roman governorship. How might this Mishnah’s advice apply to those living in the modern state of Israel?