Setting an example -- for good or otherwise

Avot Today is non-political, for the very good reason that Pirkei Avot is directed at how we humans should behave. It is not a political manifesto. This does not however mean that we do not discuss politicians. The very nature of their profession demands that they be in the public eye and that their words and thoughts receive a high level of publicity. What’s more, since the relationship between politicians and the general public is—or should be—founded on trust, we often demand to hear from them even when they may be reluctant to speak to us. Finally, politicians set an example: their high media profile provides a platform for them to project themselves, deliberately or otherwise, as role models whose words and actions may be copied by others.

In July 2022, Avot Today posed some questions about the sort of behaviour we might expect of politicians (see “Thinking better of politicians: can it be done?” on Facebook and on the Avot Today blog). We return to it now, following a report posted yesterday on the Jerusalem Post website headed: “Almog Cohen apologizes for ‘disrespectful’ insults hurled at fellow MKs” (here).

The article details the words spoken and the reception which they received. Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (Avot 2:15) teaches that the kavod of one’s chaver (difficult to translate: “the respect to which to one’s fellow human is entitled”) should be as dear to us as the respect to which we are entitled. This suggests a test of reciprocity. Before saying anything to another person, we should stop and think how we might feel if the same words were spoken back to us. If we would feel hurt, insulted or abused, that should set of an alarm bell in our minds that tells us not to say those words.

Politicians will tell us, correctly, that parliamentary debates are often conducted in an atmosphere of anger or frustration in which it is easy to lose one’s temper. They will equally correctly observe that, in the heat of debate, it is easy to say things that are offensive and which one may later regret having said. But Avot does not regard any of this as an excuse. Offensive behaviour towards others and the loss of one’s self-control in a fit of fury are no more permissible in the Knesset (or any other parliament) than they are in family discussions, in traffic jams, in the shops or in hospitals.  In the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer quoted above, we are warned not to let ourselves be easily angered. Later, at 5:14, Avot deems a person who is quick to anger and slow to calm down as being a rasha, evil.  The definition of someone who is strong is that of the person who can exercise self-control (4:1). From this we might reasonably include that a parliament full of people who insult others and lose their temper is a parliament of the weak and the wicked.

Having insulted and disrespected others, the proper course is to apologise. While this is not explicitly stipulated in Pirkei Avot, it is part and parcel of Rabbi Eliezer’s advice to treat the kavod of others as being as dear to us as our own. Just as insulting political opponents does not refute their arguments, so too does apologizing for insulting them not constitute an acceptance or validation of their arguments. In an ideal world, an apology to the person one has offended will be accompanied by teshuvah, genuine repentance for what one has said or done. Since teshuvah is a matter between the offender and God, we cannot know if it is efficacious or not. However, an important ingredient of teshuvah is the commitment of the penitent person not to do the same thing again: since so much of what politicians say and do is open to the public, it is often easy to spot the activities of a habitual reoffender.

Politicians are no more or less human than the rest of us, and we cannot say with confidence that we would behave any better than those we have elected, had we been in the same place, since we are not subject to the same pressures (see Hillel at Avot 2:5).  Even so, we are entitled to expect an acceptable level of conduct from them and we are entitled to express our disappointment and our disapproval when they do not. Two moral qualities in particular, identified by Avot, often appear to be in short supply among our elected representatives. One is that of acknowledging the truth (Avot 5:9); the other is that of being grateful to receive criticism (Avot 6:6). I for one look forward to the day these deficiencies are remedied.

Are you voting for a golem?

Tomorrow Israel’s voters head for the polls for the fourth time since April 2019. With so many political parties and near equilibrium between the coalitions likely opposing each other, the formation of a government is likely to be achieved only after a lengthy round of negotiations, compromises and trade-offs.

Who should we vote for? Some voters opt for the party whose policies most closely reflect their own aspirations. Others seek to support personalities who appeal to them. Others still cast their vote in accordance with what might best be described as a sort of tribal loyalty. But motivation means nothing: when it comes to the count, each vote is of equal weight.

What does Pirkei Avot have to offer tomorrow’s voters? I would suggest they take a close look at Avot 5:9, an anonymous mishnah that talks about the golem—not the fictional golem that was reputedly created by the Maharal of Prague and now the subject of plays, stories and even movie and TV productions, but a boorish, uncultivated person who generally has no idea how to behave in civil society.

This mishnah reads as follows:

There are seven things that characterise a golem, and seven that characterise a wise man.

• A wise man does not speak before someone who is senior to him in wisdom or age;
• He does not interrupt another person while that other person is speaking;
• He does not give a hasty response;
• His questions are relevant and his answers are accurate;
• He deals with first things first and last things later;
• As what he did not learn, he says: "I did not learn”;
• He concedes the truth.

With the golem, the reverse of all these is the case.

These seven criteria need little explanation. A person who pre-empts discussions and interrupts others is not ideally equipped to engage in dialogue and consensus-based decision-making. Hasty responses often require amendment, explanation, apology and subsequent retraction. Relevance and accuracy, not rhetoric and acrimony, should be the standards by which a politician’s engagement with others is measured. The need to recognise priorities and then prioritise them is a prerequisite for anyone who is responsible for discharging a multiplicity of duties. Admitting that one doesn’t know something can be hard, but it is safer than pretending knowledge or understanding that does not exist. Finally, admitting that one is wrong is not merely honest; it helps to gain the trust and respect of those to whom the admission is made.

Now, friends and (where relevant) fellow Israelis, before you next cast a vote for a candidate who will be responsible for your safety and your well-being, for how your taxes are spent and for whether you will be able to hold your head high as a respected member of the human race, before you do any of this—just ask yourself the following questions:

• How many of the seven signs of a golem constitute an accurate description of the candidate for whom I propose to vote?
• Why should any electorate be prepared to elect to its legislature any person whose personal standards of conduct fall far short of the listed items?
• In the light of the extent to which office-holders and potential office-holders do not match up to the Avot 5:9 standards, is there any wonder that so many people have little or no respect for them and are becoming increasingly reluctant to vote?

Before any reader leaps to a conclusion, I must state that this is not a party political post. Many readers, on reading the seven criteria, may assume that I have one particular prominent politician in mind, but this is not the case. The golem syndrome can be found in very many current and prospective members of the Israel Knesset and it is not confined to the members or activists belonging to any single party. I am myself a “floating voter” who is currently contemplating the prospect of voting for my third different party in three years. My points are the following:

• We should be prepared not only to recognise major deficiencies that many of our politicians possess but to call them out and criticise them (the press and online media have made both this process and the publication of its findings increasingly effective in recent times);
• We should demand higher standards of behavioural integrity from our politicians, thereby making it easier for people to listen respectfully and critically to what they say and to engage with them in terms that are constructive, not vituperative;
• We should regard Avot 5:9 as setting at least a minimum requirement for the behaviour of elected representatives and their rivals.

Thinking better of politicians: can it be done?

My survey of frequency of citation of mishnayot from Avot on the electronic media shows that the second most frequently cited mishnah online is the teaching of Yehoshua ben Perachyah at Avot 1:6 that one should judge people favourably (this is often understood to mean that one should give others the benefit of the doubt if there is any uncertainty as to their motivation for doing something that might be either good or bad).

With the next round of elections coming up in Israel, the thought occurs to me that the injunction to judge others favourably is expressed in general terms. It applies to judging everyone. There is an exception in respect of people whose conduct is wrongful and whose motives can be established beyond doubt. There is however no exception in respect of politicians.

History can supply a long list of politicians who are corrupt, dishonest and "on the make" -- many of whom have been tried and convicted of criminal offences or who have been forced out of office for that reason. However, it seems to me that this does not give us a carte blanche to label all politicians as such, or to presume an improper motive in respect of those who enter the public political arena.

Pirkei Avot warns us to be wary of government and to avoid being involved with it if possible -- but it also urges to pray for the government to succeed in the establishment of peace and good order. We must also recognise that, much as we may harbour personal dislikes or suspicions of specific politicians, the running of any country is a task that necessarily has to be done by someone.

If this election is anything like its predecessor, the coming months in Israel will doubtless witness a great deal of abuse and insult hurled both at political aspirants and between them. This does no credit to the politicians or the electorate. It would be a great thing if we could refrain from attributing base motives to the politicians on all sides of the spectrum, concentrating instead on the merit -- if any -- of the arguments they propound and the policies they present.

****************************************

I shall shortly be posting my quarterly review of citations from Avot on the internet. The previous review, covering Avot citations from 1 January to 31 March, can be accessed at tinyurl.com/2p8erspy

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?

Letting others be heard

The change of government in Israel has attracted much comment, both domestically and abroad. Analysts have looked at the advantages and disadvantages of the new coalition, its strengths and its weaknesses. Some have even looked at its proposed legislative programme and its chances of turning it into law. There is however one topic that has received very little comment: the appalling standard of behaviour of many of the Members of the Knesset (MKs).

Pirkei Avot (at 5:9) teaches that one of the seven signs of a golem is that he or she interrupts the words of someone else who is speaking. Presumably this applies equally to someone who howls and screams when someone else attempts to speak, thus effectively preventing them from being held at all. Applying this standard to MKs, I am concerned that the golems in the Knesset could form a coalition of their own, since there sadly seem to be more than 61 of them -- from both the religious and the non-religious parties.

Avot also reminds us of the inconvenient fact that all of us -- even MKs -- are created in the image of God (3:18). One might feel tempted to draw from this mishnah the conclusion that one should at least accord some outward form of respect to other people, whatever thoughts we may cherish in our hearts and minds.

This post does not intend to recite some of the disgusting things said, and the disgraceful dispersions cast, by MKs on one other, whether inside the Knesset or beyond it -- comments, slurs and allegations that have nothing to do with party politics. It only wishes to make the point that it is only by paying respect to others that we are entitled to receive any respect ourselves (4:1). Regretfully, this post records that far too many MKs have placed themselves beyond any entitlement to receive respect from this quarter.

It would be a wonderful thing if Israel's Jewish parliamentarians could reflect a small corner of their Jewish heritage by behaving and speaking towards one other in a more appropriate manner, especially when the eyes of the world are upon them.

Are politicians immune from good behaviour?

In "Israel Elections: Why I may not vote this time", a Jerusalem Post opinion piece by Walter Bingham that was penned a few days before last week's General Election, the author cites the imprecation in Avot that one should not embarrass other people in public (Avot 3:15, per Rabbi Elazar HaModa'i) and then contrasts this principle with the behaviour of some of Israel's leading political figures. This itself raises an interesting question: does this principle apply at all to things said by, or about, politicians?

When it comes to rules of law, politicians are both governed and protected to the same extent as anyone else. Thus the laws relating to theft, murder, etc are applied equally to all. However, behavioural standards (middot) are a different matter. Role models such as rabbis and Torah scholars, parents and community leaders are expected to demonstrate a higher level of conduct than others. But what of politicians?

Avot clearly expects little of the politician. People are urged to avoid them because they are motivated by self-interest (Avot 2:3) and not even to make themselves known to them (Avot 1:10). If, like many politicians, they interrupt others and don't give a straight answer to a question, they are deemed to be golems (Avot 5:9).

Do we say that contemporary politicians live in a little bubble in which they are immune to insult and are therefore to dish it out to others, or do we say that politicians' behaviour demonstrates little other than their own unsuitability to hold office on account of their inability to control themselves and to respect others? The latter, I suspect.