Gila Fine (The Madwoman in the Rabbi’s Attic, Maggid, published earlier this year) describes four ways in which we can respond to a Talmudic text. It seems to me that what she writes is equally valid with regard to any Mishnaic text that relates to middot (guidance on best behavioural practice) and therefore especially to Pirkei Avot.
When faced with a mishnah that appears inimical to our views
or hostile to our values, the application of Gila Fine’s analytical framework gives
us a choice of four options:
Rejection: the distance
between the mishnah’s teaching and the reader is so great that it ceases to be
a source of religious authority for the reader, who simply walks away.
Accommodation: the reader
is so determined to relate to the mishnah that he or she will accept its values
in their totality, sacrificing one’s own personal opinions and identity in the
process.
Subjection: the reader is
enabled to relate to the mishnah as a result of interpreting or misinterpreting
it in a way that is compatible with personal values and contemporary thought.
In this way, “the text loses its integrity so that the readers may maintain
theirs”.
Negotiation: the reader
retains his or her opinions but does not discard those expressed in the
mishnah. We must accept ourselves for what we are—but must also accept our
ancient teachings for what they are too. Having done so, we must engage in
dialogue with the text and negotiate a living and meaningful relationship.
Here's a practical exercise that you can apply to
yourselves.
I have listed three teachings from Avot below and invite you
to monitor your own reaction to them. Ask yourselves in all honesty how you
treat them. Do you (i) reject them entirely, (ii) buy into them
unquestioningly, (iii) recast the text in a way that you feel comfortable with
or (iv) accept your discomfort with the text but try to accommodate yourself to
it?
As alternative, you can check these teachings out in your
favourite commentary and categorise the author’s comments. Do they reflect the
same approach throughout or is the author’s technique eclectic?
Example 1: Most regular Avot readers have such strong
opinions about the third part of Yose ben Yochanan Ish Yerushalayim’s teaching
at Avot 1:5 (the notorious bit about not speaking too much with married women)
that I’ve decided to pass it over in favour of the less heavily debated first
and second parts of it:
יְהִי בֵיתְךָ פָּתֽוּחַ לִרְוָחָה, וְיִהְיוּ עֲנִיִּים
בְּנֵי בֵיתְךָ
Let your home be wide open, and
let the poor be members of your household.
How do you respond? Reject? Submit? Accommodate? Negotiate?
Example 2: At Avot 3:17 Rabbi Akiva opens his mishnah
with the following:
שְׂחוֹק וְקַלּוּת רֹאשׁ, מַרְגִּילִין אֶת הָאָדָם
לְעֶרְוָה
Jesting and frivolity accustom a
person to sexual promiscuity.
This is expressed as a statement of fact rather than as an
injunction, which gives much scope for all four of the approaches Gila Fine
outlines.
Example 3: At Avot 4:11 Rabbi Yonatan says:
כָּל הַמְקַיֵּם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה מֵעֹֽנִי, סוֹפוֹ
לְקַיְּמָהּ מֵעֹֽשֶׁר, וְכָל הַמְבַטֵּל אֶת הַתּוֹרָה מֵעֹֽשֶׁר, סוֹפוֹ לְבַטְּלָהּ
מֵעֹֽנִי
Whoever fulfils the Torah in
poverty will ultimately fulfil it in wealth; and whoever neglects the Torah in wealth
will ultimately neglect it in poverty.
Like Example 2, this is also a statement. But is it a
statement of fact or a statement of probability? Does it require compliance?
What is it doing here?
I accept that Gila Fine’s fourfold categorisation was not
designed for the purpose of this exercise, but I do hope that it can
help us achieve a greater and deeper understanding—not of the mishnayot of Avot
but of our own responses to these ancient teachings.
For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook,
click here.
