Is there any part of Pirkei Avot that contains no real teaching at all? At Avot 2:10 we learn this:
חֲמִשָּׁה
תַלְמִידִים הָיוּ לוֹ לְרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, וְאֵֽלּוּ הֵן: רַבִּי
אֱלִיעֶֽזֶר בֶּן הוֹרְקְנוּס, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָא, וְרַבִּי
יוֹסֵי הַכֹּהֵן, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן נְתַנְאֵל, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן
עֲרָךְ
Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai had
five disciples: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkenus, Rabbi Joshua ben Chananya,
Rabbi Yose HaKohen, Rabbi Shimon ben Netanel, and Rabbi
Elazar ben Arach.
There’s no obvious teaching here: no mussar, no middot,
no guidance for life—just a list of names.
Can there be any more to this list? Maybe. These rabbis are
not listed in alphabetical order, and the Sefat Emet wonders why the rabbis’
names are listed in the order we find in the mishnah. They aren’t being named
in descending order of greatness because Abba Sha’ul teaches in the name of Rabban
Yochanan ben Zakkai (‘Rivaz’) that Rabbi Elazar ben Arach outweighed them
all—including Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcqnus—but Rabbi Elazar ben Arach is listed
last (the Sefat Emet doesn’t even trouble to suggest that they are listed in
ascending order of greatness, since Abba Sha’ul’s teaching puts Rabbi Eliezer
ben Hyrcanus in second place).
The order as listed cannot reflect the rabbis’ hierarchical
status. If it had done, Rabbi Yose HaKohen, being of the priestly caste, would
have led the list. Nor are they named in the order in which they were recruited
as talmidim, since Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya was an established talmid
before Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkenus came on the scene. So perhaps, the Sefat
Emet speculates, they are listed in order of their age.
Order of age may be the right answer, since we have no data
to contradict it. But are there any other possibilities?
We can explain the order in part if we refer to two subsequent
mishnayot in the second perek (Avot 2:13 and 2:14). In the first of these, Rivaz
tells the five talmidim to go out from their place of learning and see
for themselves what is the “good path” that a person should follow in life. In
the second, Rivaz sends them out again, but this time with the opposite
request: they should report back on what they view as the “bad path” that one
should avoid. In each of these mishnayot, when the five report on their
findings they do so in the same order as we find here, and it is the words of
Rabbi Elazar ben Arach that find favour with their teacher.
Could the later mishnayot retrospectively account for the order
in the talmidim are named in our earlier mishnah? In each case it is the
words of the last-named rabbi, R’ Elazar ben Arach, that are preferred over the
words of the earlier named rabbis, Rivaz gives the reason: it is because his
words are broad enough to include the words of the others. Logically, since his
words effectively sum up and embrace the words of all the earlier talmidim,
it makes sense for his report to be given last.
A better suggestion comes from Rabbi Menachem Mendel
Schneerson, quoted in Pirkei Avot im Sha’arei Avot. Each of the five
leading talmidim was the head of a sub-group of talmidim that corresponded
to one of the five books of the Torah. Thus Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua
headed up Bereshit and Shemot respectively, Rabbi Yose, being a Kohen, took
Vayikra. The sin-fearing Rabbi Shimon ben Netanel’s remit corresponded to
Bemidbar—the book in which sin, and the absence of fear of it, had the most
devastating impact. Finally, Rabbi Elazar gets Devarim: this is appropriate since
this is the book that summarizes the four that precede it, and his words are
those that summarize and embrace those of the four rabbis who speak before him.
If anyone else has a good suggestion relating to the order
of the five talmidim and what we can learn from it, can they please
share it!
For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook,
click here.
