Kissers and clingers

 Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai and his five famous talmidim are a topic to which we have turned often in recent times. Indeed, they seem to provide an inexhaustible supply of discussion points for those keen on finding a fresh element of mussar, Jewish ethical teaching, that may have lain quietly concealed for centuries—or longer.

So let’s return to Avot 2:13. I’m starting here not, as I usually do, with the Hebrew text, but with the popular Chabad online translation which reads:

[Rabbi Yochanan] said to them: Go and see which is the best trait for a person to acquire. Said Rabbi Eliezer: A good eye. Said Rabbi Joshua: A good friend. Said Rabbi Yossei: A good neighbor. Said Rabbi Shimon: To see what is born [out of ones actions]. Said Rabbi Elazar: A good heart. Said He to them: I prefer the words of Elazar the son of Arach to yours, for his words include all of yours.

The term “the best trait for a person to acquire”, also used by Gila Ross (Living Beautifully), may seem a bit bland but otherwise unexceptionable, but it is not wrong in terms of our need to find good guidance in life and then stick to it. There are other ways to express the same notion. For example:

·       “the straight path to which a person should adhere” (Rabbi David Sedley, Rabbeinu Yonah, Rodin edition);

·       “the upright path to which a person should cleave” (Rav Asher Weiss on Avos) and “the good way to which a man should cleave” (R’ Shlomo Toperoff, Lev Avot);

·       “the best path for a person to attach himself to” (R’ Tal Moshe Zwecker, Ma’asei Avos), “attach himself” also being used by Rabbi Yisroel Miller, The Wisdom of Avos;

·       “the proper path to which a man should cling” (Rabbi Abraham J. Twerski, Visions of the Fathers)—the word “cling” also being favoured by Chanoch Levi’s translation of the Ru’ach Chayim, by Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks.

Now let’s look at the original Hebrew. Our Tanna uses the word שֶׁיִּדְבַּק sheyidbak:

אָמַר לָהֶם: צְאוּ וּרְאוּ אֵיזוֹ הִיא דֶּֽרֶךְ טוֹבָה שֶׁיִּדְבַּק בָּהּ הָאָדָם

This word suggests a degree of devekut, an attachment of a powerful nature, or even bonding (in modern Hebrew the same root gives us devek, “glue”). But does it really matter which English word is chosen, and why? I think it can.

Rabbi Norman Lamm (Foundation of Faith, edited by Rabbi Mark Dratch) picks up on the force of the word sheyidbak when he explains our mishnah in Avot. Going for the cling option, he unexpectedly points to a passage from the Book of Ruth (1:14):

וַתִּשֶּׂנָה קוֹלָן, וַתִּבְכֶּינָה עוֹד; וַתִּשַּׁק עָרְפָּה לַחֲמוֹתָהּ, וְרוּת דָּבְקָה בָּהּ

And they [i.e. Naomi’s daughers-in-law Ruth and Orpah] lifted up their voice, and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her.

On this Rabbi Lamm writes:

“And Orpah kissed (n-sh-k) her mother-in-law, whereas Ruth clung (d-v-k) to her”. Their descendants, David and Goliath, are referred to in the Talmud as “the sons of devukah who vanquished the sons of neshukah”.

Now here comes the crunch point, the powerful mussar concealed within an apparently innocent word in the English translation:

“There are two universal types: clingers and kissers—those who are authentically loyal and those who merely blow kisses. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai challenges his students to discover the trait to which a person should cling, not to which he might merely pay lip service”.

What a remarkable way to wring a sharp point of mussar out of what appears to be a mere side-issue in the mishnah as a whole.

Comments and discussion of this post can be found on Facebook here.

A spade or an axe? Take your pick

A rabbi of my acquaintance recently commented on an extract from Pirkei Avot which, he said, was generally mistranslated. This extract from Avot 4:7, taught in the name of Rabbi Zadok, is bound to be the subject of disagreement because it exists in different forms, but the text to which he referred is that which is most commonly found in contemporary publications:

וְאַל תַּעֲשֶֽׂהָ עֲטָרָה לְהִתְגַּדֶּל בָּהּ, וְלֹא קַרְדּוּם לַחְפֹּר בָּהּ

What does this mean? These words are usually rendered as

“do not use it [i.e. the Torah] as a crown with which to glorify oneself, and not as a spade to dig with”. 

The idea behind these words is uncontroversial: no-one should cash in on their knowledge of the Torah as a means of boosting their personal prestige or as a way of obtaining material gain. It is also generally accepted that the verb לַחְפֹּר (lachpor) means “dig”. So what then is the problem?

The problem—if indeed it be a problem—is that the word קַרְדּוּם (kardum), rendered in this mishnah as “spade”, is also found in the Books of Samuel (1:13, 20 and 21), Judges (9:48) and Jeremiah (46:22) with the meaning of “axe”. The same meaning is found in the Babylonian Talmud (Betzah 31a-b). There also exists a parallel text of our mishnah in which the last four words are rendered וְלֹא קַרְדּוּם לַחְתָּךְ בָּהּ (“and not an axe to chop with”).

Is the translation of kardum as “spade” in our mishnah therefore an error? I do not think so.

If kardum can only mean “axe”, Rabbi Zadok is urging us not to use the Torah as “an axe to dig with”. This seems a little awkward, in that an axe is used for chopping or splitting something rather than for digging it. To say that he is teaching only that one should use the Torah an implement that is suitable for any given task (i.e. for chopping, as it were, but not for digging) seems narrow and may also sound a little contrived.

Even if it is wrong, among English translations the “spade to dig with” formula is the generally-accepted translation among commentators, translators and publishers. These include Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (Authorized Daily Prayer Book and the Koren Pirkei Avot), Rabbi Eliezer Prins (The Lehmann-Prins Pirkei Avoth), Rabbi Reuven Bulka (Chapters of the Sages),Rabbis Avie Gold and Nahum Spirn (Alshich on Avos), Irving M. Bunim (Ethics From Sinai), Hyman E. Goldin (Ethics of the Fathers), Philip Birnbaum (HaSiddur HaShelam) and Herbert Danby (The Mishnah), not to mention all the many editions of Avot published by ArtScroll. The version of this mishnah found on the chabad.org website accepts this translation even though the Hebrew version that accompanies it would be more accurately rendered “an axe to chop with”.

Apart from the "axe to dig with", there are other textual variants, but these are very much minority views. Basing himself on other manuscript sources, R. Travers Herferd (The Ethics of the Talmud) opts for "a 'dish' wherewith to eat", while the Hirschler/Haberman revision of Rabbi S. R. Hirsch and Samson Krupnik's Torah Dynamics both offer "an ax with which to strike". Rabbi Eliahu Touger's translation of Rambam's commentary goes for "an axe with which to cut".

Be that as it may, while it must be accepted that the majority is not always right, we cannot ignore the fact that it is the majority—and an influential one, at that. This gives me confidence to affirm that, even though kardum may mean “axe” in other contexts, we are entitled to treat the word as “spade” in the context of this mishnah and learn its message accordingly. 

They're the same -- more or less

Connoisseurs of Pirkei Avot may have spotted that the late, great Rabbi Jonathan Sacks -- whose command of the English language is unparalleled -- provided translations of this tractate for two different books. One is the Authorised Daily Prayer Book of the United Synagogue, the other being the Koren Pirkei Avot with commentary by Rabbi Marc D. Angel. 

With the aid of one of my grandchildren I pulled out sample mishnayot and baraitot which we checked against one another. On the basis of our research it appears that the two translations are the same, though in the United Synagogue's version the names of the rabbis have been anglicised. This is no doubt a disappointment for anyone who was hoping, as I was, that perhaps Lord Sacks had prepared two quite different but equally elegant and persuasive translations -- something that was quite within his power to do.

A translator's problem, a metaphor and the path to harmony

One of the most difficult mishnayot to translate into English [1] is the one that opens the second perek of Avot (i.e. 2:1). There, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi teaches:

 רבי אומר, איזו היא דרך ישרה שיבור לו האדם--כל שהיא תפארת לעושיה, ותפארת לו מן האדם

I like to translate it like this:

Which is the right path that a person should choose for himself? Any one that enables him to experience self-respect and to earn the respect and admiration of other people.

This is not a literal translation, though. The Hebrew word תפארת (tiferet), which appears here twice, poses a stiff challenge for at least four reasons: (i) the word possesses many meanings; (ii) it is employed in relation both to God and to man, with obviously different connotations; (iii) in the context of this mishnah, it expresses a concept for which there is no obvious colloquial English equivalent and (iv) it is by no means clear what verbs—if any—are the right ones to use with it. 

The range of translations preferred by various authors is reflected by the chart below:

תפארת לעושיה  (translated above as “self-respect”)	ותפארת לו מן האדם  (translated above as “the respect and admiration of other people”)
Whatever will be of benefit to him	and earns him the respect of other people [2]
Honorable to one who chooses it	and honorable in the eyes of others [3]
Whatever is a credit to himself	and earns him the esteem of fellow men [4]
One which reflects credit on him who does it	and which also reflects glory on him [in the eyes] of men [5]
Whatever is harmonious for the one who does it	and harmonious for mankind [6]
One which is honorable to thyself	and without offense to others [7]
All that is desirable for the one doing it	and desirable to him from mankind [8]
That which is distinguished, honorable for him who adopts it	and brings him distinction, honor from people [9]
Whatever brings glory to himself [before God]	and grants him glory before others [10]
Any that is an honor to him that does it	and gets him honor to him in the sight of men [11]
That which is an honor to him	and gets him honor from men [12]

My preferred translation gives the meaning as “self-respect” the first time it appears and as “respect and admiration” the second, since it is not normally regarded as praiseworthy for a person to pat himself on the back and applaud his own actions in the manner in which he might greet the same actions when done by others.

Of the options listed above, Chabad.org's "harmonious" approach has been preferred in a Times of Israel blog by Ethan Yakhin entitled "My experience interviewing R. Shlomo Katz". This piece, unsurprisingly since Rabbi Katz is an authority on the work of Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach, is as much about the controversial composer as abour Rabbi Katz himself. In the course of it Ethan Yakhin writes:

In Pirkei Avot, we find wonderful advice. What is a straight path that man should choose? A path that brings harmony to the person and harmony between him and others (Pirkei Avot 2:1). In other words, “Be yourself.” Perhaps this is what Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach had in mind when he encouraged our individuality.

While it strays a long way from the literal meaning of the text, the use of "harmony" as a music metaphor when describing Rabbi Carlebach is most effective and, within that context, may well reflect Rabbi Yehudah's meaning.

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

[1] This is not only a problem for the English. Translating into German, Rabbi Marcus Lehmann, The Lehmann-Prins Pirkei Avoth, makes exactly the same observation.

[2] Rabbis Avie Gold and Nahum Spirn, Alshich on Avos.

[3] Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, Authorised Daily Prayer Book.

[4] ArtScroll Publications.

[5] C. H. Moore, The Lehmann-Prins Pirkei Avoth.

[6] Chabad.org.

[7] Jewishvirtuallibrary.org.

[8] David N. Barocas, Me’am Lo’ez.

[9] Irving M. Bunim, Ethics from Sinai.

[10] Torah.org.

[11] R. Travers Herford, The Ethics of the Talmud.

[12] Herbert Danby, The Mishnah.

Of things and people, honour and glory

The very last bit of Pirkei Avot, the baraita that concludes the sixth perek (6:11), is generally translated along the following lines: 

Everything that God created in His world, He only created for His glory, as it is said: "Everything that is called by My name and for My glory, I created it, formed it, I made it too"; it also says: "God shall reign for ever and ever”.

The verse translated as "Everything that is called by My name and for My glory, I created it, formed it, I made it too" is found in from Isaiah 43:7. This appears to be a proof verse relating to the Creation of the World.

When I looked up this verse to check on its context, I was quite surprised to discover several things:

• The verse comes from a prophetic passage which Isaiah recites after King Hezekiah of Judah recovers from illness. Isaiah warns that the Babylonians will drive the inhabitants of Judah into exile and plunder all Hezekiah's treasures. Having painted this gloomy picture of the people’s sufferings, he then speaks of how they will return to God and become a light unto the nations. Eventually there will be an ingathering of the exiles.  This is the point at which verse 43:7 appears.

• The verse really seems to mean "Everyone who bears My name, whom I created for My glory, whom I fashioned and also made" and it refers to people, not to things.

• Commentators on Pirkei Avot all treat the verse as referring to things, while commentators on the Book of Isaiah, with only one exception, treat it as referring to people.

• Commentators on Pirkei Avot appear to pay no attention to the verse's real meaning, while commentators on the Book of Isaiah make no mention of this verse's treatment in Avot.

Since Pirkei Avot is a tractate that deals with human behaviour, the traditional translation at the top of this blogpost looks out of place. If however one opts for the verse's real meaning one gets something like this:

Everyone whom God created in His world, He only created for His glory, as it is said: "Everyone who bears My name, whom I created for My glory, whom I fashioned and also made"; it also says: "God shall reign for ever and ever”.

This makes much better sense in the context of Avot, and not just because it deals specifically with people and not rocks, trees and giant pandas. The bigger reason why it makes sense lies in the word "glory".  This word is a poor and imperfect rending of the Hebrew word kavod, often translated as "glory" but also meaning “honour”, “splendor”, “abundance”, “riches”, “dignity”, "importance", "respect" and “reverence”.  

If that were not enough, the word kavod comes with enough religious and social baggage to fill a container ship. It is both really good and fatally bad; it must not be sought after but has to be given -- and if you give it, it comes back to you.  Most significantly, the word appears in around 9% of the mishnayot and baraitot that comprise the six chapters of Avot. All of this, to my mind, justifies a radical reassessment of the last words of Avot and some fresh learning from them.