Monday, 29 May 2023

For Torah's sake?

The first baraita in Perek 6 of Avot offers an unbeatable array of inducements for anyone who makes the effort to study Torah seriously. It opens:

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כָּל הָעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה לִשְׁמָהּ זוֹכֶה לִדְבָרִים הַרְבֵּה, וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁכָּל הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ כְּדַאי הוּא לוֹ.

Rabbi Meir would say: “Whoever studies Torah lishmah (=for Torah's sake alone) merits many things; not only that, but the entire world is worthwhile for him”.

The baraita continues by listing nearly 30 wonderful bonuses for the Torah scholar. Wealthy, powerful and successful, he will be loved by God and man. Kings and counsellors will share their secrets with him and seek his guidance. The only catch is that, to qualify for all of this, one must first learn Torah lishmah.

In picking up this theme of learning with a pure motive, the baraita echoes earlier mishnayot that warn against learning Torah for improper motives. Thus one who exploits Torah knowledge for his own glory will “fade away” (Avot 1:13) and will “remove his life from the world” (Avot 4:7).

So what does learning lishmah entail? Early commentators like the Bartenura and the commentary ascribed to Rashi had no doubt. To them it meant not learning Torah in order to gain kavod (“so that people will call me rabbi”) or to make a living from it. Rambam was adamant, both in his commentary on the Mishnah and in his Mishneh Torah, stating that no one should live off the charity of others in order to learn Torah. While it was possible to earn a stipend for learning Torah, the reason for studying it should still be purely lishmah.

When Jewish life was predominantly conducted in tightly-knit communities and ghettos, learning Torah in order to benefit from it must have been peculiarly tempting since communal rabbis and teachers could enjoy a “clean” living rather than toiling as manual labourers. In many parts of Europe entry into the professions was impossible or tightly restricted, so that teaching and learning Torah at a high level was for most males the fast track to gaining respect and the prospect of a good marriage.

It is generally accepted that, in our generation, there is more Torah learning than has ever been before. An unprecedented number of kolelim, yeshivot and formal Jewish learning at every level is heavily supplemented by informal learning through study groups and chavrutot. Talmudic study has received a huge boost through the massive and increasing popularity of daf yomi programmes. For those who choose to learn by themselves, there has been an explosion of new book titles and annotated reprints of classics, both in their original language and in translation, not to mention the constant spread of shiurim and divrei Torah across the social media. But how much of this learning is lishmah?

Social and economic changes in the wider world have made their impact felt on Jewish life at all levels, Torah study included. As the standard of living has risen, material expectations rise too. Many people now work longer and harder to pay for essentials like rent, food and schooling than did their forebears; women have increasingly shifted from home-makers to bread-winners, something that would have been regarded as quite unusual a century ago. And both time and effort available for Torah study inevitably contract since for many people it is the activity that can most easily be trimmed without its diminution being immediately felt.

It's good to know that it is still possible to learn lishmah, without distractions and competing priorities, for at least some of those who wish to do so—even though for many of us this is a remote and unusual ideal. It would also be good to receive some contemporary opinions as to what today constitutes learning lishmah.

How widely can lishmah be construed? I have in mind the case of a friend I used to learn with back in the 1990s. A ba’al teshuvah in his middle age, he and his family eagerly embraced Jewish law and lifestyles. He could however scarcely read Hebrew and certainly could not translate it. With a busy business to run and many family demands to bear, he found it next to impossible to acquire the learning skills which his children picked up almost instantly. His sole commitment was to attending a daf yomi shiur which, he freely confessed, he did not understand at all; yet he kept on going. I asked him why, given that he had so little idea what the shiurim were about, he persisted. His answer: “If I didn’t go to daf yomi every day, I’m sure I would be doing something worse”. Lishmah?

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

Thursday, 25 May 2023

Shavuot and Shabbat miscellany

Are you a goth?  I imagine that few if any of my readers would say they were. But here’s something to think about. It’s a piece on Hey Alma by Sophia Zohar, who writes of Pirkei Avot:

“…Unlike the rest of the Mishnah, it records no arguments, only advice, quips and zingers about how to live a moral life. It was my entry into Jewish study because of its accessible nature… It forces me to think hard about what it means to receive the Torah, a concept I find hard to grasp.

What makes Pirkei Avot “goth” is the vivid, dark imagery and dramatic statements it uses to drive home its messages…

For me, goth is the radical notion that death and decay can be beautiful. That when we hide from these concepts, we also hide from ourselves. That these concepts bring us closer to our emotions and what truly makes us human. That mortality isn’t scary… it’s style. Pirkei Avot also delivers in this area, using the same bold, in-your-face language that the goth aesthetic communicates visually”.

As an example, she cites Avot 2:7 (“[Hillel] saw a skull floating on the face of the water. He said to it: because you drowned others, they drowned you. And in the end, they that drowned you will be drowned”), commenting:

“The “gothness” of this passage is pretty straightforward… there’s a skull in it, an age old symbol of mortality. However, there’s also a deeper significance. The skull’s representation of death communicates a type of permanence in Hillel’s message. The drama of this passage emphasizes how critical our actions are to how we interact with, and are affected by, the universe. Commentary suggests that Hillel may have known the identity of the skull. This contributes to the fact that this skull was a real human whose actions lead to their death”.

She also comments in goth mode on Avot 3:1 (Akavya ben Mahalalel’s advice on avoidance of sin) and Avot 4:29 (Rabbi Elazar HaKappar on the futility of seeking to escape judgment).

 ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Kadosh kadosh kadosh. The Dee Pirkei Avot Project continues apace. This Shabbat it focuses on the advice of Yehoshua ben Perachyah at Avot 1:6 to judge others favourably, asking: “Is it really possible to “judge every person favourably” in every single situation?”  Along with this project comes a beautiful song by Shimon Craimer, “Kadosh kadosh kadosh”, which you can listen to—and also watch because it is accompanied by a selection of lovely family photos—on YouTube here.

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

A teacher for our times. Rabbi Berel Wein is one of the great English language expositors of Pirkei Avot in our generation. Seasoning his deep knowledge of Jewish history and his commitment to the precepts of Lithuanian mussar with sharp comments about Jewish values in contemporary society, he draws large audiences to his weekly shiurim on the tractate. Many readers may already have enjoyed his book on the topic: Pirkei Avos: Teachings for Our Times. Rabbi Wein had major surgery earlier this week and Avot Today wishes him a swift recovery to the best of health. His name, for refuah shelemah purposes:  הרב דוב בן אסתר (Harav Dov ben Esther).

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

Learning from everyone. Here’s something to argue about at the dining table over the next few days.  In the most recent in Rabbi Pinchas Winston’s “Perceptions” series, here, he writes the following regarding Ben Zoma’s teaching which opens the fourth perek:

“As the mishnah says, a wise person is one who learns from every person (Avot 4:1). It doesn’t qualify what kind of people are excluded from this. Rabbi Meir even went so far as to continue to learn Torah from Elisha ben Abuya, even after he became Acher, the quintessential heretic (Chagigah 15b).

The Gemora questioned the wisdom of Rabbi Meir’s choice of teacher, but concluded that he had the ability to keep the good and reject the bad. The rest of us don’t, so we should only learn from reputable teachers who have the proper Torah credentials. But it has been said that God talks to the Jewish people through their enemies, so even though they do not make good teachers, their messages often unwittingly contain information God wants us to know”.

Here are a few questions to start with:

If we have already learned from two earlier mishnayot in Avot that a person should make for himself a rabbi, presumably to learn from, what does Ben Zoma’s teaching add if it is limited to learning from “reputable teachers who have the proper Torah credentials”?

What are the “proper Torah credentials” and how can we ascertain whether a person has them or not?

Does the internet or an artificial intelligence app such as ChatGPT constitute a “person” for the purposes of this mishnah?

In this context, which does not specify what is to be learned, is there any difference between learning Torah, learning how to behave properly and learning how to use a computer?

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 


Say “cheese”.  It is traditional for Jews to eat cheese cake on Shavuot. There is no explicit reference to cheese cake in Pirkei Avot. But can you find any subtle allusions to cheese cake in this tractate? Please post your suggestions below.

Chag same’ach and Shabbat shalom!

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

Tuesday, 23 May 2023

Zero tolerance

 Over the years I have quite lost track of the number of times I have heard this message from pulpit rabbis:    

"Lineage is like a row of zeros. They add up to nothing unless there's a number in front of them".

Quite right, I thought, having no discernible lineage of my own and having too often been confronted with boasts of others whose pedigree was impeccable. I did however wonder where this wisdom came from. Was it just a commonplace, something everyone with the possible exception of myself already knew?

This week I found a source. Maybe it is not the earliest Jewish source but it is the first I've tracked down. You can find it in Rabbi the Ruach Chaim of Rabbi Chaim Volozhin, published posthumously after his death in 1821. Ruach Chaim is Reb Chaim's commentary on Pirkei Avot and you can find the reference to zeros (for zero read "nul" in the Hebrew) in his observations on the baraita at Avot 6:8. That baraita describes children -- presumably righteous and Torah-true ones -- as "befitting the righteous and befitting the world".

Is it an original observation by Rabbi Chaim Volozhin, I wonder, or does anyone know of an earlier Jewish source or usage?

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

Monday, 22 May 2023

The will to exercise one's will-power

Pirkei Avot is not short of wildlife. Apart from scorpions, snakes and three different species of worm we find four popular inhabitants of the world of simile all listed together at Avot 5:23 when Yehudah ben Teyma opens his teaching with the following comparisons:

הֱוֵי עַז כַּנָּמֵר, וְקַל כַּנֶּֽשֶׁר, רָץ כַּצְּבִי, וְגִבּוֹר כָּאֲרִי, לַעֲשׂוֹת רְצוֹן אָבִֽיךָ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמָֽיִם

Be as bold as a leopard, light as an eagle, swift as a deer and strong as a lion to do the will of your Father in Heaven.

There is no shortage of rabbinical explanation as to why these particular creatures have been chosen, or of the precise significance of such a creature being “bold”, “light”, “swift” or “strong”. These qualities are clearly not to be taken literally. We can see this from the fact that, of the four, the “swift” deer is actually the slowest. This explains why it gets eaten by lions, leopards and other animals that chase it.

Why do we need two big cats? Let’s start with the lion, which is the role-model for gevurah.  This word literally means “strength”. In the context of Avot it means a particular kind of strength: self-discipline, the strength of character to control oneself (Avot 4:1). Yehudah ben Teyma’s lion can therefore be seen as a metaphor for self-control.

Where does that leave the leopard, who stands for being az (bold, brazen)? This metaphor can also be taken as a pointer in the direction of inner strength. If gevurah is the actual exercise of personal strength to control one’s instincts and urges in any given situation, being az means having the strength to decide that one wants to exercise self-control—even if it is not yet the opportunity to do so. So the leopard must face down all the attractive options to self-discipline, to recognise its importance and to cultivate the importance of exercising it. It is then the task of the lion to practice it when trials and temptations come its way.

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

Based on an idea expressed in Rabbi Reuven Melamed, Melitz Yosher al Pirkei Avot.

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

Friday, 19 May 2023

Playing the lawyer

In the wonderful world of Pirkei Avot, many if not most of the teachings—however clear they seem—can be understood in many different ways. For example, the first part of Yehudah ben Tabbai’s mishnah at Avot 1:8 looks like a bold assertion that one should avoid entering the legal profession. The Hebrew, אַל תַּֽעַשׂ עַצְמְךָ כְּעוֹרְכֵי הַדַּיָּנִין, means literally “Do not make yourself like a lawyer”. Some commentators are of the opinion that this means that no-one should advise litigants in a din Torah at all. Lawyers are superfluous; it is for the rabbis to establish the parameters of a dispute without external interference. Lawyers only get in the way.

Modern translations and commentaries on this teaching take a different approach, qualifying the literal meaning in order to frame it within a more specific context since, like much of the content of the first perek, it is addressed to judges. For example,

[When serving as a judge] do not act as a lawyer” (Artscroll)

When sitting in judgement, do not act as a counselor-at-law” (Chabad.org)

[When sitting as a judge]. Do not act as an advocate” (Authorised Daily Prayer Book and Koren Pirkei Avot, per Rabbi Lord Sacks)

“Do not [as a judge] play the part of a counselor” (Birnbaum siddur)

This view is widely accepted today. As Rabbi S. R. Hirsch says:

“Should you be called upon to function as a judge, do not be like the legal advisers who offer to place their juridical knowledge at the service of the litigating parties”.

This is because judges need to be absolutely impartial, a point emphasised by Rabbi Marcus Lehmann.

But there is always a risk that the meaning of the mishnah will be influenced by the fact that we view it through modern eyes. Thus Rambam’s Perush Mishnayot comments on this mishnah:

עורכי הדיינין. הם אנשים שלומדים הטענות והדינין עד שיהיו בקיאים בני אדם בדיניהם

Rabbi Eliahu Touger’s translation renders this as:

“As a counsellor: [i.e. an advocate] who knows how to assert claims, who receives power of attorney to act on a person’s behalf in a dispute”.

This would appear to be more of a commentary than a translation, since it is difficult to find the words “who receives power of attorney to act on a person’s behalf” in Rambam’s words.

But not every rabbi holds that Yehudah ben Tabbai has litigation lawyers in mind when dispensing his advice. An outspoken proponent of that view is Rabbi Yaakov Hillel, Eternal Ethics From Sinai:

Orche hadayanim, often mistakenly translated as “lawyers”, more correctly means “those who help the judges organize the legal data”.

He explains that, in the past, orche dayanim performed a recognised, legitimate function as court advisers. According to Rabbi Shlomo Zalman of Neustadt they were an early example of the mazkir bet din (“the court’s remembrancer”), who would arrange and explain the judges’ decision to the litigants. The mazkir bet din was also an adviser to the bet din, perhaps analogous to the court clerk in the United States. Neither a judge nor a lawyer for a disputant party should be tempted to play the part of a neutral, objective adviser to the court when he had a preference for one or other side of the action.

Rabbi Hillel also acknowledges that court procedures have changed since Mishnaic times:

“The orche hadayanim mentioned in the mishnah no longer function in today’s bate din. Modern times have produced a new phenomenon, that of the to’en Rabbani (rabbinical advocate). He has some knowledge of the relevant halachot and uses his professional expertise to win his client’s case in a bet din, much like a lawyer in a secular courtroom…”

In summary, I would suggest that this part of Avot 1:8 carries a message for our own time, whether it is addressed solely to judges or to lawyers in private practice: for the sake of justice and the avoidance of impropriety do not lend yourself towards support for either disputing party. Given the weight of support for the notion that a judge should not play the part of a lawyer, it seems harsh to describe “lawyer” as a mistranslation. The mishnah contains many messages and we should seek to learn something from each of them.

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

Tuesday, 16 May 2023

A tangible silence

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel teaches, at Avot 1:17:

כָּל יָמַי גָּדַֽלְתִּי בֵּין הַחֲכָמִים, וְלֹא מָצָֽאתִי לְגוּף טוֹב מִשְּׁתִיקָה, וְלֹא הַמִּדְרָשׁ עִקָּר אֶלָּא הַמַּעֲשֶׂה, וְכָל הַמַּרְבֶּה דְבָרִים מֵבִיא חֵטְא

Translation: “In all my days I have been brought up among the wise, and I have found nothing better for the body than silence. The essential thing is not study, but action. And anyone who talks too much brings on sin”.

The main message of Rabban Shimon is clear: it is good to be sparing with one’s speech and to prioritise the performance of good deeds even when one is committed to the study of Torah. However, there is still scope for questions and discussion.

Two issues spring out at us. The more obvious one arises from the curious reference to “the body”. Would not Rabban Shimon’s message be just as clear if those words were omitted? And why should anything as intangible as human speech be thought to have an impact on a person’s corporeal wellbeing?

The other issue arises from the inclusion of the first part of Rabban Shimon’s teaching in Avot, when the final part cautions against excessive verbiage and the redactor has also included other teachings about the need to limit one’s speech (Avot 1:5, 1:11, 3:17).

An explanation that both accounts for the reference to “body” and vindicates the inclusion of the apparently repetitive teaching in this Mishnah is offered by the Sefat Emet (as brought by Rabbi Gedaliyahu Schorr, Or Gedaliyahu, parashat Behar). According to this explanation, when Rabban Shimon refers to silence that is good for the body, he is referring to a person’s need to silence the internal voice that advocates for those urges and desires that relate to one’s physicality. How does one silence this internal voice one? By subjugating it through the force of one’s neshamah, one’s spiritual strength.

If one accepts this view, the mishnah teaches of Rabban Shimon’s own personal experience of exercising self-discipline regarding the body. This presumably means curbing excessive eating, drinking and other pleasures that are permitted but potentially harmful when there is over-indulgence. It does not suggest that silence is better than any form of speech; nor does it overlap with the other mishnayot concerning the desirability of limiting one’s verbal output.

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

Sunday, 14 May 2023

A good deed a day...

Take a look at the following propositions.

“He who finds a friend finds a treasure”.

“A good deed is never lost”.

“A person should do a good deed every day”.

“The true test of patience is how you act when you are impatient”.

“A person without ethics is like a vessel without contents”.

“Kindness is the mark of a true leader, gentleness is the mark of a true warrior”.

“Treat the present as if it were the last moment. Make it count”.

“It is easier to carry a mountain on one’s shoulder than to be humble”.

“Freedom is the most precious thing in life. The wise man must sacrifice everything in order to avoid being enslaved”.

These are all wise observations or words of guidance for anyone seeking to live a good life. They have something else in common. None of them will be found in Pirkei Avot.

 If these statements are not found in Avot, why am I listing them here? The answer is that they have all been attributed to Avot in an online publication, GB Times, in an article by Olivia Moore titled “A Hundred Jewish Proverbs to Enrich Your Life” (here). Each of them is accompanied by an apparently authentic but actually quite erroneous reference to a mishnah or baraita from Avot.

The statements listed above are all capable of being construed in accordance with the words of our sages. Some resonate with teachings from Avot and might be described as generalisations or paraphrases based upon them. At least one of them has a source in Jewish literature: you won’t find “He who finds a friend finds a treasure” at its quoted source, Avot 6:6—the baraita that lists the 48 ways of acquiring Torah—but you will find it in Ben Sira (a.k.a. Ecclesiasticus) 6:14. Others may be traced to other traditions. Thus “A good deed is never lost” will not be found at its stated location in Avot 4:17 but in the writings of St Basil of Cappadocia (330-379 CE).

I am at a loss to understand the objective of this exercise. The statements listed above could just have easily been published without the attribution of any sources. Avot is already the go-to place for people who want to sound wise when quoting something but don’t know where it comes from. The most frequent example of this is the aphorism derech eretz kodmah leTorah (“good behaviour precedes the Torah”), which comes from midrash sources. Another example is Talmud Torah keneged kulam (meaning that the study of Torah is of equivalent value to the aggregated performance of all other mitzvot), from Shabbat 127a; Pe’ah 1:1.  Is it just sloppiness, indifference, or a need to sound more scholarly than one is?

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

Tuesday, 9 May 2023

Let's talk about talking

Rabbi Eliezer Papo (the Pele Yo’etz) was a Torah scholar, kabbalist and the rabbi of a small community of peasants in Silistra (now Silistaru), Bulgaria.  From his writings we get a vivid portrait of his flock: they were simple folk, happy to go to synagogue but happier when hanging around outside it for a good chat. Their main vices, apart from wife-beating, were smoking and the excessive consumption of late-night coffee.

The Pele Yo’etz knew his people well, which is why he went to great lengths to warn them not to chat in the sacred space of the synagogue, even when prayers were not in progress but especially when they were (see Sefer Pele Yo’etz, at Bet Knesset). After all, there were plenty of places for them to enjoy their conversations apart from the mikdash me’at—the miniature sanctuary set aside to facilitate man’s encounter with God’s presence.

Another great Torah scholar and kabbalist, Rabbi Chaim Volozhiner, also warned against the dangers of casual conversation, this time in the bet midrash, the house of study. On Avot 2:13 he notes Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai’s instruction to his five leading talmidim: “Go out and see which is the good path for a person to adhere to” and observes that, even where the subject of study is a worthy one such as the identification of the proper path for a person to pursue in life, anyone who wants to talk about it should “go out” and leave the bet midrash. This is because of the ease with which a serious conversation concerning best practice in one’s personal behaviour can slip into a comfortable chat on other, probably non-Torah topics. The bet midrash should not be used in this way.  The Pele Yo’etz agrees (above, at Bet Midrash), emphasising the importance of treating this space with awe and deep respect: it is a place for learning and listening, not for street-corner banter.

Putting the guidance of these two eminent latter-day sages together, it is plain that one should chat neither in a synagogue nor in a house of study.  My personal experience is that many people, perhaps the majority, do chat in both places. Much depends on the nature of the conversation, the personalities of those who converse and the standards to which those who frequent such places are expected to conform. I also have no doubt that, in many instances, such conversation is either justifiable per se or capable of being justified. Sometimes it is impossible to avoid talking to others without appearing to be rude, standoffish or falsely pious. It is also likely that, for many people, the chance to have a chat with friends or familiar faces is an incentive to come to shul and support the minyan in the first place, rather than daven at home. Nevertheless the fact remains that there is far more talking in both places than there should be.

I am troubled by this. We all know that we should not engage in social or idle chatter in places set aside for relating to God or learning Torah, yet we do. Even though we are sometimes disturbed or distracted by the conversation of others, we struggle to appreciate that our own words might have the same effect. Ultimately, the avoidance of casual talk in synagogue and in the bet midrash affects both our relationship with God and our relationship with our fellow humans. Bearing this in mind, I’m sure we could do this a bit better.

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

Monday, 8 May 2023

What's hot in Avot

Happy Lag ba’Omer everyone—enjoy the day, but please be careful! Even if you are not making a giant bonfire yourself tonight and have no intention of going near one, remember: the wind can carry smouldering ash a long way. Rabbi Shimon ben Netanel (Avot 2:13) maintains that the most preferable rule to live by is that of bearing in mind the consequences of one’s actions. This includes one’s inactions too. Don’t leave things outside your home if they are likely to suffer fire damage.

Now, here are a few odds and ends that I’d like to draw to the attention of Pirkei Avot devotees and enthusiasts.

Learning is the best response. Thousands of people around the world are now participating in The Dee Pirkei Avot Project, established only a few weeks ago in memory of Lucy, Maya and Rena Dee. Learning Avot is a great response to the tragic loss of these three women, who were an inspiration to so many people in their lifetimes. If you’d like to join the Project and receive each Friday a sheet with a mishnah from Avot and some discussion points for the Shabbat table, email thedeepirkeiavotproject@gmail.com to get your weekly Whatsapp link.

********

Something to bear in mind. Another ongoing Avot project, though of a very different type, is Psyched for Avot, a weekly mishnah-by-mishnah discussion of the psychological dimensions of the Ethics of the Fathers. This is masterminded by psychotherapist Rabbi Dr Mordechai Schiffman. You can sign up for weekly emails that feature Psyched for Avot and other content from the Psyched for Torah platform. For further details visit www.psychedfortorah.com.

********

Are wild beasts ‘caused’ by desecration of God’s name? On Sunday, Avot Today’s Facebook Group hosted ‘Chillul Hashem, Wild Beasts and an Ethical Battle Cry’, a post by R’ Shmuel Phillips together with me (Jeremy Phillips). This piece, which appeared on the popular Judaism Reclaimed Facebook Group, has an interesting provenance, since it started off as straight Pirkei Avot post but metamorphosed into one that incorporated some perspectives on Avot into an article with a more Torah-related focus. The original piece, ‘Setting Free the Menagerie: wild beasts and chillul Hashem’, has now been posted in full on the Avot Today weblog. You can check it out here.

*******

Looking for an online read? English-speaking inhabitants of Jerusalem and visitors to that wonderful city may well find themselves from time to time visiting the iconic Pomeranz bookshop. If you can’t visit the shop, don’t despair. You are just one click away from Reading With Pomeranz: the official Pomeranz Bookseller Newsletter, Sefirat Ha’Omer edition.  It’s short, seriously colourful and contains a couple of pieces on Avot. To take a look, just click here.

For comments and discussionof this post on Facebook, click here.

Setting free the menagerie: wild beasts and chillul Hashem

For the unwary student of mussar and middot, Pirkei Avot is full of surprises. One such surprise comes when the reader, reaching the fifth perek, suddenly finds that the constant stream of earnest Tannaic guidance on how to behave appears to have been dammed up, replaced by a sequence of apparently misplaced messages about God’s role as Creator, His remarkable patience with His annoyingly disobedient people and some salutary information as to what happens when that patience expires. Where did the mussar and middot go?

The answer is that the stream of behavioural advice is not dammed up but continues underground, as it were, hidden from sight but none the less influential.

By way of example, take this verse from parashat Emor (Vayikra 22:32):

וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ, אֶת-שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי, וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי, בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:  אֲנִי יְהוָה, מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם

In translation: “And you shall not profane My holy name; but I will be made holy among the children of Israel: I am the Lord who makes you holy”.

This verse lies in the middle of a lengthy sequence of instructions regarding sacrificial offerings, falling between a review of animals that may or may not be sacrificed and a list of offerings required for each Jewish festival. It accounts for two of the 613 Torah mitzvot: chillul Hashem and kiddush Hashem (respectively, desecration and sanctification of God’s name). The context suggests that these obligations relate solely to the right and wrong ways of offering up animals and other items, but both are of very much wider practical application and effectively govern speech and action that either enhances or diminishes the sanctity of God’s name.

Chillul Hashem also features in Pirkei Avot on several occasions, one of which is quite puzzling. At the beginning of Avot 5:11, a mishnah describes the consequence of dragging God’s name down:

חַיָּה רָעָה בָּאָה לְעוֹלָם עַל שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא וְעַל חִלּוּל הַשֵּׁם

In translation: “Wild beasts [chayah ra’ah, literally “a wicked beast”] come[s] to the world for false oaths and the desecration of God's name”.

The prohibition of chillul Hashem in parashat Emor is expressed in the plural; the mishnah in Avot balances this by specifying a collective punishment, but the match is not exact: chillul Hashem can be committed by an individual, but both the wording and the context of the mishnah suggest that the punishment occurs only where the offence is spread through Jewish society at large. In both cases chillul Hashem is paired with something else: in Emor it is tied to its opposite, kiddush Hashem, while in Avot it is bound in with the making of a false oath, an offence that is similar to chillul Hashem in that it also involves an abuse of God’s name and reputation.

What is the function of this reference to chillul Hashem in Avot 5:11? Why is it there at all? Is it simply to remind the reader of the severity of the offence? Is it there to specify a punishment where the Torah was silent? And what is the mention of chayah ra’ah doing there in the absence of any accompanying mussar or middot material?

Do these questions even need to be answered at all? Some commentators have nothing to say on this aspect of Avot 5:11, among them Rambam, Rabbenu Yonah, the Bartenura, the Alshich, Tosafot Yom Tov, Rabbi Ya’akov Emden and Rabbi Chaim Volozhin. But others are intrigued by the chayah ra’ah and some find mussar in the mention of them.

While “chayah ra’ah” traditionally conjures up images of large, wild creatures. Rabbi Eliezer Liepmann Prins observes that this Hebrew term specifies no size. A virus or bacterium is as much a chayah ra’ah as is an elephant. By setting minute, invisible life forms against those who profane His name, God demonstrates that, wherever one finds His greatness, that is where one also finds His humility” (per Rabbi Yochanan, Megillah 31a). Rabbi Prins adds that “wild beasts” need not be construed as a punishment at all. He ingeniously explains how, when humans degrade themselves to a state of bestiality by profaning sacred things on Earth, it is they who become like wild beasts. This view accounts for the fact that regular wild beasts—lions, tigers and the like--are already in the world even before people break their oaths or desecrate God’s name so they cannot be said to “come to the world” when people do such things.

The Me’iri’s Bet HaBechirah sees the mishnah’s teaching as an exercise in middah keneged middah (“measure for measure”). In the great scheme of things, God’s superiority to man is paralleled by the man’s superiority to the animal. If man plays the animal by desecrating God’s name, God provokes man by attacking him with animals. The Midrash Shmuel frames the same principle differently: if humans lose their fear of God, He will remove from animals the fear of them which He promised Noah and his descendants (Bereshit 9:2). Rabbis Avraham Azulai (Ahavah BeTa’anugim) and S. R. Hirsch share this view.

The Sforno’s take on middah keneged middah is founded on awareness and knowledge. Both false oath-taking and chillul Hashem are the result of a person’s diminished state of understanding and awareness of God’s greatness. The corresponding punishment is visitation by wild beasts, creatures who lack any degree of understanding. Likewise, the Chida’s Chasdei Avot points out that humans are created in God’s image. When they desecrate God’s name, they shed this image and appear like animals. For the Maharam Shik, the issue is that mankind is created with the ability to speak, while animals are not. When a false oath of chillul Hashem are committed through speech, it is through the medium of creatures that do not speak that man is punished.

Not all accounts of “wild beasts” are tied to middah keneged middah and some commentators read this mishnah in socio-political terms. Thus, in his Derech Chaim, the Maharal takes the term to be an allusion to the oppression we experience at the hands of other nations, an explanation that Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, himself a Holocaust survivor, favours in his Yachel Yisrael. While both the force of this explanation and the reason for it can be appreciated, if we accept it we must then ask what practical lesson we can extract from it—and that is not so easy.

Numerous allusions to verses from Tanach, as well as entire pasukim, appear in the latter part of Pirkei Avot, and they are not there for mere padding or decoration. Like the reference to chillul Hashem here, they invite serious investigation of a mussar message, since that is the reason for Pirkei Avot’s existence.

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

Friday, 5 May 2023

When anger is all the rage...

One of the shortest and most succinct mishnayot in Avot is credited to Rabbi Elazar HaKappar:

הַקִּנְאָה וְהַתַּאֲוָה וְהַכָּבוֹד מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הָאָדָם מִן הָעוֹלָם

In translation: “Jealousy, lust and [the quest for] honour remove a person from the world”.

The harmful consequences of jealousy, lust and the quest for kavod (loosely speaking, “honour” or “respect”) are well known and well attested, both in real life and in literature. But they are surely not the only personal qualities that have the effect of causing self-destruction as well as wreaking terrible harm on those who are the objects of such unwanted attention. Indeed, there is something missing. The mishnah’s shortlist list does not feature anger, even though Jewish sages over the centuries have not only condemned it but have likened it to idolatry. Why then does Rabbi Elazar HaKappar omit it?

A possible answer is that anger does not flare up in a vacuum: it is usually caused by something. And, if one considers carefully the deepest and most powerful forms of anger that one experiences, it is possible to allocate them to one of three causes: jealousy, lust or the thirst for honour.

This analytical process works fairly well for most types of anger.  Road rage, for example, can be traced back to the acute disrespect shown by a fellow road user. So too can the anger not just felt but all too frequently inappropriately expressed by parents when their children are disobedient. Jealousy and lust can be seen to work in tandem, where a person’s unrequited physical passion for another is compounded by jealousy that the object of one’s desire prefers the attentions of someone else.

The bottom line: perhaps, if we look carefully at the reasons for our anger and seek to understand them better, we will be better equipped to curb our anger or, better still, find a positive and constructive means of channeling it.

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

Based on an idea of Rabbi Reuven Melamed (Melitz Yosher al Pirkei Avot).

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

Wednesday, 3 May 2023

Real Wealth? Sophie Tucker v Abba and The Beatles

Much of Rabbi Chaim Volozhin’s classic commentary on Avot, Ruach Chaim, has a distant and detached feel to it. Written by a major Torah scholar for a generation where the pursuit of Torah and commitment to its precepts required neither excuse nor apology, it sometimes seems that many of his explanations of the practical impact of Avot’s mishnayot lie beyond the grasp of contemporary readers who do indeed value Torah but still must struggle to accommodate it within their busy, compartmentalised lives.

If we can overcome our feeling of distance between ourselves and Ruach Chaim, there is much in it that speaks directly to us. A good example is the author’s position on that most unfashionable of concepts, that of the need to be satisfied with what one has, to be truly appreciative of it rather than focus on what one does not possess. This principle is stated overtly in Avot 4:1 (“Who is the person who is wealthy? The person who rejoices in his portion”) and echoed in a baraita at Avot 6:6. But Reb Chaim finds further support for it elsewhere.

In Avot 4:11 Rabbi Yonatan says:

“Anyone who fulfils the Torah in poverty will ultimately fulfil it in wealth, while anyone who neglects the Torah in wealth will ultimately neglect it in poverty”.

As Reb Chaim points out, these words cannot be taken literally. As he puts it,

“We witness that many righteous people live their entire lives in grinding poverty, while wicked people enjoy a lifetime of prosperity”.

So what does the mishnah mean? He explains:

“This mishnah needs to be understood on a different level. Me’oni (“in poverty”) literally means “from poverty” or “due to poverty”. If someone realizes that his lack of wealth is a blessing, an opportunity to focus on service of Hashem without the distractions that accompany wealth, then he will be able to fulfil the Torah in wealth”.

He then references Ben Azzai (Avot 4:1, above). A person who is satisfied with his lot will not regard himself as being poor, even though he may be objectively regarded as such in purely material terms. Further comments then follow, regarding the dangers of wealth and the pursuit of it.

Today we are culturally attuned to be poverty-averse and this is quite understandable. Reb Chaim himself speaks of “grinding poverty” and we are only too aware of its impact on lives of ourselves and others. But we must still ask if, when we have the chance, we go too far and continue to flee poverty long after it has ceased to pursue us. Much of what we today label poverty would not be viewed us such in previous generations, when expectations were far lower and provision for relief was far less.

In past generations, singers could allude to poverty and strike a note with their audiences. Thus in our grandparents' time Sophie Tucker (My Yiddishe Mamma) could sing lyrics like this:

"How few were her pleasures, she never cared for fashion's styles
Her jewels and treasures she found them in her baby's smiles
Oh I know that I owe what I am today
To that dear little lady so old and gray
To that wonderful yiddishe momme of mine".

Lyrics such as this once helped to affirm social values, but they sound embarrassingly mawkish and sentimental today. In contrast, the past half-century has resounded to the compelling chorus of Abba:

Lyrics such as this once helped to affirm social values, but they sound embarrassingly mawkish and sentimental today. In contrast, the past half-century has resounded to the compelling chorus of Abba:
“Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man's world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man's world
Aha
All the things I could do
If I had a little money
It's a rich man's world
It's a rich man's world”.
Let's not forget The Beatles. Back in 1964 they expressed a similar ideal in Can't Buy Me Love:
"Say you don't need no diamond rings
And I'll be satisfied
Tell me that you want the kind of things
That money just can't buy
I don't care too much for money
Money can't buy me love."
However, by the time they released their Revolver album only two years later, in 1966, they had quite literally changed their tune and were singing, in Money (That's What I Want):
“Now give me money (That's what I want)
That's what I want (That's what I want)
That's what I want, (That's what I want), oh, yeah (That's what I want)
Money don't get everything, it's true
What it don't get, I can't use
Now give me money, (That's what I want)
That's what I want”.
These lyrics lead one to revisit the age-old question: is it better to remain an active participant in wider society and learn to resist the insistent messages we absorb effortlessly through the media, or to retreat into a smaller, safer society in which we hear only the messages coined by our sages?
For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.

Monday, 1 May 2023

Avot in retrospect: a summary of last month's blogposts


In case you missed them, here's a list of items posted to the Avot Today Facebook Group in APRIL 2023: 

Friday 28 April 2023: Building a Career in Holiness: In this guest post from Shmuel Gorenstein, the influence of parents is matched with the impressionability of children (Avot 4:25) in the formation of one's character and qualities.

Thursday 23 April 2023: Acts of Kindness: How the Torah Records an Upgrade: Why is Pirkei Avot called Pirkei Avot ("Ethics of the Fathers")? Rav Druckman's book on Avot offers many explanations. Here's one of them.

Sunday 23 April 2023: Good Names, Bad Names: The value of a good name, i.e. a good reputation, is promoted in Avot -- but even good names might be problematic, it seems.

Thursday 20 April 2023: Humility, Heep and a Pile of Baggage: The word "humility" -- so often mentioned in Avot -- has a dreadfully old-fashioned flavour to it these days. Is there a more palatable way to express the concept?

Tuesday 18 April 2023: Now is the Time: A reminder that now is the ideal time to renew one's pursuit of Pirkei Avot studies and to buy a new book -- whether mine or anyone else's.

Sunday 16 April 2023: Making a Fence: Do We Really Need 5,000 commandments? Avot 1:1 teaches the need to build a fence around the Torah. But do more commandments keep more people in or out of Jewish life?

Wednesday 5 April 2023: Progressing from Pesach: it's the Torah that counts: There are 48 ways to acquire the Torah (Avot 6:6) but 49 days from Pesach to Shavuot. What can we learn from this numerical discrepancy?

Monday 3 April 2023: Trump, Netanyahu and Political Credibility: a Message for Pesach: How far, if at all, does Pirkei Avot condone the placing of trust in our political leaders?

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

Avot Today blogposts for March 2023
Avot Today blogposts for February 2023
Avot Today blogposts for January 2023
Avot Today blogposts for December 2022
Avot Today blogposts for November 2022
Avot Today blogposts for October 2022

Friday, 28 April 2023

Building a career in holiness

The following post has been provided by a member of the Avot Today Facebook group, Shmuel Gorenstein. All group members are reminded that they are welcome to participate actively in Avot Today, both by submitting items to share on the group and by posting comments and thoughts on other people’s posts. Don’t be shy – just participate!

**********

איש אמו ואביו תיראו

(קדושים יט:ג)

“(Each) man shall fear his mother and his father” (Kedoshim 19:3)

 It is significant that, after the admonition "You shall be holy", the first commandment to be mentioned is to fear one’s parents. It is thus apparent that the first step toward the realization of the ideal of holiness is the necessity of fearing one’s parents, which is the first rung of the ladder of fear of Hashem.

  •  The fear of parents causes their teachings to be more effective, especially in the original plan to teach the Torah in the home (as set forth in Devarim 6:7 and 11:19).

  •  The attitudes of awe and obedience towards parents are essential for the eventual awe and obedience toward Hashem.

The fact that the Shabbos follows, as the second step toward the goal of holiness, is actually because of the first step. The influence of parents upon the children is most abundantly exercised on the Shabbos day, when the family are together all day. In addition, the lessons of the Shabbos are the foundations for all of our thoughts concerning Hashem.

But, most important of all, is the effect of the above factors on the young mind, when the parents begin teaching him: "He that learns when a child... is like ink written on new paper" (Elisha ben Avuyah, at Avot 4:25), and "the youthful learning" (Shabbos 21B) is the most effective.

This is the foundation for a career of Kedusha.

[Rav Avigdor Miller]