"It depends on the context"

Who could have imagined a week ago that the words “it depends on the context” would take on such a chillingly horrific meaning? Who could have contemplated that the heads of three of the world’s most prestigious universities could testify that, in their institution, a call for genocide on Jews was not per se objectionable but would depend on the context in which it was called for. This post does not propose to repeat the debate that has taken place so far on the social media and beyond. Rather, it addresses just one aspect of context: its place within Jewish thought.

In one sense everything we do and say is given its meaning and its significance by context. In purely physical terms, the impact of the laws of physics depends on context. Thus an apple will fall faster from the tree on Earth than on the Moon. Legal rules too can depend on context in much the same manner: this is why the amount of tax a person pays depends on the laws that apply in the jurisdiction in which he or she is registered to pay tax. This sort of context explains why some actions are mandatory in one context but prohibited in another, and this is why the driver of a motor vehicle must sometimes keep to the left of the road, sometimes the right, according to the highway code that applies to the road in question.

Every form of human society is based on rules. In some exceptional cases, for example North Korea, these rules are enacted and enforced by an authority that is above and beyond challenge, an authority that has the absolute power to determine what is permitted or forbidden, what is right and what is wrong. But for most of us, we live in societies in which laws are framed within the context of an understanding, shared by the governors and the governed, as to what lies within or beyond the bounds of tolerance, what is acceptable and what is not. When this shared understanding is lost, we witness the beginning of a process of social disintegration.

Jewish tradition recognizes the importance of context. One of the best-known passages in the Jewish bible, at Ecclesiastes 3:1 to 3:8, observes that there is a time for everything and then lists several pairs of contrasting and context-dependent actions (eg. “A time to kill and a time to heal; a time to wreck and a time to build. A time to weep and a time to laugh…”).

But context is not everything because it does not exist in a cultural vacuum. The life of a Jew is governed by laws, which are binding and by a code of best behavioural practice, which is discretionary and therefore a reflection of context. Pirkei Avot contains an important part of the latter. The tractate does not need to spell out the basic rules for life in a civilized society. This is “Ten Commandment” territory and is covered by many of the rules articulated in the written Torah. Rather, Avot guides us and advises us how to live to best effect in a society that is governed by those rules.

Both laws and moral precepts are fundamental elements of a mature society. Where there exist exceptions them, those exceptions too are governed by a broadly shared acceptance as to when they should (or should not) be applied. The wriggle room that permits laws and social mores to be waived or varied in individual cases may be described as “context”, but the fact remains that the law and the basic social norms that the law reflects have primacy, a primacy that is demonstrated by the fact that they so often define the range of contexts in which they do not apply.

The ethical code of Pirkei Avot and other sources of good Jewish conduct are built largely on the concept of middot, a word that is hard to translate or define but which encapsulates both good manners, common sense, and self-improvement. Avot addresses a zone of human conduct in which context is king, because social interaction is unending and ever-changing—and middot must respond to these changes on an ongoing basis.

I think that, when we discuss context, we have to distinguish between the different types of context and—if we are to be precise—the different contexts in which the word “context” is used. When the context is of a physical or geographic kind, one that governs which laws apply in any given situation, its significance is unlikely to be controversial. But when we use the word in debate over social, moral or legal standards, we must bear in mind that moral relativism comes into play. That is where the most serious discussions are reduced to the simplistic and infantile format of “You say it’s right; I say it’s wrong. Since right and wrong are only subjective evaluations, there is no such thing as right or wrong”. When this happens, we are reduced to arguments based on expediency, rhetoric, emotion and the tyranny of whoever has the loudest voice.

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

Children's talk

At Avot 3:14 R’ Dosa ben Harkinas teaches:

שֵׁנָה שֶׁל שַׁחֲרִית, וְיַֽיִן שֶׁל צָהֳרָֽיִם, וְשִׂיחַת הַיְלָדִים, וִישִׁיבַת בָּתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת שֶׁל עַמֵּי הָאָֽרֶץ, מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הָאָדָם מִן הָעוֹלָם

“Morning sleep, midday wine, children's talk and sitting in the meeting places of the ignoramus drive a person from the world”.

Some commentators take this teaching literally, as a list of four spiritually harmful activities that we should seek to avoid. Others view it as describing a sort of rake’s progress where a person who starts the day by sleeping late in the morning will end up in a sort of spiritual wasteland, unable to raise himself to higher levels. Others again—for example R’ Moshe Alshakar and the Kli Yakar—take ‘morning’ and ‘midday’ as metaphors for one’s youth and middle age. If by then a person’s life is not on an even keel, their predicament is likely to be permanent.

There has been much discussion of the third element of this mishnah, sichat hayeladim (“children’s talk”). This term is sometimes taken to mean conversation that never reaches above the level of the purely childish (as per Midrash Shmuel) or which, which superficially mature and intelligent, focuses only on the sort of childish topics that entertain the immature mind. Avot deRabbi Natan characterizes it as conversation with children. The Avodat Yisrael of R’ Yisrael of Kozhnitz posits yet another meaning—one that is not obvious from the text: talk about one’s children and the difficulty of meeting their needs. He adds that, when a person is preoccupied with the needs of one’s children, the level of concern is constant and does not allow that person any peace of mind.

I wonder whether, when the Avodat Yisrael writes of “needs”, he is contemplating not merely material requirements but also what one’s children (and grandchildren) require in terms of their intellectual, moral and spiritual development. If we don’t attend to these matters while we can, when we have the strength and the willingness to do so, we may find that, by the time we recognize what we should have done, we may have left it too late to do anything about it.

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

Balaam's ass and a boozy bovine

Our regular correspondent Claude Tusk has just asked us the following question:

We learned today in Daf Yomi (Bava Kamma 35a) of Rav Papa's intelligent ox. Unlike the mouth of Balaam's ass in Avot 5:8, this ox did not require a special act of creation. What does that say about the place of speech in the hierarchy of cognition?

By way of background, the mouth of Balaam’s ass is listed in Avot 5:8 as one of 10 (or possibly as many as 13) objects created on Friday evening just before the onset of Shabbat. The reference to Rav Papa’s ox runs like this, according to a slightly edited version of the Soncino translation:

The case considered here is one of an intelligent animal which, owing to an itching in the back, was anxious to burn a barn so that it might roll in the [hot] ashes [and thereby gain relief]. But how could we know [that the animal possessed such an intention]? [By seeing that] after the barn had been burnt, the animal actually rolled in the ashes. But could such a thing ever happen? — Yes, as in the case of the ox which had been in the house of R. Papa and which, having a severe toothache, went into the brewery, where it removed the lid [that covered the beer] and drank beer until it became relieved [of the pain].

So why, then, does the mishnah include the mouth of the ass but exclude the potential of members of the animal kingdom to develop their intellect?

Before I give my own answer, which I propose to do on Sunday, I’d like to hear from readers. What do you think?

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

Assets or liabilities?

A baraita in the sixth and final perek of Avot (6:8) reads as follows:

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאִי אוֹמֵר: הַנּוֹי, וְהַכֹּֽחַ, וְהָעֹֽשֶׁר  וְהַכָּבוֹד, וְהַחָכְמָה, וְהַזִּקְנָה, וְהַשֵּׂיבָה, וְהַבָּנִים, נָאֶה לַצַּדִּיקִים וְנָאֶה לָעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: עֲטֶֽרֶת תִּפְאֶֽרֶת שֵׂיבָה, בְּדֶֽרֶךְ צְדָקָה תִּמָּצֵא. וְאוֹמֵר: תִּפְאֶֽרֶת בַּחוּרִים כֹּחָם, וַהֲדַר זְקֵנִים שֵׂיבָה. וְאוֹמֵר: עֲטֶֽרֶת זְקֵנִים בְּנֵי בָנִים, וְתִפְאֶֽרֶת בָּנִים אֲבוֹתָם. וְאוֹמֵר: וְחָפְרָה הַלְּבָנָה וּבוֹשָׁה הַחַמָּה, כִּי מָלַךְ יְיָ צְבָאוֹת בְּהַר צִיּוֹן וּבִירוּשָׁלַֽיִם, וְנֶֽגֶד זְקֵנָיו כָּבוֹד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: אֵֽלּוּ שֶֽׁבַע מִדּוֹת שֶׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים לַצַּדִּיקִים, כֻּלָּם נִתְקַיְּמוּ בְּרַבִּי וּבְבָנָיו

[Translation] R’ Shimon ben Yehudah used to say in the name of R’ Shimon bar Yochai: “Beauty, strength, wealth, honour, wisdom, sagacity, old age and children befit the righteous and befit the world. As it states (Mishlei 16:31): "Old age is a crown of beauty, to be found in the ways of righteousness”. And it says (ibid. 20:29): "The beauty of youths is their strength, and the glory of sages is their age”. And it says (ibid., 17:6): "The crown of sages are their grandchildren, and the beauty of children their fathers”. And it says (Isaiah 24:23): "And the moon shall be abashed and the sun shamed, for the Lord of hosts has reigned in Zion, and before his elders is glory”.

Rabbi Shimon the son of Menasya used to say: “These seven qualities enumerated by the sages for the righteous were all realized in Rebbi [i.e. R’ Yehudah HaNasi] and his sons”

In my book I commented that this could be seen as a list of liabilities as well as of assets. I wrote (with footnoted citations removed):

Looking carefully at this Baraita, one can read it as conveying quite the opposite meaning to that which is normally given to it. This is because none of the eight things listed is only a reward or a privilege: it can also provide a basis upon which the person who possesses it must recognize that he has to shoulder the responsibility that goes with them. This idea is not as strange as one might initially think. Thinking along similar lines, Rabbi Levitas Ish Yavneh teaches that one should be very, very humble because the hope of man is but the worm: our Baraita has been viewed as a sort of negative checklist of things that can lead a person to pride and arrogance. However, we can learn here that, while these powerful attributes can corrupt or destroy if they in the wrong hands, tzaddikim have the capacity and the self-discipline to handle them. Not only can they ride with the tide, as it were, coping with each of the items on the list without losing their sense of humility, but they can channel them constructively for the good of others. How does this work? Let us take each term in order:

• Beauty: a person’s physical beauty is a snare and a delusion, an external asset that deteriorates over time. An earlier Mishnah has already warned us of the danger of taking people at face value, and the Book of Proverbs emphasizes that beauty is a false commodity. Only those with a strong moral backbone can be sure to cope with the pressures and expectations placed upon them by the perception of others that they are beautiful.

• Strength: ko’ach, the word translated here as “strength,” carries with it a secondary meaning, of “potential,” the prospect of being able to bring an incipient idea or plan to fruition. This sort of strength, the power to effect change, carries with it a weighty responsibility to bear in mind the so-called law of unintended consequences and look carefully towards the outcome of any change one has the power to achieve. Alternatively, as Ben Zoma explains above, strength is defined in terms of the ability to exercise self-discipline and control oneself. Given the powerful pull of a person’s evil inclination, having the strength to overcome it would seem to be an essential and ever-present weapon in the tzaddik’s armoury of middot. The sad lot of the tzaddik is that his evil inclination is stronger than that of others, so he has need of greater strength to combat it.

• Wealth: Hillel the Elder has already taught, “the more the wealth, the more the worry.” Again, strength of character and moral rectitude are required if a person is to pass the test of affluence. While we can all be rich in one sense – since the one who is truly rich is the person who is content with his portion – this is something that applies to everyone, whether they are tzaddikim or otherwise.

• Honour: of the eight items listed in this Baraita, none is as potentially toxic as honour: it is the only one that has the potential to kill a man spiritually stone dead. An ordinary individual runs the risk of chasing honour when it is as yet unearned, and of letting it get to his head even if it has been fairly earned. A tzaddik will however be able to handle its toxicity and treat it in the way Avot prescribes, by giving it to others and by according it to the Torah.

• Wisdom: like honour, wisdom can be dangerous in the hands of someone who lacks the requisite moral framework within which to utilize it. Pharaoh invoked wisdom when deciding to deal with his “Jewish Problem”: this misdirected wisdom could have resulted in the extinction of the Children of Israel but instead caused Pharaoh’s personal humiliation and the destruction of his own fighting force. Balaam’s attempts at prophecy could not harm Israel but his wise counsel did, when he advised Balak on how to break the desert nation’s commitment to God. Few men of their generation were as wise as King David’s counsellor Achitophel or King Saul’s chief herdsman Doeg, yet their intellectual prowess was ill matched with their scheming politics. The harsh reality is that wisdom is only safe in the hands of someone who can be trusted – ideally a tzaddik – and that is a massive responsibility, as Moses discovered when he was the only person who possessed the necessary wisdom to resolve his people’s disputes.

• Early old age: 60 or thereabouts is the time when a person becomes conscious of the fact that, while he may feel no different on the inside, he is starting to look old. Without a firm moral basis that supports a tzaddik, the drive to “have a final fling” or to yield to what is euphemistically called a “midlife crisis” can be overwhelming.

• Venerable old age: the Talmud reports the words of Barzilai the Gileadite to the effect that, on reaching the ripe old age of 80, there was no longer much pleasure to be derived from life in the King’s court. The diminution of one’s senses of sight, taste and hearing can weigh heavily on someone whose pleasures depend on them, but a tzaddik will not complain to God about his sad and feeble state. Rather, he should be well equipped to take the disappointments and the tribulations of advanced old age as a time to recall with gratitude his earlier days and the opportunities he once had to serve others. Now is the time to reflect on the opportunities that he can give others to do acts of kindness for him.

• Children: one does not need a Torah source to support the proposition, evidenced by life itself, that bringing up children can take its toll on even a loving parent. The price one pays for parenting can be steep in terms of time, effort, frustration, sleep deprivation, temper control and general inconvenience. Nor is there any point at which one can predict that the responsibility for raising one’s children will end. For a true tzaddik none of this is a burden.   

I’m delighted to have discovered that I am not alone in raising a warning about these eight things. R’ Yitzchak Ze’ev Yadler had already made the same point in his Tiferet Tzion commentary on Avot. There R’ Yadler adds that everything on this list is only of use to a tzaddik if he treats them effectively as catalysts that enable him to improve his service of God and his fellow humans.

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

In pursuit of piety

A big thank-you to Claude Tusk for reminding us how highly Pirkei Avot was valued by the Amoraim. He writes:

From yesterday's Daf Yomi (Bava Kamma 30a):

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַאי מַאן דְּבָעֵי לְמֶהֱוֵי חֲסִידָא – לְקַיֵּים מִילֵּי דִּנְזִיקִין. רָבָא אָמַר: מִילֵּי דְאָבוֹת. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: מִילֵּי דִּבְרָכוֹת.

[Translation] Rav Yehudah said: “That person who wishes to be a chasid [literally “pious person”] must comply with the laws of damages”.  Rava said: “[That person must comply with] the content of Avot”; still others said: “That person must comply with the content of [the tractate of] Berachot [“Blessings”]”. 

So Avot is in the top three for encouraging piety!

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

This passage from Bava Kamma is often quoted by commentators in their introductions to the tractate, either simply to remind readers of the value of implementing Avot in practice rather than just sitting and learning it or, less often, in order to find a link between the laws on damages, Jewish ethical guidance and the many diverse rules relating to blessings.

Avot itself offers different advice on how to be a chasid: at Avot 6:1 Rabbi Meir lists “being equipped to be a chasid” as a consequence of learning Torah for its own sake – with the proviso that an am ha’aretz cannot become a chasid (Avot 2:2). Avot also provides a few benchmarks against which to establish if a person is a chasid or not: such a person makes his possessions available to others (Avot 5:13), is hard to anger but easy to placate (5:14), happy that both he and others should give to charity (5:16) and who both goes to a house of study and actually studies (5:17).

Here’s a point to ponder. When Rava says that someone who aspires to be a chasid should comply with Avot, does he mean literally the whole of Avot or only the bits that reference who is or is not a chasid? Thoughts, anyone?

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

On the march with Pirkei Avot

Yesterday an estimated crowd of some 100,000 people took to the streets of Central London in a march to condemn antisemitism. Many of the marchers were Jewish but their numbers were supplemented by others who, though not Jewish themselves, were concerned at the recent frightening tolerance of Jew-hatred in the British Isles.

For the benefit of non-British readers, let me explain. Jews have been in Britain for centuries and, while retaining their independent identity, they have long formed part of the fabric of British society.  Following a steep and unprecedented rise in reported antisemitic incidents, and with a sudden open articulation by many people of openly anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiments, many members of this small Jewish population – estimated to be no more than 270,000 souls – fear for their safety and question whether there is still a long-term future for them in the United Kingdom. This fear has been amplified by loss of confidence in the integrity and neutrality of the BBC, whose error-filled and partisan reporting of events has been so painstakingly chronicled and called out again and again by the US-based non-profit organization Honest Reporting.

Yesterday’s demonstration, in keeping with Jewish ethos, was peaceful and respected the large police presence that had been provided in case of trouble. The demonstrators did not call for anyone’s death or destruction, but rather for an end to the tolerance of antisemitism and for the release of the 200+ hostages currently held in Gaza.

Significantly, the demonstrators paused by the Cenotaph to sing the National Anthem.

At Avot 3:2, Rabbi Chanina segan HaKohanim teaches:

הֱוֵי מִתְפַּלֵּל בִּשְׁלוֹמָהּ שֶׁל מַלְכוּת, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא מוֹרָאָהּ, אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵֽהוּ חַיִּים בְּלָעוֹ

[Translation] “Pray for the integrity of the government [literally “kingdom”]; for if it were not for the fear of its authority, a man would swallow his neighbour alive”.

Jewish communities in the United Kingdom have long incorporated this into their Shabbat morning prayers. An English-language version recited in many synagogues opens as follows:

“He who gives salvation to kings and dominion to princes, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, may He bless:

Our sovereign lord King Charles,
Our gracious Queen Consort Camilla,
The Prince and Princess of Wales,
And all the Royal Family.”

This prayer then asks God to put a spirit wisdom and understanding into the hearts of the King and all his counsellors, so that they should deal kindly and justly with all the House of Israel.

It seems to me that it is entirely fitting that, even at a mass public demonstration such as we saw yesterday, it is appropriate for the country’s Jews to acknowledge the debt they owe, as residents in a country that does not belong to them, to the forces of law and order that have hitherto been both able and willing to protect them. We pray that they will continue to do so for as long as is necessary.

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

How to lose wait

No -- the title's not a mis-spelling. Please read on!

One of Hillel’s more frequently encountered teachings is אַל תָּדִין אֶת חֲבֵרָךְ עַד שֶׁתַּגִּֽיעַ לִמְקוֹמוֹ (“Don’t judge your friend until you are standing in his place”). The obvious meaning is the literal one: unless you are able to look through another person’s eyes and experience what they are feeling when they do something, you cannot understand their thoughts and motives. This being so, you are not in a position to criticize their actions.

Taken at their face value, Hillel’s words fit well with other content in Pirkei Avot. Rabbi Yishmael ben Yose (Avot 4:10) tells us not to judge at all unless we do so in the company of other judges. Hillel teaches that we can’t judge properly from our personal standpoint. Yehoshua ben Perachya (Avot 1:6) adds that, even if we do judge someone, we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

There is another way we can look at Hillel’s teaching. Maybe he is encouraging us to try to look at things through other people’s eyes in order to avoid judging them at all. Here’s a practical instance of what I mean.

This morning when I left my synagogue, I noticed a man who was standing by the front door, at the top of a flight of steps. He was sheltering under the porch while he waited for his taxi to pick him up. From where he stood, he had a good view of any taxi that might draw up in front of the main door.

A little way down the road, I noticed a taxi waiting to pick up a passenger. The taxi had pulled in to the side of the road at a convenient point, by the edge of the synagogue, where the vehicle could stand without causing any inconvenience to pedestrians or road users.

I realized that there was a problem. The passenger was standing at a really good place for people to stand while waiting for a cab, while the taxi driver had parked in a really good place for motor vehicles to pull in—but neither could see the other.

If it had occurred to the taxi’s customer that the taxi might pull in at a place convenient for taxis, or if the taxi driver had thought where, if he was awaiting a cab, he might be standing, the two would have found each other instantly. As it was, the man awaiting the taxi was looking somewhat impatient, and the taxi driver’s face had ‘disgruntled’ written all over it.

The moral of the story is plain. If either of the actors in this early morning drama had visualized the problem of “man + taxi” through the eyes of the other, there would have been no problem.

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

A rabbi by any other title?

Shortly before the end of this year’s festive season our friend and greatly appreciated commentator Claude Tusk sent Avot Today this devar Torah for Simchat Torah, the celebration of both the conclusion of our Torah readings and their immediate recommencement. This short, timely and well-delivered devar Torah is based on Pirkei Avot, in particular on Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s much-debated contention that it is not the study of Torah which is the main thing, but the performance of its precepts (Avot 1:17).

This devar Torah first cites the opinion of R’ Kalonymus Kalman Shapira that a person who learns Torah but does not implement it is like a bookshelf: he holds much knowledge but is judged to be no more than a piece of wood. R’ Nosson Tzvi Finkel is also quoted: he explains that the value of Torah is inseparable from its active implementation since the role of Torah is to enable one to transform oneself into a different, improved person—and it is only by putting one’s Torah learning into action that one properly internalises it.

Aside from the content of the devar Torah, the issue I want to discuss, one on which I suspect many readers may wish to comment, is that its author, one Rabbi Avi Strausberg, turns out to be a woman.

As a traditional orthodox Jew I am most comfortable with the position that “rabbi” is a title and a status that is conferred upon the male of the species. On the other hand I am happy to attend shiurim given by women; I buy and read works of Jewish scholarship written by women and have greatly benefited from their learning. I respect them both as fellow human beings and as Jewish leaders and scholars in their own right—but for me, on a personal basis, the title “rabbi” refers to a man.

Can I, should I, refer to Avi Strausberg as “Rabbi” in this post? What guidance does Avot give me?

I actually first encountered this issue when I was Registrar of the London Beth Din. I had to write a letter to a (male) minister of a provincial English community who styled himself “rabbi”, even though he did not hold semichah from any recognised authority. I was asked to write to him, with the full authority of the Beth Din, to inform him that he was not recognised as a rabbi and must not refer to himself as such. I asked Dayan Chanoch Ehrentreu, who was Rosh Beth Din at the time and someone whose orthodox credentials were beyond challenge, how I should address the letter and the envelope in which the letter was to be delivered to him.

The Dayan’s answer came instantly and without equivocation. I was to address this person as “Rabbi” both in my letter and on the envelope containing it. He explained: as a matter of kavod, of the respect that any human is required to show to another, one should always give a person the title that he (or she) uses for him- or herself. To do otherwise would be frankly rude and certainly not in keeping with the need to show kavod to others. The source for this is Ben Zoma’s teaching at Avot 4:1: “Who is respected? The person who respects others…”.  I have followed this guidance ever since.

One might add that a letter to someone who calls themselves “Rabbi” which is addressed to “Mr”, “Miss”, “Mrs”, “Ms” or whatever might generate personal embarrassment if that letter is seen and read by others—and embarrassing others in public should also be avoided (see R’ Elazar HaModa’i at Avot 3:15).

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

All you need is love

Made famous by The Beatles’ song, the slogan “All you need is love” became an anthem of the Swinging Sixties. But for students of Pirkei Avot there is much more behind these words.

At Avot 3:15 R’ Elazar HaModa’i teaches:

הַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים, וְהַמְבַזֶּה אֶת הַמּוֹעֲדוֹת, וְהַמַּלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵרוֹ בָּרַבִּים, וְהַמֵּפֵר בְּרִיתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִֽינוּ, וְהַמְגַלֶּה פָנִים בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא כַהֲלָכָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ תּוֹרָה וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים, אֵין לוֹ חֵֽלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא

[Translation] Anyone who (i) profanes the holy things, (ii) degrades the Festivals, (iii) humiliates his friend in public, (iv) abrogates the covenant of our father Abraham (i.e., circumcision), or (v) who interprets the Torah otherwise than in accordance with halachah---even though that person may possess Torah knowledge and good deeds, that person has no share in the World to Come.

There are many good reasons for separately justifying or explaining each of these five things, as commentators over the ages have tended to do. But is a detailed explanation of each of them required? Maharal Shik cuts to the chase and favours a general approach. It is accepted that, if you fall foul of any of these things you are crossing a significant boundary. In crossing these boundaries you are demonstrating the wrong attitude. On this basis a person can forfeit his share in the World to Come—even if he ticks the boxes, as it were, by going through the motions of performing all the (other) mitzvot in the Torah—if he has no love of the mitzvot and is unable to summon up a positive attitude towards them. This shows the importance of cultivating the right attitude to how we serve God.

The explanation of the Maharam Shik is apparently at odds with the message of R’ Chaim Volozhiner in his Nefesh HaChaim. There R’ Chaim emphasises the importance of actually performing a mitzvah even with no positive intention or thoughts at all, rather than having all the best intentions and attitudes but not performing them as required. The question before us is this: can these approaches be reconciled? Suggestions, anyone?

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

A life of ... what?

The concept of Torah im derech eretz has many meanings and has been put to use in many varied and sometimes surprising contexts. Here is one of them.

In Baruch She’amar al Tefillot Hashanah, R’ Baruch HaLevi Epstein reviews some of the finer points of the Birchat HaChodesh, the prayer recited in synagogue in which we announce and bless each new month. Discussing the phrase יִראַת שָׁמַֽיִם וְיִרְאַת חֵטְא חַיִּים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם (Chayim sheyesh bahem yirat shamayim veyirat chet: “A life which has within it fear of Heaven and fear of sin”), R’ Epstein finds it strange that this phrase comes at the end of a list of things we want for life and which we express in the form of חַיִּים שֶׁל (chayim shel: “A life of…”). Why do we change the formula here from chayim shel to chayim sheyesh bahem (“A life which has within it…”)?

By way of an answer R. Epstein offers a hypothesis. If the prayer had asked for a chayim shel yirat shamayim veyirat chet, it would be requesting a life that was so absorbed in fearing Heaven and fearing sin that there was not a moment left for anything else. However important these human qualities might be, and however dear to God, they must surely be combined with other things if humans are to live a full and meaningful life.

In support of this notion R’ Epstein cites the concept of im ein Torah ein derech eretz, ve’im ein derech eretz ein Torah (“If there is no Torah there is no worldly occupation, and if there is no worldly occupation there is no Torah”: R’ Elazar ben Azariah, Avot 3:21). He then cites the famous argument between Torah purist R’ Shimon bar Yochai and pragmatist R’ Yishmael as to whether a life of Torah learning without derech eretz can be sustained: the Talmud (Berachot 35b) reports that many did as R’ Shimon taught and were unsuccessful, while those who did as R’ Yishmael taught prospered.

I do not know offhand of any other explanations offered for the change of rubric. Can anyone enlighten me?

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

Abraham and the three mysterious men

At the beginning of parashat Vayera the Torah tells of three men whose journey takes them past Abraham while he sits by the entrance to his tent. Who are these men? Are they Abraham’s righteous allies Aner, Eshkol and Mamre? Are they angels in disguise? Do they even exist outside Abraham’s consciousness, being no more than players in a profoundly important dream?

R’ Avraham Weinberg of Slonim, in his Bet Avraham, offers an unusual mussar-driven explanation, that the narrative is purely figurative. The three “men” are actually the three things a person should contemplate if he wishes to avoid falling into the grips of sin: the seeing eye, the hearing ear and the understanding that all his actions are stored on permanent record. These are the three things which Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi identifies at Avot 2:1.

How does Avraham react when he sees these “men”? He urges them “al no ta’avor me’al avodecha” (“Please don’t pass by your servant”). With God’s help we can keep these three ideas in the forefront of our minds; without that help we will fail.

Is this just a bit of airy-fairy chassidut? No. We should see it as a tactful reminder to us, when we learn Torah—and particularly Bereshit (Genesis)—that we should not just nod approvingly at the conduct of our forefathers but should make a positive effort to internalise the moral principles that underpinned their lives even before the Torah was given.

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

Middot at war 6: Picking up the pieces

This, the sixth and final post in Avot Today's Middot at War series, looks beyond the conflict to the aftermath. Is either side obliged to assist the other in picking up the pieces and engaging in the large task of reconstruction?

Prima facie this is a topic that lies way beyond the content of Pirkei Avot. However. There is a possibility that this may not be so.

At Avot 1:7 Nittai HaArbeli says:

הַרְחֵק מִשָּׁכֵן רָע, וְאַל תִּתְחַבֵּר לָרָשָׁע, וְאַל תִּתְיָאֵשׁ מִן הַפּוּרְעָנוּת

[Translation] “Distance yourself from a bad neighbour, and don’t stick to a wicked person, and do not abandon belief in retribution”.

The first two parts of this teaching have a plain meaning and, while commentators have offered many examples and explanations, they share a core meaning: don’t become too closely involved with bad influences. The third part, however, is a vague and general proposition that invites interpretation.

Midrash Shmuel offers several shots at explaining this teaching. One starts with a quote from the Torah: כִּ֣י תִפְגַּ֞ע שׁ֧וֹר אֹֽיִבְךָ֛ א֥וֹ חֲמֹר֖וֹ תֹּעֶ֑ה הָשֵׁ֥ב תְּשִׁיבֶ֖נּוּ לֽוֹֹ (“When you encounter your enemy’s ox or ass wandering, you must take it back”: Shemot 23:4). The Gemara (Bava Metzia, Eilu Metziot) establishes that this verse refers to one who is wicked: to help such a person is a way to achieve perfection of one’s soul and even to bring the wicked back to the path of goodness. R’ Yosef ibn Nachmies adds here that a person who is so steeped in goodness as to have reached this level of perfection should never despair of God’s mercy in respect of any puranut [translated above ass ‘retribution’ but in this context ‘disaster’] for which he has been destined.

Does this mean that a righteous nation should set about helping to restore the position of an evil enemy over which it has triumphed? I very much doubt it. My feeling is that this conclusion goes way beyond anything that Nittai HaArbeli might have contemplated. This mishnah addresses the individual, not the state, and the same must surely be said of R’ Yosef ibn Nachmies’ take on it.

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

Middot at war 5: celebrate with care

The tragic current war between Israel and Hamas has already lasted a month and does not appear to be about to conclude. Readers of Avot Today will not need to be told what they should be praying for—peace—or which of the combatants deserves in moral terms to emerge victorious.

Thousands of humans on both sides are already mourning the death of their loved ones, grieving over serious and disabling injuries. But when the conflict ends, many people will be rejoicing. We pray that we will be able to celebrate the triumph of good over evil and the salvation of humanity in the face of unspeakable, barbaric atrocities.  But how does a Jew celebrate?

Pirkei Avot offers sobering advice to the victors. At Avot 4:24 Shmuel HaKatan teaches:

בִּנְפֹל אֹיִבְךָ אַל תִּשְׂמָח, וּבִכָּשְׁלוֹ אַל יָגֵל לִבֶּֽךָ, פֶּן יִרְאֶה יְיָ וְרַע בְּעֵינָיו וְהֵשִׁיב מֵעָלָיו אַפּוֹ

[Translation] "When your enemy falls, do not rejoice; when he stumbles, let your heart not be gladdened—in case God sees and it is displeasing in His eyes, and He will turn His wrath from him [to you]"

This warning is not unique to Avot: it is a direct quote from Proverbs 24:17-18. It is unusual for any teaching that comprises part of the Oral Law to pre-exist as a quote that has been cut-and-pasted from the Written Law. When this occurs, it is neither an accident nor a coincidence but the product of a conscious decision on the part of the Tanna who quotes it. We are thus entitled to ask why he has done it and what lesson we can learn from the fact that he has done so.

Both the Bartenura and the commentary ascribed to Rashi have relatively little to say. They agree that this teaching is featured here because Shmuel HaKatan said it so often and that one should be careful not to rejoice at another’s downfall in case God transfers His anger from the unfortunate subject of His anger to the person who is enjoying the spectacle. But later rabbis have offered a wider choice of explanations.

What a Jew may legitimately celebrate with a full heart is the destruction not of the wicked but of wickedness itself (Berachot 10a).  The Rashbatz (Magen Avot) notes that restraining oneself from rejoicing is a way of emulating God, who does not rejoice at the downfall of the Egyptians who pursued the Children of Israel into the Red Sea (Megillah 10b). Rabbi Abraham J. Twerski (Visions of the Fathers) adds that we are only human: God therefore does not demand anything of us that we cannot deliver. We cannot force ourselves to love other people but we can at least refrain from hating them or harbouring resentment against them. Not rejoicing at their misfortune is thus part of a process of character improvement. The Maggid of Kozhnitz (Avot Yisrael) links this mishnah to another in Avot: since we do not understand how and why another person acts wickedly, we are expected to judge him favourably if we can (Avot 1:6): our pleasure at such a person’s downfall is actually the consequence of our judgement on him.

I have always felt that a person’s capacity to do evil matches his or her capacity to do good. So when I rejoice when retribution is inflicted on the wicked, I do try to focus on the destruction of the wickedness itself—and also to mourn for the good which that person could have achieved in their life, had they only chosen to do so. When the good that they could have done is lost, we are all the losers.

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

Middot at war 4: dealing with death

Death is a virtually inevitable consequence of warfare, whether brought about by the use of weapons, disruption of healthcare services, suicide or anything else. While Pirkei Avot makes numerous references to being judged after one’s death and to the World to Come, it has relatively little to say about how we—mourners, survivors and comforters—should go about our task.

R’ Shimon ben Elazar (Avot 4:23) does however have some practical guidance for us, teaching us this:

אַל תְּרַצֶּה אֶת חֲבֵרֶֽךָ בְּשַֽׁעַת כַּעֲסוֹ, וְאַל תְּנַחֲמֵֽהוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמֵּתוֹ מֻטָּל לְפָנָיו, וְאַל תִּשְׁאַל לוֹ בְּשַֽׁעַת נִדְרוֹ, וְאַל תִּשְׁתַּדֵּל לִרְאוֹתוֹ בְּשַֽׁעַת קַלְקָלָתוֹ

[Translation, with numerals added] (i) Do not appease your friend in his time of anger; (ii) do not comfort him while his dead still lies before him; (iii) do not ask him about his vow the moment he makes it; and (iv) do not endeavor to see him at the time of his degradation.

Of these teachings, the second is right on our topic. It’s practical advice too. Don’t get into someone’s hair while they are trying to organize the funeral of a loved one. With family members often separated from one another by entire continents and time zones, arranging a Jewish funeral nowadays often involves not only dealing with the chevra kadisha—the burial society—but with making urgent arrangements to transport the deceased to Israel. At times like this, it can be distracting for a mourning relative to face a battery of kindly and well-meant expressions of sympathy. You might even antagonize and anger him (Rabbenu Yonah). The commentary ascribed to Rashi gives a different practical explanation: the mourner’s grief and distress before the burial will be so great that he will be unable to absorb any consolation. As R’ Reuven P. Bulka puts it: “The wound is too fresh, the shock too deep and the receptivity too shallow” (in Chapters of the Sages).

But is this the message of the mishnah? Rabbi Abraham J. Twerski (Visions of the Fathers) clearly thinks so:

“The truths of this mishnah are so self-evident that they do not require any commentary …The teaching of this mishnah is that one should always apply sechel (common sense) in relating to others”.

With respect to this position, which is taken by several commentators (including Rambam himself), I feel reluctant to accept it. It’s not normal practice among Tannaim to preserve as a teaching something that is so obvious that it needs no explanation. So do the words mean more than what we take at face value? And, if so, what? The Me’iri (Beit HaBechirah) has something to add: he takes all four teachings of R’ Shimon together as warning us that doing the right thing is only half the story: we have to get our timing right. The best of words or actions can cause untold distress if delivered at the wrong time.

I wonder whether, in contemporary society, we might add even more. Our words and deeds have an impact on not just others but on ourselves. If we get our timing wrong and our words or actions are regarded as being intrusive or inappropriate, we mind find our best intentions “rewarded” with an angry or hostile response. Feeling upset or embarrassed, we may in turn be discouraged from having another go and neglect important mitzvot when next the opportunity to perform them arises.

In the context of war, there is a further dimension to comforting mourners that we should bear in mind. Sadly there are many people mourning those who were massacred on 7 October as well as soldiers who have fallen since. Their deaths are painful to us all because they have been killed as Jews and/or Israelis. But there are also people who have died of old age and natural causes. We must be on our guard not to think of these as second-class deaths. To those who are left behind to mourn, the loss of a loved one is painful and cannot be repaired—whether that person fell gallantly in battle or died peacefully in
bed. We must not let the nature of death govern the quality of our comfort and condolences to those who are left behind.

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

Middot at war 3: how do you pray?

“There are no atheists in foxholes” is a famous aphorism that has often been cited as a proposition that, at times of extreme fear or stress, even a person who does not believe in God in any conventional sense will find himself invoking the aid of a Higher Power.  The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are a fighting force comprised of those who are deeply pious, those who are conventionally religious and those who have no commitment to any religion at all. We can scarcely imagine what goes on in the minds of its combatants when they are in action. Whether they pray, what they pray and what thoughts lie in their hearts are not for us to inquire.

Many of those of us who remain at home are also praying. We pray for the wellbeing of friends and family at the front, for their safe return, for the full recovery of those injured and for the comfort of those bereaved.

At Avot 2:18 Rabbi Shimon ben Netanel opens with two prayer-related teachings:

הֱוֵי זָהִיר בִּקְרִיאַת שְׁמַע וּבִתְפִלָּה. וּכְשֶׁאַתָּה מִתְפַּלֵּל, אַל תַּֽעַשׂ תְּפִלָּתְךָ קְבַע, אֶלָּא רַחֲמִים וְתַחֲנוּנִים לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: כִּי חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם הוּא, אֶֽרֶךְ אַפַּֽיִם וְרַב חֶֽסֶד, וְנִחָם עַל הָרָעָה

[Translation] Be careful when you recite the Shema and with prayer. When you pray, do not make your prayers routine, but rather [an entreaty for] mercy and a supplication before the Almighty, as it states (Joel 2:13): ``For He is benevolent and merciful, slow to anger and abundant in loving kindness, and relenting of the evil decree'' …

This is the only explicit reference to prayer in the whole tractate of Avot. The concept of prayer has however been read into various other contexts. Thus in Avot 1:2, avodah (“service”)—the usual word for the bringing of offerings to the Temple—is sometimes applied to prayer, the form of service we adopted when the bringing of sacrifices was no longer feasible (as Rambam explains in the first perek of Hilchot Tefillah). Later, in Avot 6:6, we see a list of 48 means of acquiring Torah wisdom, but this list does not mention prayer either. 

At times of war many people, regardless of their religious, philosophical or political opinions, experience an urge to pray to a higher authority of one sort or another. For the observant practising Jew there is a standard set of prayers that cover, among other things, God’s responsibility for delivering salvation, justice and peace as well as relief from illness, pain and suffering. These standard prayers can be, and often are, augmented by additional prayers which may be quite spontaneous.

Using a regular formula for daily prayer offers the advantage of familiarity and fluency: you don’t have to ponder about what to say and you are less likely to stumble over the words when you recite it. But familiarity has a downside too: it’s easy to switch one’s focus from prayer to other thoughts. Rabbi Shimon ben Netanel warns of this but there is no easy way to prevent it. We humans are created with minds that effortlessly associate one idea with another and, once the chain reaction begins, it can be difficult to end.

Those of us who use a regular prayer formula may have another problem to face. Sometimes our hearts and minds can be so preoccupied with our objective that we do not even notice when we reach the relevant part of our template and sail straight past it. This has happened to me on numerous occasions, particularly when recalling or re-living an event for which I was grateful so vividly that I did not notice that I had prayed my way through the prayer of gratitude, Modim anachnu lach. To my embarrassment I have had similar experiences when praying for the well-being or speedy recovery of family and friends.

The Kozhnitzer Maggid (Avot Yisrael) alludes to the difficulty of focusing on one’s prayer when one’s mind is full of other things when he explains the final mishnah in the fifth perek (5:26). There, Ben He He teaches “According to the effort [or ‘pain’, ‘distress’], so is the reward”. For him, the effort comes from the task of keeping one’s mind clear when praying when so many thoughts and ideas persist in trying to enter it.

None of us can bend God to our will, and the words of our prayers—whether “set piece” entreaties or spontaneous utterances from the heart—are not a process for magically getting what we want. However, if we do keep our mind on our prayers we can at least say that we have truly recognized that there are things we want that we cannot achieve for or by ourselves, and that we concede that there exists a greater power in our lives than even our own.

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