Pirkei Avot

Be careful with the authorities because they only become close to a person for their own benefit They befriend when it helps them but do not stand up for you when things are difficult. (Avot 2:3)

We can easily understand a directive to exercise caution regarding politicians. Those with excessive ambition or a lust for power often rise to political prominence. They kiss babies and dispense warm handshakes when in need of support but do not truly care for their constituents. The seat of power may exert a corrupting influence even on those beginning their careers with nobler motivations.

How does this mishna relate the earlier mishna in which Shemaya instructed his students “not to make themselves known to the government” (Avot 1:10). In theory, we could understand Shemaya as adopting a more sweepingly negative position. Whereas one mishnah speaks only of caution, Shemaya advocated avoiding the authorities at all costs.

In truth, the two mishnayot need not conflict. According to one interpretation in Avot deRabbi Natan (11:3), Shemaya speaks of keeping a low profile. Those with wealth should not flaunt it because word will reach the halls of power and dukes and governors will soon attempt to avail themselves of the riches. Of course, Shemaya realizes that some situations call for interacting with the government. When called for, we engage with politicians but do so with a vigilant eye.

Tosafot Yom Tov explicitly states that the two mishnayot do not contradict each other. Shemaya never denied the great service that court Jews such as Mordechai and R. Yehuda Hanasi offered to Am Yisrael. The former’s work with Achashverosh helped save the Jewish people and the latter cultivated an important friendship with a Roman emperor. Shemaya would not think them mistaken; he would applaud their efforts.

An important theme emerges. Difficult and potentially dangerous endeavors can be necessary. Numerous sermons regarding the evils of politics do not change the fact that one can make a positive difference in the houses of power. We proceed with caution but proceed nonetheless.

Rabban Gamliel the son of R. Yehuda Hanassi would say: Torah is good with derech eretz since the toil in both of them prevents sin. Any Torah not accompanied by a profession ultimately ceases and leads to sin. All who work with the community should toil for the sake of heaven, since the merit of their ancestors aids them and their righteousness endures forever. And I grant you great reward as if you did it. (Avot 2:2)

What constitutes the derech eretz that compliments Torah? R. Yisrael Lipschutz explains that the term derech eretz refers to ethics and humility. Any Torah study not leading to character refinement lacks a crucial component. Moreover, the unethical scholar shames the Torah and causes a desecration of the divine name. Only the combination of Torah learning and ethical refinement prevents sin.

According to R. Lipschutz, Rabban Gamliel’s second idea discusses a totally different theme. Even a person with both scholarship and character also needs to make a living and support a family. Poverty engenders sin and the overwhelming pressures to find a source of revenue ultimately undermines a firm moral stance.

Rabbenu Yona offers a different understanding in which derech eretz refers to gainful employment. If so, both of Rabban Gamliel’s first two statements address a similar theme. Nevertheless, Rabbenu Yona’s careful reading discovers two distinct points. The first statement speaks of toil because it emphasizes the need to fill one’s time constructively. Since the void of boredom and inactivity often create the framework for sin, a life busy with Torah study and work lessens the temptation to sin. A good work ethic can play an important religious role in stopping wrongdoing.

Rabban Gamliel’s second point relates not to usage of time but to financial considerations. Poverty generates serious religious challenges. Dependency might lead someone to falsely flatter potential sources of financial support. Inability to put dinner on the table engenders dishonesty and theft. In that sense, someone studying Torah but lacking a profession paves a path to transgression.

One potential religious stance identifies wealth with sin and poverty with piety. Rabban Gamliel rejects such a view asserting that ability to earn a living reflects a superior religious position. Contemporary religious life indicates more than enough examples of financial pressures leading to sin. Indeed, Torah study combined with a good work ethic and earning a salary is a preferable religious path.

Rabbi would say: Which is the right path for man to choose for himself? Whatever is harmonious for the one who does it, and harmonious for mankind. Be as careful with a minor mitzva as with a major one, for you do not know the rewards of the mitzvot. Consider the cost of a mitzva against its rewards, and the rewards of a transgression against its cost. Contemplate three things, and you will not come to transgression: Know what is above from you: a seeing eye, a listening ear, and all your deeds being inscribed in a book. (Avot 2:1)

A straightforward reading of this mishna might argue that we lack any means for ranking mitzvot. But is this so? Rambam contends that we do have a barometer for establishing the relative value of particular commandments. Punishments associated with negative prohibitions instruct us about the relative severity of each crime. Death penalty crimes are more severe than sins which only merit lashes and distinctions exist among different forms of the death penalty as well. Thus, we can reconstruct the Torah’s ranking system for the negative commandments.

Positive mitzvot, on the other hand, do not provide us with a parallel guide. Indeed, various halachot indicate a lack of ranking regarding mizvot aseh. Someone involved in one mitzva does not abandon it for a second mizva, irrespective of how important he thinks the latter commandment (“osek be’mitzva patur min ha’mitzva”). For Rambam, this principle reflects our inability to rank positive commandments. Of course, some exceptions exist; failure to perform the mitzvot of circumcision or the paschal lamb result in karet, but the norm remains that we have no indicators enabling evaluating the worth of most positive commandments.

Abravanel (Nachalat Avot) notes one significant potential flaw in Rambam’s reasoning. Rambam himself (Moreh Nevuchim 3:41) outlines four factors that influence the choice of punishment, including the ubiquity of the crime. Crimes occurring more frequently require more severe punishments as deterrence. Once we allow questions of deterrence, and not only retributive factors, to influence choice of punishment, those punishments no longer clearly reflect the seriousness of the offense. A given crime may entail a harsh punishment because society struggles mightily to prevent that crime, not because the transgression is so terrible.

Tosafot Yom Tov suggests that we can rank mitzvot in the abstract but cannot apply that ranking to a given individual’s performance of mitzvot since the worth of an act depends upon the expense and difficulties incurred as well as on the alacrity with which it is performed. One person may find prayer particularly difficult or a pauper may struggle to honor Shabbat and that gives greater worth to their heroic dedication to these mitzvot.

If some commentators do enable us to rank mitzvot, must that lead to disregarding those of lesser rank? Tifferet Yisrael (Yachin 4) offers a model that avoids this pitfall. Since different commandments address various needs of the soul, they are all necessary, irrespective of how we rank them. Only a commitment to the totality of commandments leads to the fully refined religious personality. Perhaps we can establish the relative worth of commandments, yet they all remain quite worthy.

[The translation of Avot is based on www.chabad.org]

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would say: The world stands on three things: justice, truth, and peace as it says ‘Execute the judgment of truth, justice and peace in your gates’ (Zekharya 8:16).

What do R. Shimon’s three categories refer to and how does his list relate to the statement of Shimon haTzaddik that the world stands upon Torah, avoda and gemilut chassadim ? R. Ovadia Bartenura and the Tosafot Yom Tov explain that the earlier mishna referred to those things for which the world was created whereas our mishna speaks of those items that preserve society. The two need not go hand in hand. Individuals can excel at Torah study, prayer and benevolence but they cannot establish a flourishing society lacking truth or peace.

Rambam connects this list with his view on the goals of human life. In several places, Rambam writes that humanity should strive towards intellectual and ethical perfection and that achieving those goals depends upon a stable and just society (Moreh Nevuchim 3:27, 54, Shemoneh Perakim chapters 2, 4). According to his interpretation, “truth” refers to intellectual cognition, “peace” to moral greatness, and “justice” to a society enabling such flourishing.

Tifferet Yisrael suggests that the mishna presents an ascending order of care for others. “Justice’ means that we do not physically harm other people or hurt them financially. “Truth” means that we avoid verbal damaging people via lying or tale bearing. Finally, “peace” mandates that we not content ourselves with not harming others; rather, we take initiative to resolve conflicts even when we had no direct involvement in the conflict.

Rabbenu Yona adds a powerful comment on the need to promote truthfulness. He cites a Talmudic story in which Chiya, the son of Rav, begins to fabricate in an attempt to resolve tension between Rav and Rav’s wife. Rav appreciates his son’s efforts but instructs him to stop so as not to acquire the trait of prevarication (Yevamot 62B). Rabbenu Yona explains that a person should avoid lying even about insignificant matters because that leads to falsehood even about the most important things. Commitment to the truth represents such a significant ideal that we cannot allow falsehood to become part of our regular routine, even when noble motivations seem to justify the repeated lying.

Shimon his son would say: All my days I was raised amongst the wise and I did not find anything better for a person than silence, action is more essential than exposition, and all who speaks excessively encourage sin. (Avot 1:17)

The entire thrust of Shimon’s teaching cautions against speech yet what precisely bothers him about speech? R. Ovadia Bartenura outlines three types of negative speech. Shimon’s first statement refers to the ability to remain silent in the face of insults. Few can maintain equanimity when confronted with harsh words but those who succeed avoid foolish angry retorts they would eventually regret. His second statement focuses on the problem of those whose discourse far outstrips their deeds; indeed, elaborate speech sometimes entails hypocrisy. R. Bartenura explains Shimon’s final statement by referring to a famous midrash in which Chava’s addition to the divine command brought about the primordial sin. While Hashem only prohibited eating from the Tree of Knowledge, Hava’s report to the snake added a prohibition against touching the fruit. Once the snake showed her that touching was not problematic, Chava proceeded to violate the actual word of God. In that sense, “all who speaks excessively encourage sin.”

Rabbenu Yona mentions two other benefits in minimizing speech. Too often, our verbosity relates to the ephemeral aspects of human existence. While we do need to talk about what to have for dinner, we need not make it an extensive part of our daily discourse. Better to focus our conversation on more significant questions. Rabbenu Yona also notes the need to think issues over carefully before expressing our opinion. In this last sense, we need not minimize our conversation; instead, we should find a more patient form of verbal expression.

The commentators surveyed thus far highlight various dangers inherent in verbal communication. Rambam’s discussion of speech adds slander, lying, blasphemy, and profanity to the catalogue of negative discourse. Surveying such an extensive list of damaging communication might inspire a person to never open their mouths. R. Yisarel Lipschutz’s commentary provides an important counterbalance. He says that the correct version of the mishnah reads “mi’shetika” rather than “ela shetika.” According to this reading, Shimon says that he did not find that good comes to a person from silence.

A student sitting before a teacher does not benefit from sitting like a silent statue. Others will assume that the silent student is either a fool or too arrogant to discourse with the teacher. Furthermore, those who verbalize ideas remember them more easily. Most importantly, give and take between teacher and student fuels the learning process. How can people learn in depth if they never ask questions or attempt analysis? Clearly, some contexts and certain topics call for extensive speech. Silence may often be golden but it has severe limitations. Rather than curtail speech, we need to utilize this essential and humanly defining instrument in the finest fashion.

Rabban Gamliel would say: Make yourself a Rav, avoid doubt, and do not regularly tithe based on estimation. (Avot 1:16)

R. Gamliel’s first statement appeared previously in the mishna citing R. Yehoshua ben Perachya (1:6). Some commentators explain that R. Yehoshua refers to Torah study whereas R. Gamliel speaks of halachic rulings. R. Gamliel instructs us not to rule independently but to consult with others. One gemara (Horayot 3b) recounts how R. Ashi would call ten butchers together before ruling on a case of a tereifa. According to this reading, our mishna’s first two statements fit together. Avoid the doubts engendered by not consulting and let the advice of others aid decision making.

Rabbenu Yona cites a Yerushalmi explaining the need for rabbinic consultation. How should a Rabbi deal with a doubtful scenario? If he rules permissively, he risks leading others to transgression. If he rules stringently, he risks needlessly wasting the Jewish people money. Better to talk with other knowledgeable people and see if the doubts can be resolved.

The lack of an easy way out of a halachic conundrum emerges from the last statement as well. Why can’t a person tithe by estimation? If a person gives too little, then he or she has not tithed adequately. Nor does giving too much solve the problem since only a tenth becomes maaser and the extra amount set aside is tevel mixed with maaser (Menachot 54b). Since too much and too little are problematic, we must give with precision.

Tifferet Yisrael connects R. Gamliel’s final two statements. One approach attempts to avoid doubt by simply opting for stringency in all doubtful situations. The tithing example exemplifies the failure of this approach; in many cases, error in either direction is problematic. Extra stringency may cause excessive monetary or social harm and it can generate halachic problems as in the case of the tithes. R. Gamliel reminds us that we cannot escape difficult halachic decisions and we must consult with others in order to arrive at the correct answer.

Shammai would say: make Torah your main occupation, say little and do much, and greet ever person with a friendly countenance. (Avot 1:15)

Shammai’s first statement,” make your Torah keva,” lends itself to various interpretations. The most basic interpretation is that a person should dedicate significant time to Torah study. R. Ovadia Bartenura cites a reading that applies this statement to methodology of pesak. According to this reading, one should make Torah rulings in a fixed or consistent way rather than distinguishing between rulings for oneself and rulings for others. Do not be more stringent on oneself or more stringent on others. We easily understand the latter since greater stringency for others could indicate selfishness or even cruelty. Why object to extra stringency on oneself? Perhaps such a halachic stance involves arrogantly assuming superior religiosity or perhaps we fear the potential for an excessively demanding personal regimen.

Tosafot Yom Tov points out that the house of the patriarchs, descendants of Hillel, disagreed with this sentiment. A mishna in Eduyot (3:10) states that they were stringent on themselves but lenient on others. R. Bartenura may view the desirability of this religious stance as an issue debated amongst the Tanaim. The family of the patriarchite saw no problem in setting more demanding halachic standards for oneself.

In the Boaz section of his commentary, R. Yisrael Lipschutz outlines five meanings of the word “keva.” A person studying should be focused, not tired or agitated and he should find a location free of distractions. Learning demands sticking to a topic rather than constantly jumping around. In addition, it requires repetition and review.

All four interpretations mentioned thus far translate “keva” as fixed or constant. R. Lipschutz’s fifth interpretation relates Shammai’s usage of this word to the meaning of keva in Malachi (3:8), to snatch or steal. Various other needs always come up and a person driven to learn must snatch himself away to another venue in order to succeed. An alternative interpretation relying on the same translation of “keva” says that a person must snatch brief units of time for learning if they want to grow in knowledge. Indeed, five minutes here and ten minutes there add up to an immense learning opportunity over the course of a lifetime.

Alternative meanings of “keva” illustrate two tactics in the quest for becoming learned. Learning should be fixed and constant with serious time dedicated to uninterrupted study. At the same time, learning also depends on knowing how to utilize a few minutes while waiting online at the bank. Productivity depends upon knowing how to use both the structured and the spontaneous.

He would say: If I am not for myself, who is for me? And when I am for myself, what am I? And if not now, when? (Avot 1: 14)

According to Rabbenu Yona, this mishna warns against two major sources of underachievement: dependency and procrastination. Many wait for a mentor to provide intellectual excitement or for a peer to encourage acts of benevolence. Yet the urging of others only provides temporary aid; authentic and lasting growth comes from within. Instead of consistently waiting for friends and teachers to inspire us, we need self – motivation to generate our efforts. Of course, this does not nullify the value of exposing oneself to helpful others; it just directs the ultimate responsibility to ourselves. “If I am not for myself, who is for me?”

On the other hand, focusing on individual responsibility can lead towards overemphasis on personal success. Having taken responsibility, we may strut about with excessive pride. Therefore, the mishna cautions against self – aggrandizement. And when I am for myself, who am I?’ A healthy sense of humility helps put our accomplishments in perspective.

The final part of the mishna challenges us not to delay our spiritual and moral responsibilities. Rabbenu Yona mentions four problems with procrastination. One excuse for waiting leads to another and the individual may never get to open that sefer or promote this charitable cause. For example, each year I think that I will commit to praying with greater concentration but the hoped for change has not yet occurred. Moreover, each day matters and waiting means precious time irretrievably lost. Thus, even when we eventually get to the mizva, the lost time remains problematic. In addition, we cannot easily alter patterns established through years of repetition. Every year of delay makes the change more difficult since the habitual behavior becomes progressively more ingrained. Finally, Rabbenu Yona notes that repentance in old age, born from declining desire and fears about posterity, fails to match the worth of a younger teshuva. A delay can also mean a missed opportunity since the growth at a later stage does not equal what could have been. In sum, delaying may become permanent, means missing opportunities both from the perspective of lost time and due to the changing nature of the opportunities, and makes the ultimate change much more difficult to achieve. We have good reason to act with urgency and immediacy. “If not now, when?”

Perhaps the dangers of dependency and procrastination share a common theme: waiting for some external factor to promote change. That factor may be either another person or the passage of time. Hillel teaches us that looking at the calendar or at a neighbor both avoid looking within.

He would also say: He who advances his name, destroys his name. He who does not increase, diminishes. He who does not teach is deserving of death. And He who makes personal use of the crown of Torah shall perish. (Avot 1:13)

According to R. Yisrael Lipschutz, Hillel’s statement refers to different expressions of arrogance. A haughty individual pursues honor but finds honor elusive. Other people find the blowhard insufferable while respecting the truly humble individual instead. An arrogant fellow at the peak of his wealth or power may hear praise from others but those others eagerly look forward to a shift in the power structure when they can trample the person they used to fawn upon. God also finds this person unbearable; thus, divine providence helps bring him down. “He who advances his name, destroys his name.”

Conceited people exhibit reluctance to learn. They either assume they know it all already, view all potential teachers as beneath them, or do not want others to realize that they lack knowledge. They “do not increase” remaining ignorant with all its implications.

The boastful also refrain from teaching. They see potential students as not worthy of their great erudition. Furthermore, they are afraid to share their knowledge and lose their sense of exclusive possession of wisdom. For them, wisdom is not a treasure to be shared but a precious jewel to hide away under lock and key. R. Lipschutz castigates this attitude regarding Torah or other areas of wisdom. He notes that R. Yochanan worked to publicize the cure for scurvy (Yoma 84a) whereas Chazal fault Ben Kamtzar for refusing to teach a special writing ability (Yoma 3:11). The person who does not teach is “deserving of death.”

Finally, the prideful person performs mitzvot and donates to charity primarily in order to receive communal acclaim. In a sense, this person serves himself more than God. Thus, Hillel criticizes the person who “makes use of the crown of Torah.”

We all need a healthy sense of self-worth but we also need to remember R. Lipschutz’s insights. Arrogance gets in the way of education both for pupils and educators; it ultimately causes loss of honor and it undermines the most authentic performance of the commandments.

Hillel and Shammai received from them. Hillel would say: Be like the students of Aharon. Love peace, pursue peace, love humanity, and bring them close to Torah. (Avot 1:12)

Our sages present Aharon, the High Priest, as the great promoter of peaceful relations. When two Jews quarreled, Aharon informed each disputant that the other desired reconciliation; thereby, he brought about renewed harmony (Avot de’Rabbi Natan 12:3). Can we root this midrashic theme in biblical passages?

Some verses in Malachi may provide textual support. Talking about the priests, the prophet says: “The Torah of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found on his lips, in peace and integrity he walked with me, and turned many away from sin” (Malachi 2:6). Assuming that this verse refers to Aharon, he is associated with pursuing peace. Furthermore, the end of the verse in Malachi explains another midrashic motif associating Aharon with influencing others away from sin. According to the same section of Avot de’Rabbi Natan, Aharon’s mere friendship toward the wicked embarrassed them into mending their ways. Both themes about this biblical hero also appear in Hillel’s statement above.

Rabbenu Yona adds an insightful comment regarding the first two parts of Hillel’s teaching. Someone can profess great love of peace and even harbor strong feelings about this ideal without doing much to promote it. Therefore, Hillel follows up his call to “love peace” with a directive to “pursue peace.” Rabbenu Yona provides us with an important reminder not to measure ethical excellence based on which sermons people give or what values they prefer to discuss. A person can talk about ethics endlessly without actually acting in an ethical fashion.

Hillel certainly did much more than mouth ethical platitudes. Talmudic stories about Hillel’s patience when confronted by a series of questions intended to irritate him and when dealing with a trio of prospective converts with unusual requests (Shabbat 31a) reveals a person with great character and love of humanity.

R. Yisrael Lipschutz (Tifferet Yisrael) notes the implications of Hillel’s word choice. Hillel does not speak of love of “ha’adam” but of love of “ha’briyot.” He explains that the later term indicates a more universal message including non -Jews whereas the term adam, in contrast, was sometimes used by Hazal to refer specifically to the Jewish community (see Yevamot 61a). Hillel calls for a wider love that encompasses all human beings.

This comment takes on added meaning in light of a passage in Rav Kook’s writings. Rav Kook portrays Avraham as the paragon of universal compassion and Aharon as the paradigm of a more parochial benevolence, focused on the Jewish people (Orot Ha’Kodesh 3:337). According to R. Lipschutz, Hillel depicts Aharon himself as having a universal element since Hillel identifies love of humanity with the students of Aharon. Perhaps the true students of Avraham and of Aharon would understand the need for a dual approach to chessed, one that focus special energy on Jewish brethren even as it remains concerned with the suffering of other people’s as well.

May we not just talk about ethics but act ethically and may the reach of our concern encompass the various elements necessary for ethical splendor.