Archive for the ‘Pirkei Avot’ Category


R. Shimon would say: Three who eat at a single table and do not say words of Torah are akin to those who eat from idolatrous offerings as it says “For all tables are full of filthy vomit and no pace is clean” (Yeshayahu 28:8). However, three who eat at a single table and say words of Torah are like those that partake from God’s table as it says: “This is the table that is before God” (Yechezkel 41: 22). (Avot 3:3)

Just as he did in explaining the previous mishna, Tiferet Yisrael minimizes the scope of application, arguing that certain factors may justify a meal without a dvar Torah. He explains that R. Shimon specifically selects a case of three eating together because a larger group coming together for a joint meal indicates people with some leisure time at their disposal. People with time should feel obligated to converse about something of a substance. However, those wolfing down a sandwich to run back to the office can justifiably skip the Torah discussion.

Tiferet Yisrael adds added resonance to R. Shimon’s message explaining that introducing Torah into the meal clarifies how human consumption is not an end in itself. He cites the famous adage: “Man eats to live but does not live to eat.” It would be interesting to research when this adage, usually associated with Moliere but already appearing in Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of the Philosophers, first made it into rabbinic literature. By studying Torah at the table, we emphasize how a good meal enables us to approach service of God with renewed vigor.

  • Share/Bookmark
More
Last Updated on Sunday, 25 July 2010 02:44

R. Chanina ben Toradyon would say: When two sit and do not exchange words of Torah, it is a gathering of scoffers as it says ‘and did not sit among the scorners’ (Tehillim 1:1). However, when two sit together and exchange words of Torah, the divine presence is among them as it says ‘Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with another; and the Lord hearkens, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon His name’ (Malachi 3:16). I know this only concerning two individuals; how do I know that even a single individual who sits and studies Torah, the Holy One, blessed be He, designates reward for him? From the verse, “He sits alone in meditative stillness; indeed, he receives [reward] for it” (Eicha 3:27). (Avot 3:2)

Looking up the broader context of each biblical verse cited often enhances understanding. Rambam notes that the subsequent verse in Tehillim says: “But his delight is in the Torah of Hashem and he studies His law day and night.” The psalmist contrasts those that sit among scorners with those that study Torah, a context supporting R. Chanina’s reading.

Wider context also aids our insight into the verse from Malachi. In the verse two before the one cited, the prophet tells us of those who say: “It is vain to serve God and what profit is it that we kept his charge.” Context there reveals a challenge regarding which actions have worth and compensation. In response to cynics who fail to see any benefit in religious service, the prophet declares that God fearers engaged in productive conversation ultimately receive their deserved reward.

Tifferet Yisrael points out that the mishna explicitly speaks of those “sitting” and not engaging in Torah discourse. “Sitting” conveys a relaxed tranquility free of cares and responsibilities. In other words, R. Chanina understands very well that business meetings have other agendas and cannot always focus on Torah. However, a meeting with no purpose whatsoever should at some point turn to a constructive field of conversation.

Why does R. Chanina apply the term “scorners” to those who do not discuss Torah? Perhaps they scorn the value of Torah. Tosafot Yom Tov alludes to the parable of someone given an hour to collect gold coins who eschews the opportunity. In the same way, someone passing up the prospect to grow in Torah knowledge lacks an adequate appreciation for pearls of Torah wisdom.

Tosafot Yom Tov adds a profound second interpretation. R. Hanina speaks of “two who sit and do not exchange words of Torah.” Each one studies Torah independently but they do not share Torah discourse because each one assumes the other has nothing to contribute. They do not scorn the Torah per se; they scorn each other’s Torah. How quick we are to assume someone else has nothing of worth to say just because they are not as bright or because they study with a different methodology. Yet if we could just get beyond our arrogance, we would discover authentic insight emerging from the conversation we foolishly avoided. Good Torah discourse awaits us if we simply begin the discussion.

  • Share/Bookmark
More
Last Updated on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 10:52

R. Chanina Segan Hakohanim would say: You should pray for the welfare of the government because were it not for fear of it, man would swallow his friend alive. (Avot 3:2)

Jewish communities today still adhere to R. Chanina’s directive and recite a prayer for the government every Shabbat. Apparently, we prefer government, warts and all, over anarchy. Human flourishing depends upon some form of authority capable of preventing the powerful from devouring the weak. R. Yisrael Lipschutz offers a brilliant reading of how susceptible unchecked humanity is to this kind of evil.

In theory, factors such as human dignity, friendship, reluctance to do something truly wicked, and the risk of a crime not producing any tangible benefits might stop mankind from devouring each other. Yet despite all of the above, human beings do terrible things. R. Chanina’s original Hebrew reads: “ish et re’ehu chaim ba’lao.” According to R. Lipschutz, each phrase refers to one of these four factors. “Ish” means a person of dignified nobility, indicating that such people commit crimes as well. “Re’ehu” conveys that even friendship does not always stand in the way of corrupting influences. “Hayyim” refers to indifference to a victim’s pain including willingness to devour a live creature suffering torment. Finally, “ba’lao,” swallowing, is a form of eating devoid of enjoyment, thus communicating the potential of not achieving anything in wrongdoing.

Some rely upon a combination of human decency and prudence to feel totally secure. Surely people will not attempt to cause harm because their conscience or good sense will stop them. For R. Lipschutz, R. Hanina was warning us not to adopt such complacency. Unfortunately, humanity is capable of terrible things and requires some kind of governmental authority to provide prevention and deterrence.

Of course the wrong kind of government also proves dangerous. Why does the mishna refer to “malchut” and not to a melech? R. Lipschutz explains that R. Hanina wanted to include various kinds of government including the democracies of ancient Rome and of modern Switzerland. Abravanel, on the other hand, thinks R. Chanina indicates a preference against the monarchy. Governments help us avoid anarchy but monarchs simply bring us to tyranny.

We could view this mishna as quite pragmatic and negative, saying only that we need a government so that we do not tear each other apart. Rashi and Rabbenu Yona add a more idealistic element. Rabbenu Yona writes: “A person should pray for the welfare of the entire world and be pained by the travails of others.” Rashi cites sources indicating our caring for the welfare of gentiles. Lurking in this mishna is a powerful message of universal concern. We want the world to flourish and we envision decent government as the only way to achieve that worthy goal.

  • Share/Bookmark
More
Last Updated on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 09:40

Akavya ben Machalelel would say: Reflect upon three things and you will not come to sin. Know from whence you came, and to where you are going, and before whom you will give an accounting. Form where did you come? From a putrid drop. To where are you going? To a place of dust, maggots, and worms. Before whom will you give an accounting? Before the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He. (Avot 3:1)

Many commentators explain that Akavya addresses three different sources of sin. Since arrogance represents an influential cause of transgression, Akavya begins by reminding humanity of their humble origin. Recalling the less aesthetically pleasing aspects of human generation, gestation, and birth helps us realize that humanity is not just about dignity and grandeur.

Temptation and desire also lead to numerous transgressions. Akavya tries to forestall this by mentioning that the human body ultimately lies consumed by worms in a grave. How does this thought help us resist our cravings? Perhaps a sense of temporality encourages the realization of the short term impact of physical delights. Internalizing that realization, we direct our energies to the enduring joys of study, charity, and cleaving to God.

R. Yisrael Lipschutz raises a different possibility. Reckless pursuit of desire often hastens arrival at the grave of worms. Overeating or drug addiction can break down the body in dangerous ways. A hedonistic lifestyle brings a person into environments not conducive to health and well being. Single minded pursuit of pleasure also destroys the network of support from family and friends that enable our weathering life’s more trying components.

What challenge does Akavya’s third statement address? Abravanel thinks that Akavya focuses on the lure of money and possessions. We make our ethically dubious financial calculations while forgetting to calculate the divine reckoning that awaits us. According to his reading, this mishna’s three themes parallel the “kina, ta’ava and kavod” mentioned by R. Eliezer Hakapar as those items that remove a person from this world (Avot 4:21).

R. Lipschutz suggests that the third category refers to heresy and intellectual error. Denying fundamental beliefs can certainly engender sin. Akavya asks the scoffer to consider the possibility that he errs and divine judgment looms at the end of history.

Although Akavya seems to take a heavy handed approach utilizing harsh imagery and focusing on fear of punishment, two commentators altar that picture. Rambam writes: “Reflecting on the greatness of the commander will lead a person to fulfill the divine command with alacrity.” Despite the mishnaic imagery of accounting, Rambam thinks that Akavya does not emphasize potential reward or punishment. Rather, he asks us to reflect upon the grandeur of God, thereby gaining the inspiration that forestalls sin.

Furthermore, Abravanel notes the limitation of a constantly heavy handed message. Stressing mortality and corruption can also motivate a person to despair of spiritual accomplishment and justify a dissolute lifestyle. We sometimes need Akavya’s message to prevent our spiritual downfall; at other times, we need to hear about human dignity and the greatness of our potential. May we successfully combine these two necessary themes.

  • Share/Bookmark
More
Last Updated on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 02:40

R. Tarfon would say: The day is short, the work is significant, the workers are lazy, the reward is great, and the master is pressuring.

He would also say: It is not incumbent upon you to finish the work nor are you free to desist from it. If you studied a good deal of Torah, you will be greatly rewarded. Your employer is reliable to pay for your work and know that the righteous receive their reward in the world to come. (Avot 2: 15-16)

R. Tarfon’s message preserves a delicate educational balance. On the one hand, we want to impress people with the magnitude of authentic responsibility. Our obligations of this world include a great deal of Torah to study, many mitzvot to perform, and much charity to donate. Even a relatively longer lifetime of, say, a hundred years may seem inadequate for the task. Therefore, R. Tarfon instructs us to get busy productively filling our time while trying to meet immense responsibilities.

Having acknowledged the importance of the above message, we also understand the need for a counterpoint. A solitary focus on the above can produce despair and fail to recognize genuine achievements along the way. Keep telling people that becoming learned demands mastering the entire Talmudic corpus and those struggling to finish a single chapter may give up. Those who finish a tractate will not feel some justified and religiously appropriate pride in their accomplishment. R. Tarfon teaches that we are not expected to complete the task.

He avoids the opposing extreme by asserting that the above does not free a person from increasing his efforts. Continued emphasis on lowering expectations can destroy standards and prevent any striving for greatness. We need not finish the task but neither can we desist from it.

Naftali Hertz Wessely, in his Yein Levanon, adds an insightful point about the relationship between the two mishnayot. The first employs a parable including several components, most of which are precisely accurate. Indeed, the work is great, the time is short, the workers are lazy, and the reward is significant. However, the image of a master pressuring needs some fine tuning.

Imagine a rich fellow who hires builders for a job while offering enormous compensation on condition that they finish the work in a day. This reflects the situation evoked by the original parable of R. Tarfon. Yet while God does make demands, He values fruitful endeavor even when the product remains unfinished. Most employers have a result orientated outlook which only sees value in a completed end. Hashem cares about process and effort and understands that different people have varying capabilities. Religious success does not depend upon completion but upon doing our utmost while achieving smaller victories along the way.

Wessely notes that the comparison of the parable breaks down in another way as well. Workers who finish the stricture usually collect their paycheck, go home, and relax. Religious striving knows no finished product since new horizons always beckon. After any success, we could develop more and push further. When R. Tarfon teaches that we are not free to desist, he points out how we never hand in our completed efforts and head off to religious retirement.

May we never cease shooting for the stars even as we joyfully experience more prosaic accomplishments.

  • Share/Bookmark
More
Last Updated on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 12:03