Pirkei Avot Chapter 6 Commentary: What’s Torah? (again)

Pirkei Avot 6:1
Rabbi Meir said: Whoever occupies themselves with the Torah for its own sake, [is] … one that loves humankind; … one that gladdens humankind. And the Torah clothes them in humility and reverence, and equips them to be righteous, pious, upright and trustworthy; it keeps them far from sin, and brings them near to merit. … And they become modest, long-suffering and forgiving of insult.

And yet, we see some people who have studied the books we call “Torah” not loving and gladdening humankind, but perpetrating pogroms and violence against Palestinians and fomenting hatred against others. How, then, should we understand Rabbi Meir’s teaching? There are three possibilities: Rabbi Meir could be wrong. This is a possibility progressives must always admit; humans are fallible. And, as I’ve indicated in noting that Pirkei Avot records more disagreement than often noted, Rabbi Meir gives one view; there are others. Another possibility is that these violent and hateful students have studied Torah, but not “for its own sake.” It’s painfully easy to confuse our own ego and our yetser with Torah’s own interests. Finally, it’s possible that “Torah” doesn’t refer the content of those books.  In fact, from the very beginning of Pirkei Avot, the Torah that the rabbis of each generation taught hasn’t been quotation of Moses’ or any previous generation’s words, but their own wisdom about how to live with others and with God, developed in deep conversation with their predecessors.  And the first teaching of the book, from the “Men of the Great Assembly,” was that we should  “be considered/slow in judgement.” If you only study the books, and haven’t explored for yourself how to gladden humankind, you haven’t studied Torah.

Pirkei Avot 6:2
“No one is free except they who engage in talmud-Torah (Torah study).”

See section VII, “Praxis Makes Perfect,” in my article, “Tikkun Olam Upacked.”

Pirkei Avot 6:3
…. And ‘honor’ is none other than Torah …. and ‘good’ is none other than Torah….

By the symmetry property of equivalence, this implies that ‘Torah’ is none other than ‘honor’ and ‘good.’ (Books are a tool to get to Torah; they aren’t the thing itself.)

Comments on Pirkei Avot 5: Do you want to be a sponge? A leopard?

Pirkei Avot 5:15 (or 19)
אַרְבַּע מִדּוֹת בְּיוֹשְׁבִים לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים. סְפוֹג, וּמַשְׁפֵּךְ, מְשַׁמֶּרֶת, וְנָפָה. סְפוֹג, שֶׁהוּא סוֹפֵג אֶת הַכֹּל. מַשְׁפֵּךְ, שֶׁמַּכְנִיס בְּזוֹ וּמוֹצִיא בְזוֹ. מְשַׁמֶּרֶת, שֶׁמּוֹצִיאָה אֶת הַיַּיִן וְקוֹלֶטֶת אֶת הַשְּׁמָרִים. וְנָפָה, שֶׁמּוֹצִיאָה אֶת הַקֶּמַח וְקוֹלֶטֶת אֶת הַסֹּלֶת:
There are four types among those who sit before the sages: a sponge, a funnel, a strainer and a sieve.A sponge, soaks up everything; A funnel, takes in at one end and lets out at the other; A strainer, which lets out the wine and retains the lees; A sieve, which lets out the coarse meal and retains the choice flour.

For a society or movement that prizes learning from the sages, there’s something radical and a bit terrifying in this teaching that could be easily missed: It’s possible to sit before the sages and come out with only dregs if you act like a “strainer.” The sage’s wisdom isn’t perfect and the transmission isn’t perfect. You might consider yourself a follower of Rav Kook or Rabbi Heschel (or Karl Marx or Jesus) and practice something that doesn’t represent the good that the sage offered. When we compare this mishnah with the other “four types” in this chapter, we see that even being a sponge of the sage’s wisdom isn’t good; You keep the good and also the bad. The teaching here is radical in that in the context of a Torah-centered and disciple-based society, it cautions against accepting everything from your teacher. It’s also a bit terrifying; How to be sure one is keeping the fine flour?

Pirkei Avot 5:20 (or 24)
יְהוּדָה בֶן תֵּימָא אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי עַז כַּנָּמֵר, וְקַל כַּנֶּשֶׁר, וְרָץ כַּצְּבִי, וְגִבּוֹר כָּאֲרִי, לַעֲשׂוֹת רְצוֹן אָבִיךָ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמָיִם.
Judah ben Tema says: Be strong as a leopard, and light as an eagle, and fleet as a gazelle, and brave as a lion, to do the will of your heavenly Parent.

Ben Tema is exhorting us to make effort to achieve excellence in divine service. But note also that it’s in the leopard’s nature to be strong, the eagle to be light, etc. So we might also read this in a way that one could associate with the Taoist classics: Your nature is to be an image of the divine; Get your ego out of the way and be the strong, light, fleet, and brave servant that you are.

Comments on Pirkei Avot Chapter 3

(Note that a couple of these have been posted before, but I wanted to keep all the Chapter 3 comments together.)

Pirkei Avot 3:2
“Rabbi Hanina, the Deputy Priest says: Make it a practice to pray for the wellbeing/peace of the sovereign power (‘malhut’), for were it not for the fear/awe of it, a person would swallow their neighbor alive.”

One could read this as a statement of the general nastiness of humanity. I prefer the interpretation R. Ovadia Bartenura points to from Talmud Avodah Zarah 4a, which understands the statement as being about power differentials: “Just as with the fish in the sea, one who is bigger than others swallows the others, so with people: were it not for the fear of the sovereign power, whoever is bigger than others would swallow the others. – מה דגים שבים כל הגדול מחבירו בולע את חבירו אף בני אדם אלמלא מוראה של מלכות כל הגדול מחבירו בולע את חבירו” Rabbi Hanina, who lived through the Roman destruction, thought we should even pray for oppressive governments that were themselves fully in the hands of the bigger fish and ate people alive, because he viewed the alternative as even worse – pure mayhem at the hands of the powerful.  All the more so, kal vahomer, we should pray for the wellbeing/peace of a democratic government, in which the smaller fish have some significant say.

Another possibility is to read malhut as related to nimlah – to take counsel. When people don’t honor mutual discourse, they resort to power relations – swallowing one another alive. The alternative to democratic decision-making is the tyranny of the powerful.

Another possibility: We might read malhut kabbalistically, as a synonym for Shechinah. Society requires awe for that aspect of divinity (however we understand it) that dwells here with us, the conduit of blessing, the One in solidarity with the exiled and the longing. The peace of Malhut is all of our peace.

Pirkei Avot 3:4
רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן חֲכִינַאי אוֹמֵר, הַנֵּעוֹר בַּלַּיְלָה וְהַמְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ יְחִידִי וְהַמְפַנֶּה לִבּוֹ לְבַטָּלָה, הֲרֵי זֶה מִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ:
Rabbi Hananiah ben Hakinai said: one who wakes up at night, or walks on the way alone and turns his heart to idle matters, behold, they are liable for their life.

This is commonly understood (e.g. by Rabbi Ovadia) to mean that walking around alone at night is dangerous, but that Torah protects one from the danger. Therefore, turning your heart to idle matters is taking your life in your hands. One can read it even more practically: If you’re not paying attention walking around alone at night, you’re taking your life in your hands.

Pirkei Avot 3:5
רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֹל תּוֹרָה, מַעֲבִירִין מִמֶּנּוּ עֹל מַלְכוּת וְעֹל דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ. וְכָל הַפּוֹרֵק מִמֶּנּוּ עֹל תּוֹרָה, נוֹתְנִין עָלָיו עֹל מַלְכוּת וְעֹל דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ:
Rabbi Nehunia ben Hakkanah said: whoever takes upon himself the yoke of the Torah, they remove from him the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly concerns, and whoever breaks off from himself the yoke of the Torah, they place upon him the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly concerns.

Not everyone in Pirkei Avot agrees with Nehunia ben Hakkanah’s assessment of Torah vis a vis dereh eretz – worldly occupation/concern. In 2:2, Rabban Gamliel says the two go well together and keep one away from sin.  And in 3:17, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says you can’t have the one without the other.

One might understand Rabbi Nehunia’s teaching in a different way by emphasizing the word “yoke.” It’s not that Torah eliminates the need to submit to or participate in government or to be engaged in worldly concerns, like making a living. But accepting the yoke/burden of Torah makes the others not be a burden. When we gain the wisdom of living in the world, doing so is no longer a yoke on our shoulders. This is the approach of Rabbi Rami Shapiro, whose interpretive translation of these lines is: “Devotion to Torah frees you from power and possessions. Ignore Torah and they will crush you.” (“Ethics of the Sages: Pirke Avot – Annotated and Explained,” Skylight Paths Publishing (2014), p. 41)

Pirkei Avot 3:7
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, הַמְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְשׁוֹנֶה, וּמַפְסִיק מִמִּשְׁנָתוֹ וְאוֹמֵר, מַה נָּאֶה אִילָן זֶה וּמַה נָּאֶה נִיר זֶה, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ מִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ:
Rabbi Shimon says: One who is walking along the way and reciting [Torah teaching], and stops reciting and says, “How lovely this tree is; how lovely this field is,” scripture accounts as liable for their life.

This passage troubles those of us who emphasize the holiness of the natural world.

It could be read in line with Rabbi Ovadia’s reading of 3:4.  Since recitation is protective, stopping even to praise God’s creation is dangerous and foolhardy.

Another possibility is: As Rashi points out, we don’t suppose this person is walking by themselves. In this period, a very important rabbinic activity was studying in pairs (hevruta) and reciting learned teachings to one another. So, here, the person interrupting their recitation is turning from their learning partner and that partner’s needs. Rabbi Shimon’s statement may still strike us as hyperbole or insensitive to the importance of gratitude for God’s natural creation, but recognizing an interpersonal harm adds some new depth to the teaching.

Pirkei Avot 3:9-10
Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa said: anyone whose fear of sin precedes his wisdom, his wisdom is enduring, but anyone whose wisdom precedes his fear of sin, his wisdom is not enduring. He [also] used to say: anyone whose deeds exceed his wisdom, his wisdom is enduring, but anyone whose wisdom exceeds his deeds, his wisdom is not enduring.

After all this talk of the extreme importance of Torah learning and the mortal danger of ignoring it, Rabbi Haninah ben Dosa comes along and reminds us not to get carried away.  It’s our behavior toward others that’s the real goal and measure of our learning.

Pirkei Avot 3:12
רבי ישמעאל אומר …. והוי מקבל את כל האדם בשמחה:
Rabbi Ishmael says: …. greet every person happily.

Every person: refugees, asylum seekers, immigrants, included. We see them. We accept them into our consciousness. More than that: We’re happy they’re in the world. We’re happy the divine image has manifested itself in them. What a miracle! Let’s start figuring out policies with that as the starting point.

Pirkei Avot 3:13
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, …. מָסֹרֶת, סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה ….
Rabbi Akiva says: …. Tradition/Transmission is a fence for the Torah. ….

The very first teaching in Pirkei Avot (1:1) tells us to make a “fence for the Torah,” but it doesn’t tell us what such a fence is.  Rabbi Akiva says it’s the process of transmission described in that passage.  As we’ve seen in Pirkei Avot, the contents of “Torah” (in its broad sense) might grow and even change over the course of generations; One person might ‘say Torah’ that contradicts another’s Torah; but if we learn sincerely and diligently from teachers who learned sincerely and diligently, and if we pass Torah on to our students, then we know we’re still in the field of Torah, still inside the fence.

Pirkei Avot 3:17

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that one whose wisdom exceeds their deeds is like a tree easily blown over, using language that Jeremiah 17 uses to describe one who does not trust in God. Conversely, one whose deeds exceed their wisdom is like the “tree planted by the water” that Jeremiah uses to describe one who trusts in God. It seems to me that the implication is that trusting in God leads us to act. This might be surprising to some. Doesn’t ‘trust in God’ mean ‘leaving it up to God?’ Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says no. Why? Perhaps trusting in God means trusting that God’s call to us to act with love, wisdom, and justice is real. Perhaps trusting in God means that we trust that our actions have meaning and import, even if it seems sometimes like we’re banging our head against a wall or, as the colorful Yiddish phrase has it, peeing in the ocean. Or maybe Elazar ben Azariah is suggesting that the direction of causation is the other way: So long as our wisdom about God is theoretical, just in our minds, other pretty ideas can come along and easily displace our wisdom and trust.  But if we’re grounded in the Godly work of tikkun with others (he wouldn’t have used “tikkun” that way), our wisdom and trust will be strong.  

Comments on Pirkei Avot, Chapter 2

Pirkei Avot 2:7

He [Hillel] used to say: The more flesh, the more worms; The more property, the more anxiety; The more wives, the more witchcraft; The more female slaves/debt-servants, the more lewdness; The more male slaves/debt-servants, the more robbery;

Starting from the end of the list, let’s be clear to put the blame where it really lays: The master is robbing the slave and the master has the power to be lewd. The polygamist will be tempted to resort to magical powers to keep control over many wives. The one who amasses much property creates much worry for themselves and for others. And “the more flesh, the more worms” can be interpreted “kifshuto,” – according to its obvious surface meaning.

Pirkei Avot 2:16

He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say: It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you ben horin – a free person – to neglect it; If you have learned much Torah, you shall be given much reward. Faithful is your employer to pay you the reward of your labor; And know that the grant of reward unto the righteous is in the world to come.

We usually understand Rabbi Tarfon to be saying that one is not “at liberty” or “free” to desist from “the work.” Just because you can’t finish it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do any of it. That’s a good lesson. But there might be something else here. Rabbi Tarfon says you’re not a ben horin – a free person – to neglect it. The purpose of your freedom isn’t to not have to do “the work,” or to be a batlan – a lazy-bones or a man of leisure. You’re a free person because it allows you to do the work.  That, of course, begs the question of what “the work” is.  The rest of the teaching seems to indicate that it’s “learning Torah.”  This doesn’t mean being able to spout lots of verses or follow Talmudic arguments. As the two chapters so far of Pirkei Avot make clear, “Torah” is the praxis of learning how to be in relationship with others, society, and God.  The reward for that work might not be immediate. It might not even manifest in your life time, but in “the world come,” whether one understands that as “heaven” or as this world’s future, more fulfilled state. But, says Rabbi Tarfon, it will surely come.

Comments on Pirkei Avot Chapter 1

Pirkei Avot 1:1

משֶׁה קִבֵּל תּוֹרָה מִסִּינַי – Moses received Torah from Sinai.

This is an odd thing to say. It doesn’t say that Moses received Torah “at” Sinai, although that is the usual translation. It also doesn’t say what we might expect, “Moses received Torah from God.” What might it mean that Moses received Torah from Sinai? 

One possibility is that Moses learned at least some bit of Torah from the mountain itself. Several commentators, including Tiferet Yisrael and Kli Yakar, suggest that Moses learned humility from Sinai and also that the lowly can (maybe only they can) receive revelation.  This is based on Midrash that God revealed Torah on Sinai, not a particularly tall mountain, exactly because of its “humility.”

I’d suggest another possibility: “From,” particularly in Hebrew, can mean “from the moment of” or “beginning with.” Thus, this first phrase of Pirkei Avot would mean, “Moses received Torah beginning at Sinai.” Then he continued to receive Torah as the Israelites wandered in the Wilderness. He passed the reception of ongoing Torah to Joshua, who passed it on in the chain described here.  This helps explain how the first reported teaching is conveyed.  The Men of the Great Assembly did not “report” Torah what Moses had heard and passed on; They “said” three things. These three things were the Torah they received at their point in the chain of ongoing Torah reception.

What are the things we will say in our generation?

משֶׁה קִבֵּל תּוֹרָה מִסִּינַי

דבר מוזר. לא כתוב “משה קיבל תורה בסיני” או “על” סיני, למרות שככה בדרך כלל מבינים ומתרגמים.  ולא כתוב, כמו שהיינו יכולים לצפות, “משה קיבל תורה מן הבורא.” אז מה משמעות הדבר “משה קבל תורה מסיני?” אפשרות אחת היא שמשה למד לפחות קצת תורה מן ההר עצמו. ככה מפרשים התפארת ישראל וכלי יקר, שמשה למד ענונות מן ההר וגם למד שהענו (ואולי רק הענו) יכול לקבל גילוי אלוהי. כמו כן כתוב במדרש שה’ נתן את התורה על הר סיני, שהוא לא הר כל כך גבוה, בדיוק מסיבת “ענותנותו” של ההר.

אוסיף כאן אפשרות אחרת.  משמעות אחת לתחילית “מִ-” היא “מֵעט” או “מתחיל מ-.” אז אפשר לפרש את התחלת משנתנו ככה: משה התחיל לקבל תורה מן העט שעמד על הר סיני. ואז הוסיף לקבל תורה לכל אורך השנים שנדדו בני ישראל במדבר. משה מסר את קבלת התורה שהולכת ומתקבלת ליהושוע שמסרה לכל השרשרת הרשומה כאן. הבנה זו מישבת קושיה על הדברים שאמרו אנשי כנסת הגדולה. הרי הם לא מסרו איזה שמועת תורה ששמעו “קבלה למשה מסיני,” אלא “אמרו” שלושה דברים. שלושה דברים אלה היו התורה שהם קיבלו בעיטם בשרשרת קבלת התורה שהולך ומתגלה.

איזה דברים נאמר אנחנו בדורנו?

Pirkei Avot 1:4-5. Yosi ben Yo’ezer and Yosi ben Yohanan

Pirkei Avot is generally read as an anthology. Each sage’s wisdom is reported as a stand-alone teaching.  But I wonder if we oughtn’t read more of it as argumentation or disagreement.  These two mishnayot are a good example.  Both give teachings about what your house should be like, but they offer contrasting visions: Yosi ben Yo’ezer thinks your house should be a gathering place for sages, while Yosi ben Yohanan thinks it should be wide-open, welcoming to all, including the poor.  That view of the book, as presenting disagreements, makes it more in line with the rest of the Mishnah. It also expands our role as readers.  We aren’t merely to assent to the wisdom of each sage’s advice and attempt to follow it, but we must consider for ourselves the merits of opposing views.  Should we concentrate our efforts on surrounding ourselves with wise teachers or should we put more effort into being welcoming to all?

(In cases of disagreement in the rest of the Mishnah, the Mishnah will very often report a minority and majority (therefore authoritative) opinion.  Since the issues considered in Pirkei Avot aren’t halachic/legal matters, no indication of whom to follow is given.)

בדרך כלל קוראים את ספר פרקי אבות כאנתולוגיה. דברי כל חכם נמסר כדבר בעצמו. אבל נדמה לי שאולי כדאי לקרא את הספר יותר כספר וויכוחים ומחלוקות.  משניות אלו (ד’-ה’), למשל, מדברים שתיהן על האופי הרצוי של הבית, אבל חזונן שונות זו מזו.  יוסי בן יועזר יועץ שביתך יהיה בית ועד לחכמים,  ויוסי בן יוחנן, בניגוד לו, חושב שעדיף לפתוח את הבית לא רק לחכמים, אלא לכולם, כולל עניים.

פרקי אבות של וויכוחים יותר מתאים ליתר מסכתות המשנה. הבנה זו גם מוסיף על תפקידנו כקוראים. לא עלינו סתם לאשר את חכמת כל חכם ולהתנהג לפיה, אלה לשקול את דברי כל חכם בספר ולדון עם איזה מסכימים. האם נדגיש יותר להיות תמיד בסביבת חכמים או לקבל את כל האדם?

(ביתר המשנה, בדרך כלל יוסבר מי הוא המיעוט ומי הרוב, ונדע עם מי ההלכה. לפי שלא מתעסקים פה בפרקי אבות בדברי הלכה, גם לא פוסקים בין דברי החכמים.)

Pirkei Avot 1:5

“Do not be excessive in sihah with the wife.”

It’s disappointing that Yosi ben Yohanan starts his teaching with such an inclusive sentiment and then turns to excluding women! (We might say that Yose ben Yo’ezer,  in 1:4, doesn’t even have to deal with women, since he keeps his home reserved for “sages,” who were generally men.) If we want to give Yosi ben Yohanan the benefit of the doubt and find something useful in this part of his teaching, we might note that “sihah – שיחה” may not have meant just any kind of conversation, as it does in Modern Hebrew.  In the Mishnah and Tosefta (an approximately contemporary or slightly older book), sihah is always paired with “s’hok – laughter.”  It seems that it might refer to light-hearted chit-chat or flirtation.  In that case, we might understand Yosi ben Yohanan to be telling us that just because one’s wife is a woman doesn’t mean that one can only engage in idle chatter or flirtation with her. One might discuss serious topics, such as how to provide for the needs of the poor people who have been invited into the home. Maybe even Torah.

(Of course, Yosi ben Yohanan and the book as a whole are certainly of their time, meaning sexist.  Even with the generous reading above, Yosi understands his normative audience to be men.)

Pirkei Avot 1:6-7

Another disagreement. Yehoshua ben Prachyah wants you to judge everyone favorably.  Nitai ha’arbeli says, ‘no, some people are harmful, bad people and you should stay away from them.’ And if things go badly for you, don’t give up on distinguishing good from bad.  What do we make of this difference?

Pirkei Avot 1:14

This famous and pithy statement by Hillel is actually hard to bring into English. The Hebrew is concise with lots of rhyme. And has several ambiguities because of both the spare language and the various meanings of the preposition ל-/l’-. Here are a few attempts at translation:

when i have no i, who do i have?
and when i am alone, what am i?
and if not now, when?

If I’m not mine, who’s mine?
And if I’m only mine, what’s I’m?
And if not now, when?

If I have no “I”, who have I?
And if I alone have “I”, what is “I?”
And if not now, when?

If I don’t have myself, who do I
have? And if I alone have me, what am I?
And if not now, when?

If I’m not for me, who’s for me?
And if I’m for me myself, what’s “me?”
And if not now, when?

Pirkei Avot 1:15

“Shammai says: … Greet every person with a pleasant countenance.”

I associate this teaching with my father-in-law, Phil Potchinsky z”l.  There are many commentaries and citations of this teaching which I won’t repeat here. But I’ll point to the related midrash from Mekhilta 18:12:

ויבא אהרן וכל זקני ישראל. מה ת”ל לפני האלהים, אלא מלמד שכל המקבל פני חברו כאלו מקבל פני שכינה.

“And Aaron and all the elders of Israel came [to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law before God.]”: What is to be learned from “before God”? It teaches that all who greet another are accounted as greeting the Shechinah.

This teaching of Shammai’s seems to contradict his famed curmudgeonliness. There’s the story (Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 31a) of the gentile who tells Shammai he’ll convert if Shammai can teach him the whole Torah while standing on one foot. Shammai pushes him away with his yardstick, while Hillel, given the same challenge, converts him, saying, “What is hateful to you, don’t do to your neighbor. That’s the whole Torah. The rest is commentary. Go learn it.” How does that story fit with the Shammai’s teaching here to greet everyone with a pleasant countenance? What if Shammai was laughing while he shooed the gentile away, not scowling? Maybe he was being strict bout “pleasant countenance” and participating in this challenger’s joking around. Hillel, on the other hand, knew that sometimes surface friendliness doesn’t respond to the whole of the other’s need.

Pirkei Avot 3:2 – The Peace of Malchut

“Rabbi Hanina, the Deputy Priest says: Make it a practice to pray for the wellbeing/peace of the sovereign power (‘malhut’), for were it not for the fear/awe of it, a person would swallow their neighbor alive.”

One could read this as a statement of the general nastiness of humanity. I prefer the interpretation R. Ovadia Bartenura points to from Talmud Avodah Zarah 4a, which understands the statement as being about power differentials: “Just as with the fish in the sea, one who is bigger than others swallows the others, so with people: were it not for the fear of the sovereign power, whoever is bigger than others would swallow the others.” Rabbi Hanina, who lived through the Roman destruction, thought we should even pray for oppressive governments that were themselves fully in the hands of the bigger fish and ate people alive, because he viewed the alternative as even worse – pure mayhem. All the more so, kal vahomer, we should pray for the wellbeing/peace of a democratic government, in which the smaller fish have some significant say.

Another possibility is to read malhut as related to nimlah – to take counsel. When people don’t honor mutual discourse, they resort to power relations – swallowing one another alive. The alternative to democratic decision-making is the tyranny of the powerful.

Another possibility: We might read malhut kabbalistically, as a synonym for Shechinah. Society requires awe for that aspect of divinity (however we understand it) that dwells here with us, the conduit of blessing, the One in solidarity with the exiled and the longing. The peace of Malhut is all of our peace.