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.