avakesh

Eldering

Gentile souls

 “All of Israel have a portion in the World-to-Come[1]. "

When we consider the implications of this saying for non-Jews, three possibilities emerge:

1.All of Israel…but none of Gentiles.

2.All of Isreal, even the wicked… but among the Gentile is not so – only the righteous among Gentiles have the option in the World-to-Come.

3.All of Israel have it… even the wicked… but among the Gentiles all who are not wicked, even if they are not righteous but merely regular people, have a portion in the World-to-Come.

The possibility 3 is strengthened by the fact that the Mishna goes on to cite Bilaam, a Gentile, as one of four commoners who do not have a portion in the World-to-Come. The implication is that if he had not been so exceptionally wicked, he would not have lost it. Rambam in his commentary to this mishna brings out this implication[2].“ It mentions Bilaam who was not of Israel because chassidei umot haolam (the good of the nations) do have a portion in the Wolrd-to-Come, but Bilaam is of the wicked of the nations and he does not have a portion in the World-to-Come”. It appears clear that Rambam implies that it is Bilaam’s exceeding wickedness that led him to lose his portion of immortality[3], but other Gentiles, even of average moral stature, would be able to receive a portion in it.

One must ask, however, why wicked Jews should be treated differently than wicked non-Jews. Commentators offer different explanations. Tiferes Israel ad loc implies that Jews possess a soul that is a spark of the Divine and can only be tainted but not damaged by sin. Even wicked Jews possess a soul that survives common sins but even it can be overcome by exceptional sins. The wicked of the nations have a soul that is more easily degraded by transgression and  lose the ability to be a part of the ability to be a part of the World-to-Come. Although he does not state so explicitly, his position appears to be similar to that of Tanya and Zohar who state that at least neshama of a Jew is different in some fashion than that of a Gentile[4].  Similarly Maharal[4], describes  that Jews possess a soul that is more separate (nivdal) from the body than that of gentiles, and hence less susceptible to its influence.

Meiri[5], on the other hand, raises the issue of holding correct belief in earning immortality. He writes that every Jew, even the most wicked, shares and minimally accepts basic beliefs of Judaism. As such, he automatically has a portion in the World –to-Come, something that is not true of wicked Gentiles[6].It is evident that the national perspective, the mere fact of belonging the Jewish people underlies the position that all of Israel has a portion in the World-to-Come. It may be that it operates only for the wicked of Israel, but it operates nevertheless. Although election of Israel is never adduced to support this notion, other forms of belonging to the nation of Israel play an important part.  Jews all share the basic dogmas of Judaism but only some exceptional Gentiles do so.

We can conclude that both the righteous and “average” Jews and Gentiles earn immortality based on their deeds, or are “entitled” to some basic portion in the World-to-Come. The wicked Jews deserve a minimal portion through their belonging to Israel but the truly wicked of the nations have no such right.

 This fact arises from the proof verses that Talmud discusses on 105A.

All of Israel have a protion in the World-to-Come, as it says, “and you nation are all righteous, forever they will inherit the Earth, the sprouting of planting of My hands, to glorify Me (Isaiah 5)”.

“This statement follows the view of R. Yehoshua, as we learned: “R. Eliezer says: “The wicked will return to Sheol, all nations, who forgot God (Psalms 5). The wicked will return to Sheol” – these are the sinners of Israel. “All the nations, who forgot of God – these are the nations of the World”

R. Eliezer derives from Psalms 5 that all nations of the world, not only he wicked,  are destined for Sheol[7]. Talmud posits that he cannot be the author of the statement in the Mishna that only very wicked Gentiles, on the order of Bilaam, are destined to perdition[8].

Who is the author of that teaching. R. Yehoshus! R. Yeshoshua said to him:  Had it stated, “and all nations who forgot God” (I would agree with you”. But it states, “nations[9] who forgot G-d, “ – only those nations who forgot God.

R. Yehoshua expresses the view of the anonymous Mishna at the beginning of chapter Chelek that only those individual non-Jews who “forget God”, meaning those who are as wicked as Bilaam, lose a portion in the world to Come[10]. This is the normative view in Judaism[11].

Interestingly, among several etymologies that the Talmud offers on 105a the name Bilaam, is one that reads his name as, “b’lo am – without a nation”, which can be understood that Jew nor Jew nor Gentile, neither included in the nation of Israel so he could take advantage of the principle, “All of Israel have a portion in the World-to-Come”, nor is he automatically barred from such a portion by being of the nations “who forgot God”. The Talmud proceeds to relate that Bilaam slept with his female ass, underscoring his utter personal wickedness[12]. It is this utter wickedness that bars him from the World-to-Come. Here we have a different stand of thought than the one we had seen before. Whereas the Mishna speaks of the national “right” to the World-to-Come, this anonymous talmudic passage suggests that immortality depends solely on one’s deeds and implies no difference between the souls of Jews and Gentiles. It is this latter strand of thought that is expressed by Kuzari.

---

[1] As is well known, Rambam and Ramban have very different understandings of what this term means, the life of souls after the death of an individual or bodily Resurrection. Because of the complexity of this topic, although it impacts upon out topic in several ways, I will not discuss it farther. There are many works that discuss this disagreement, among them, Neil Gilman’s, The Death of Death: Resurrection and Immortality in Jewish Thought, Jewish Lights Publishing; 1ST edition (May 1997) and Simcha Paull Raphael, Jewish Views of the Afterlife, Jason Aronson (April 28, 1994). I would just point out that if the World to Come means bodily Resurrection, non-Jews are certainly a part of that time.

While Tanach does not generally discuss life after death, for Jews or for Gentiles,  Rabbinic tradition teaches that a number of verses explicitly refer to the survival of the individual after death. Of relevance to our topic, there are many verses that indicate that the Messiah will usher in a time of universal recognition of One G-d, in which non-Jews will also share. Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9) and Moshiach will attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10) . Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8) and the nations will recognize the wrongs they did Israel (Isaiah 52:13–53:5). The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah8:23) and the entire world will learn to serve God together (Zephaniah 3:9). There are many other verses, among them in Jeremiah 12, that suggest that the nations  of the world will both exist and have a place in the post-messianic world order.

---

[1] For a discussion, see Simcha Paull Raphael, The Jewish View of the Afterlife, Jason Aronson (April 28, 1994)

[2] Rashi says: “Bilaam and those who are like him (shekamoto). It is now appreciated that the original test of Rashi said, “Bilaam and Yeshu”, but it was changed by the censors.

[3] This interpretation is supported by passages in Rambam’s other writings.

[4] Tanya 2. Such a simplistic reading of Tiferes Israel leaves many questions. It contradicts his own famous comments in chapter 4 of the Chapters of the Fathers, in which he maintains that non-Jews as well as Jews were created in the image of God and possess the image of God. IF so, their souls are also of the same kind. It must be remembered that we deal here in Kabbalistic matters, to understand which, one requires specialized expertise. Suffices to say that according to R. Yitzhal Luria as reported in the first several chapters of Shaar Hagilgulim, very few Jews possess a neshama in any particular incarnation, the majority able to gain only a nefesh, and some, ruach – very few possess a  neshama. Thus, neshama in these sources is not what we colloquially term “soul”. There are also the comments of  R. Hillel MiParitch (Siddur Im D'ach, Shaar Chag HaMatzot; Lekutei Biurim ) cited in Lessons in Tanya (Kehot Publication Society, Brooklyn, NY), Ch. 1, fn.33, who explains that having a soul means caring about others unselfishly: “It should be noted that among the nations of the world there are also to be found those whose souls are derived from kelipat nogah. Called “the pious ones of the nations of the world,” these righteous individuals are benevolent not out of selfish motives but out of a genuine concern for their fellow.”  This ultimately goes to the role of neshama as a conduit of Divine Light to others and that it can only play this role when, in Imitatio Dei, it does so with no personal interest whatsoever, see Mahari Ashlag’s introduction to Zohar. Immortality depends on the soul, that is the person as a conduit to pass Hashem's light onto others.

One may counter the the nations do a great deal of chessed- just look at the modern Welfare State. However, it is not personal - it is a social contract. It does not pass on the Divine light; it merely keeps peace.

"Kindness of nations is sin" (Proverbs 14:3 as explained in Bava Basra 10b). "The nations of the world do chesed but it is chesed leumim. It is the chesed of society, instituionalized by the social structure of the nations. It does not emanate from kindness and consideration of one individual for another. This is why it is designated as transgression"(R. Chaim Zimmerman, Torah and Reason, p.156).

[5] Chidushei Hameiri, Sanhedrin, beginning of Chelek. His comments are consistent with the teaching that denies the portion in the World-to-Come to minim (heretics) and apikorsim.

[6] This view is similar to the Maimonidean perspective which predicates immortality on achieving the union with Active intelect through knowledge, especially theological knowledge. Although this view is ascribed to Rambam, he never specifically enunciates it in the Guide. However, his sources, especially in Alfarrabi do, and Rambam follows a very similar approach in his discussion of Prophecy.

[7] The exact meaning of Sheol is not our concern here. It suffices to say that in rabbinic sources it is usually, but not universally, identical with Gehenna.

[8] As can be expected this passage suffered interferences by censors. The version I quote is the one found in early manuscripts (Schottentstein Talmud, ad. loc.)

[9] The word for nations used in this verse is “Goyim”. R. Eliezer may understand the word as “non-Jews”, not “nations”, As Max Kapustin pointed out in the introduction to his translation of Mekhilta, it is one of many key-theological terms that has shifted its meaning from the generic “nations” to an appellation for an individual Gentile, without, however, severing its connection to the original Biblical meaning.

[10] In Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:1, R. Yehoshua appears to restrict immortality only to the righteous Gentiles; however, there are so many variants of this Tosefta passage that it is difficult to determine what its original intent may have been.

[11] As codified by Maimonides and t be discussed shortly.

[12] Commentaries to Ein Yakov to Sanhedrin 105a

R. Yehuda Halevy comes to discussing whether non-Jews have a portion in the World-to-Come by the way of explaining why the Torah does not promise or stress eternal rewards and punishment like Christianity and Islam[1]. In I:109 he argues that and adherent of Torah, gains an ability to be close to G-d while still in this world. This is in essence not different from what happens after death though it may be different in degree.

We might expect that Kuzari’s view on the difference between Jewish and Gentile would lead him to a position that excludes Gentiles from the World-to-Come but this is not the case. Kuzari in a number of places, among them in 1:103 expresses his position clearly[2]:

“Thou hast, apparently, forgotten what we said previously concerning the genealogy of Adam's progeny, and how the spirit of divine prophecy rested on one person, who was chosen from his brethren, and the essence of his father. It was he in whom this divine light was concentrated. He was the kernel, whilst the others were as shells which had no share in it. The sons of Jacob were, however, distinguished from other people by godly qualities, which made them, so to speak, an angelic caste. Each of them, being permeated by the divine essence, endeavoured to attain the degree of prophecy, and most of them succeeded in so doing. Those who were not successful strove to approach it by means of pious acts, sanctity, purity, and intercourse with prophets. Know that he who converses with a prophet experiences spiritualization during the time he listens to his oration. He differs from his own kind in the purity of soul, in a yearning for the [higher] degrees and attachment to the qualities of meekness and purity. This was a manifest proof to them, and a clear and convincing sign of reward hereafter. For the only result to be expected from this is that the human soul becomes divine, being detached from material senses, joining the highest world, and enjoying the vision of the divine light, and hearing the divine speech. Such a soul is safe from death, even after its physical organs have perished[3].”

One might expect that this would lead Kuzari to deny immortality to Gentiles but he does not (I:113):

“We do not deny that the good actions of any man, to whichever people he may belong, will be rewarded by God. But the priority belongs to people who are near God during their life, and we estimate the rank they occupy near God after death accordingly.”

Kuzari appears to consider immortality to be a matter of reward and punishment as well as a natural outcome of the elevation of one’s soul through correct opinions and proper conduct. Although Jews have an advantage in the latter because they lead more godly lives, they as well as Gentiles are rewarded and punished for their conduct in this world. We focused here on the nature of Gentile soul, not on the broader subject of Immortality for Gentiles, which is a different and more complex topic, with a broader area of disagreement and consensus.

---

[1] This question was an important one and is discussed by many commentators and writers, such as, Sefer HaIkkarim 39,4, Akedat Yithak, Behukota, Abarvanel to Behukotai 26. Rambam discusses this in the Commentary to Chelek and Hilkhot Teshuvah 9,1

[2] All quotations from The Kuzari: An argument for the faith of Israel, tr, Hartwig Hirschfeld

[3] The same solution is offered in Akedat Yitzhak Shaar 70

[4] AP Kleinberger, ha-Mahashavah ha-Pedagogit shel ha-Maharal mi-Prague (The Pedagogical Thought Of the Maharal of Prague), pp. 37-42, Jerusalem, 5723

 

 

Important finding provides proof Bible written much earlier than scholars believe

A piece of pottery is providing a new insight.

Finding such an early example of Hebrew makes it possible the Bible could have been written several centuries before the current estimates.

"The inscription is similar in its content to biblical scriptures, but it is clear that it is not copied from any biblical text.

The inscription itself, which was written in ink on a 15 cm X 16.5 cm trapezoid pottery shard, was discovered a year and a half ago at excavations that were carried out by Prof. Yosef Garfinkel at Khirbet Qeiyafa near the Elah valley. "This text is a social statement, relating to slaves, widows and orphans. It uses verbs that were characteristic of Hebrew, such as asah ("did") and avad ("worked"), which were rarely used in other regional languages. Particular words that appear in the text, such as almanah ("widow") are specific to Hebrew and are written differently in other local languages," Prof. Galil explained.

The deciphered text:

1' you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].

2' Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]

3' [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]

4' the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.

5' Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.

 The find demonstrates that Biblical Hebrew was spoken and writen in in David's time,and dealing with the same issues that the Bible deals in, and in the same style and language.

 More importantly it undercuts the argument that Tanach must have all be written around the same time because the language of the different books that cover over a thousand year period, is so similar. We now have the inscription of Chizkia's tunnel, the silver scroll with the birkat cohanim written at the end of the First Temple Period and this new inscription - all in the same style of pure Biblical Hebrew. To me it shows the existence of diglossia - the official language of the court and the elite and the colloquial language of the common folk. The former tends to be preserved, especially when there is a "Holy Book", much in the same way that the Korah preserved the Standard Arabic for the past 1400 years. This fact can be extrapolated from the quotations within the Tanach text that serve to categorize the speaker, when that speaker is deliberately shown to speak the common dialect and the folk language. Recongizing the change from the "high" to "low" dialects is an important interpretative technique.

Here is an abridged quote from the book, Dawn of Redemption", that illustrates how this works:" The book of Yonah is full of unusual expressions and words. Many of them are more typical of later Mishnaic rather than pure Biblical Hebrew and others appear to be imported from Arameic, a related and widely spoken language at that time, the lingua franca of the ancient world. A list of 15 of these can be found in the introduction to the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) translation of Yonah and three of them are found in our verse.

1. How come you slumber. In classical Hebrew this would be phrased as "ma lkha ki nirdamta". The form "ma lkah nirdam", without preposition and the present participle, is found only in Ezekiel 18:22 and is typical of Mishnaic Hebrew.

2. Give us thought - an Arameic form of the word as found in the Arameic portion of Daniel 6:4. It is not the Hebrew form of Pslams 40:18.

3. Captain - Rav Hachovel. The usage is extremely peculiar. If the chief of rope pullers is intended, as most commentators suggest, the term should be Gadol Hachovlim. Rashi in Ezekiel 27:8 suggests that this is the term used for the fellow who commands the wheel at the stern and directs the ship. Still, the word Rav is widely used in the Mishna to mean great but it is never used that way in Tanakh, where it always means numerous (See Vilna Gaon's commentary to Proverbs 3:3); this example seems to have been missed by the JPS translation).

The reader therefore is faced with a two-fold problem. First, we much account for the general tendency of the book to use unusual words or expressions. Secondly, we must determine whether we must approach these linguistic peculiarities as examples of general tendency or as specific and intentional clues to the author's intention in that particular case.

There are three approaches to these questions that are consistent with Torah and Tradition.

1. Although the language of the Bible is remarkably preserved along a range of Biblical compositions spanning almost a thousand years, it is possible that a certain process of language development was taking place. Ultimately it evolved into the language that is familiar to us from the Mishna. Yonah being a late work from the end of the First Temple period reveals the beginning of this process of change; similar deviations are regularly found in other late works - Ezekiel, Esther, Ezra/ Nehemiah, Daniel and Chronicles. If so, we should not ascribe too much significance to deviation form "pure" Biblical patterns. Were we to do so, we might over-interpret and end up with meanings that the author never intended.

2. Yonah is written in the so-called Northern dialect (see G. A. Rendsburg, Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew, in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. W. R. Bodine, Eisenbrauns, In., 1992). It has long been proposed, primarily to explain stylistic and linguistic peculiarities of the Song of Devorah, a Northern prophetess (Judges 5), that the language of the Northern tribes differed somewhat from the reigning dialect of Judea. The linguistic maps of the ancient Middle East show multiple overlapping language belts stretching from the Summerian in the far North-East to Amharic in Ethiopia. The middle of the map is dominated by Arameic as it slowly transitions into Hebrew. There are indications from the Tanach itself (see Judges 12:5-6) to the existence of this putative Northern dialect. In this view, we also should also not ascribe too much significance to linguistic deviations in the book of Yonah, a prophet from the North.

3. As in our English, there may have been a distinction between literary and colloquial language, often termed di-glossia. It is reasonable to suppose that both co-existed during the Biblical period. Professor Steven (not Saul) Lieberman suggested that the elite spoke and wrote Biblical language while the common-folk spoke a variety of Mishnaic Hebrew (Response, Jewish Languages, 1978, 21-8). The discovery of the pure Biblical inscription in the Siloam aqueduct constructed at the time of Hezekiah appears to argue against this theory (See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jspartid=713&letter=S&search=aqueduc t). However, if true, use of colloquial expressions within the literary matrix would be intentional and must be noted and interpreted.  We will adopt this approach here.

What could the use of colloquiallisms and Arameisms signify in this verse? It could, of course, serve to characterize the Gentile captain as speaking a foreign language (saying to us that even a non-Jew recognized that the storm came from God while Yonah continued to resist Him) or to call attention to Yonah's Northern origins at this critical juncture...etc "

Thinking in the Box by Chaim Gershon

 

How is this?

 

 

ולא יכלה עוד הצפינו ותקח לו תיבת גומא

 

When she could no longer hide him, she took a papyrus box...

 

Shemos 2:3, see also Sotah 12.

 

  The Arizal as expounded upon by the Tzemach Tzedek of Lubavitch in his Ohr HaTorah brings that this Teivah box was an Ark like that Noach was "placed in" to protect him from the generation of the Flood. Other sources add that the gematria of the word Gomeh is 50, representing one of the sides of Noach's Ark as well as the 50 gates of Wisdom. Given that the three months were between 7 Adar. Moshe's birthday, and 7 Sivan when the Torah would be given by Moshe, the Zohar (Shemos 11b/12a) and commentaries based thereon (including the Malbim, see especially the translation by T. Faier) state that Moshe in the Teivah on this date is analogous to the very future Luchos in the Aron, another Teivah! Further sources such as the Munkatcher Rebbe (in his sefer Chaim V'Shalom) based on his grandfather point out that this is alluded to by the word גומא  which is roshei teivos for the materials that compose the box: Gemara, Mishna and Orayasa (the Aramaic word for Torah). He states that in this sense all holy books (sefarim kedoshim) thus contain Moshe therein. We can thus say that Moshe represents "Thinking in the Box".

 

Parentetically, some sources compare his voyage on the waters to that of a soul in a body and the Kabbalah dictionary Kehilos Yaakov cites from Zohar that Gomeh is the acrostic of the names of malachim Gavriel V'Refael Michoel & Uriel who protected him. Some Polishe chassidim have the custom of learning Gemara before davening as the names of these malachim are roshei teivos of the word Gemara and learning gemara has protective powers for the mind.

 

There are contemporary pundits who claim that even in Torah we need to think outside the box or at least say that we are by necessity out of the box. However, the article here relates this issue to the disagreement about whether the scroll that Moshe wrote was placed in or outside of the Torah Ark. Nevertheless, no matter how one interprets that disagreement, as we see above,  there are many other sources that remind us that Moshe was primarily in the box.

 

PS I recently read a book where the thesis is that Moses was the founding father of the United States: an extremist claim that not only is Moshe in the box but also the founder of "outside the box" as well! Such blurring of borders is a distortion of Moshe's unique role in the establishment of the Jewish people - a universalism that needs to be brought into context.

 

 

 

 

  

The Dawn of Redemption

Softcover, 235 pages
ISBN 13: 978-965-031-3
publication: 2009


The Dawn of Redemption traces the Jewish concept of individual and communal

Redemption through its cosmic antecedents to the role it plays in personal experiences

and struggles. Drawing on classic sources, the author melds private experiences with

historical forces, personal destiny and the Divine Plan, and shows how alienation and

despair are transformed into exhilaration and closeness to God. Upon the canvas of the

Biblical books of Ruth and Jonah, one finds in this psychological, philosophical, and

spiritual investigation a profound restatement of the redemptive idea within Judaism and

 its potential to satisfy and uplift the life of every man and woman.

The material presented in the book “dawn of Redemption” was originally serialized on

 

Torah.org. This thoughtful exposition of moral, psychological and devotional issues on

 

issues that all human beings encounter as they seek meaning and understanding of

 

themselves and of their Creator attracted much comment and discussion among the

 

thousands of readers who followed it week by week.

 

This book not only elucidates the meaning of many otherwise unclear passages in the

 

books of Ruth and Yonah, it also clarifies what these books, as Chazal understood them,

 

teach us about the such central questions of religious life as alienation and belonging,

 

individual’s lot versus communal destiny, Justice and Mercy, and how Hashem can be

 

found within the context of daily living.  The author reveals that our Sages said many

 

profound teachings on these topics and shows how and why. The book “Dawn of

 

Redemption.. “  is an important contribution. It can be ordered from the publisher and is

 

currently in Judaica stores worldwide, or it can be ordered directly from me (please

 

emailme with you name and address). I also have a limited number of copies of a French

 

 translation, which can also be ordered from josecoh@gmail.com

 

I want to be Tsaddik

;

Avos 1:18: Rabbinic Leadership - The Model

 

Rabbi Shimon ben (son of) Gamliel said: On three things does the world endure: justice, truth and peace, as the verse states, 'Truth and [judgments of] peace judge in your gates'" (Zechariah 8:16).

This mishna is similar to an earlier mishna in this chapter. In the second mishna, Shimon Hatsadik said: "The world is based upon three things: on Torah, on Temple Service, and on acts of kindness."

A recurring theme in our commentary has been that the first chapter is a chronicle of the Rabbis' attempt to find a political basis for the new Jewish state of the second Temple period. There was no King and the Hasmonean dynasty of princes quickly deteriorated spiritually and morally and could not serve as the model for an ideal commonwealth. As we have seen, the Sages considered various alternative models, most centering on autonomous groups within the imperfect Jewish polity. After Shimon Hatsaddik, who beleived that the world, read the State, could be based on Torah study, Temple service and instituionalized benevolence (what we now would call a wefare state), the subsequent generations, living as they did in a corrupt and increasingly Romanized vassal state, sought a different method of self organization.  After a long period of discussion and trial of different structures, which taeks up the majority of this chapter, the consensus which they reached is expresssed in our mishna. It is a coda to the entire process and it restates the the mishna of Shimon Hatsaddik.

From Shimon to Shimon...

R. Shimon ben Gamliel restates the mishna of Shimon Hatsaddik. In this fashion he indicates to us that the original goals of Shimon Hatsaddik can still be obtained but now require a different framework.

Shimon Hatsaddik used the term "omed", meaning "stand". Shimon ben Gamliel uses the word "kayem", which means "persist". The word omed has a double meaning in Bblical Hebrew. It means both "stand" and "persist", as it does, for example in this verse in Tehillim 24: "

מִי-יַעֲלֶה בְהַר-יְהוָה;    וּמִי-יָקוּם, בִּמְקוֹם קָדְשׁוֹWho shall ascend into the mountain of the LORD? and who shall stand in His holy place? Yet, the word "persist" (or as it sometimes is translated, "endure"), has a much less optimistic ring to it. It speaks of retaining, of holding one's place, not of making gains or conquering new vistas. R. Shimon ben Gamliel writing after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash, with the full knowledge of how things have gone wrong, no longer aspires to set the world up on the foundations of Torah. Avodah and benevolence; he aims to keep the Jewish community as it is and preserve and maintain.  The "world" of R. Shimon ben Gamlel is not the same world as the one of Shimon Hatsaddik. The former speaks of community, a self-orgnizing collection of individuals. The latter was dreaming of a just polity, but R. Shimon ben Gamliel knows that it is no longer possible. Torah and Avodah will henceforth be the province of individuals. The community must be based on justice, truth and peace. The source verse of Zechariah is directed to those in "your gates", the common people, the folk, and it tells them how to conduct their daily life. WIth this, the first chapter of Avos concludes. The focus now shifts to the individual. In the second chapter, we will speak about the path that each man must choose in life, as a person, not as a member of a collective. Rabbi [Yehuda haNasi] said: What is the proper path a person should choose for himself? Whatever brings glory to himself [before G-d], and grants him glory before others.....

.