avakesh

Avos 2:3: Wanting and giving up

He would also say: Make His will your will, so that He should make your will  as His will. Nullify your will before His will, so that He should nullify the will of others before your will.

This is a very confusing Mishna. First, what is the difference between the first and second part, between doing His will instead of your will and nullifying your will before His will. Secondly, the two parts of the Mishna are not symmetrical; In the first, the Mishna promises the if you do His will, he will do your will. In the second, it promises that if you nullify your will, He will not nullify His will, but nullify the will of others before yours (Tiferes Yisroel does understand that hullifying your will lead to G-d nullifying His will in your favor, but the Mishna expressed it euphemistically out of respect for the Almighty).

I never really "got" this Mishna until if realized that there is a very simple and basic difference between tis two parts. In the first, your will and His will are not in conflict. Say, you want to have grilled chicken for supper. He wants that the Glory of His kingdom be sanctified. If you take His will as paramount and learn Torah and perform Mitzvos, and try to do what He wants, He will bring about that your will be done and that you do get grilled chicken for supper I If you think that wanting grilled chicken for supper is beyond His concern, see Kesuvos 67b .

The second part of the Mishna is talking about a different case, where His will and your will contradict. He wants that you should go daven and your want to stay in bed. In that situation, man must nullify his will. Hashem cannot then reciprocate and hullify His will before yours, for your will no longer exists. You are already at that minyan. But  what He can and will do is to nullify the desires of others before your will in other matters or even in this matter itself.

******************************************************************************************************

 

Avos 2:2, 4: Avoid the authorities

"Be careful with authorities, for they do not befriend a person except for their own sake. They appear as friends when they benefit from it, but they do not stand by a person in his time of need."

At first glance, this is a continuation of the previous mishna. There we were told that those who work for the community, though they may not be able to learn Torah, will be protected and will succeed, as long as they work for the sake of Heaven. Despite this, they are warned to distrust and be cautious of the authorities, who do not work for the Sake of Heaven, and who will use people and then discard them (Raav).

However, this teaching was already presented in the first chapter. There it says:

Shemaya and Avtalyon received the transmission from them [the previous generation of scholars]. Shemaya said: Love work, despise high position, and do not become close to the authorities."

So what is the difference between these two teachings?

Ain Levanon points ot that Shemaya and Avtalyon are discussing the Jewish government , because that is what was in place in their times. Our mishna is referring to the Non-Jewish authorities, because that is what surrounded Jews in the times of Rabbon Gamliel the son of R. Yehuda Hanasi.

With this in mind, we can understand the difference between the two teachings. Shemaya and Avtalyon teach us that we should pursue work and disdain honor, including the honor of participating in the government. The government is run by Jews and even a frum Jew can become close to them, for after all they are his brothers. That's OK, except that one should eschew honor. Therefore the term for closeness that Shamaya and Avtalyon use is "tisvada", which has a connotation of familial closeness (See Ruth 2:1). As we repatedly discussed in the commentary to the first chapter of Avos, as the politics of the Jewish Commonwealth grew more and more distant from the Davidic ideal, the Rabbis gradually abandoned the idea that they should participate in the building of a Jewish polity that is based on Torah, Temple worship and Public Welfare and, after experimenting with various communal substitutes, at the close of the second Temple period they transitioned to champion the individual's role and a personal path to Torah and Hashem. But for Shemaya and Avtalyon, the government is still neutral. You can work with them but such is not the way of the pious.

Rabbon Gamliel, on the other hand,  knows that closeness with the Roman government is impossible. His askan has no illusions. But a communal worker might be misled into thinking tnat an utilitarian, working relationship can still be - I help them and they will hepl us. After all, they are people just like we.  Rabbon Gamliel therefore cautions the askonim: "Be careful with authorities, for they do not befriend a person except for their own sake. They appear as friends when they benefit from it, but they do not stand by a person in his time of need."

 

Avos 2:2, 3: Community Work

Anyone who works for the community should work for the sake of Heaven, for the merit of their [the community members's] forefathers will help him, and their righteousness endures forever. And as for you, [says G-d], I will grant you much reward as if you accomplished it on your own."

We saw that our mishna used three expressions for "work" each of which anchors and develops the concept of Torah and work. First it told us that Torah is pleasant with Derech Ertetz. Then is told us that Torah study without "mel'acha" is destined to fail and bring about sin.

In this last part of the mishna, we are introduced to work without Torah and told that there is one setting in which work is of itself legitimate.  Whereas generally Torah and the world must be combined, in one situation, work has a religious value even without Torah. It is working for community.

Unfortunately communal needs are varied and non-ending.  Every askan who works selflessly for he community can tell you that he is spending much more money and time and exerting more effort that he can afford. There are many needs and not enough people meeting them. This is why  "labor (amal)" is the term now being used to describe what it is that askonim perform on the behalf of others. Because communal work is so necessary, so overwhelming and has such a high religious value, it is legitimate even without Torah study. However, we might ask: Without Torah study and without gaining the wide perspective on what is right and what is wrong in relationships among people, what will protect the askan from errors and from hurting others, despite the best of intentions?

The answer is that working for the sake of Heaven will protect him. Anyone who works for the community should work for the sake of Heaven, for the merit of their [the community members's] forefathers will help him, and their righteousness endures forever.

We are not finished yet. Any askan will also tell you that he learned early on that all one can do is put in the effort but results are never guaranteed. One can spend a great deal of effort and time on a project that never succeeds and never comes to fruition. Many worthy ideas are brought down by petty jealousies, unprovoked antagonism, or simply by the circumstances that are not propitious.This can be profoundly dispiriting. In response the mishna says:And as for you, [says G-d], I will grant you much reward as if you accomplished it."

As R. Tarfon said: " The work is not for you to finish nor are you free to desist from it ( Avot 2: 15-16)"

Avos 2:2, 1: The beauty of work

The statement that Torah is good with Derech Eretz has been discussed so often and from so many different positions that it is difficult, not only to say something original about it, but even to begin to see it from a fresh perspective.It can be done, but such a perspective also needs to be fresh.

We start with the observation that the mishna does not actually say that Torah is good with work but that it is nice or "Yafe". It is noteworthy that while this word is used by Chazal in a dozen or so places, this is the only instance of a construction, "Yafe X with Y". The word is usually used in one of the following ways:

1.Yafe X more than Y, meaning X is better or better than Y, f.e. Yafe (better) the power of the father than the power of the son and yafe the power of the husband than the power of the father (Nedarim 70a).

2.The same usage but with the comparison implied rather than stated, Yafe (fitting) is tsnius(Genesis Rabba 1:3).

3.Yafe + a verb, where it means appropriate of fitting, f.e., Moshe did Yafe(properly) that he hid his face in the case of the (burning) bush(Shmos Rabbah 3:2)

The usage of Yafe Torah WITH Derech Eretz is unique. There is no other usage like it in Chazal. I would even say that it is unique to Rebbi who was an aristocrat. The thing about aristocracy is that the concepts of beautiful and fitting play a larger role in their daily life than in the lives of the common folk. This is such an important concept, called by Chazal Istanis, that it can even determine halacha, see Brochos 2:4..

I suggest that the word "Yafe" is introduced here and used in an unusual for it syntax is to recall to us the previous teaching of Rebbi in the mishna - Which is the path that is beautiful for a person and beautiful for him from man. It reinforces for us that the way of combining Torah and occupation is in the realm of what is fitting and beautiful, of what is "fitting and appropriate" for a person, not in the realm of the mandatory and required. This is so because Torah without employment at the end ceases and brings one to sin. But how much work is appropraite with Torah? That depends! It may be 8 hours a day for one person and 1 hour a day for another, or an hour every few days for another. How does a particualr individual determine this? By looking at what is fitting and what is beautiful for him. One must select that path which is beautiful for him. The word Yafe introduces subjectivity and individuality into this area, allowing for the proportion and balance of work and study that is fitting and beautiful for each particular individual.

Avos 2:2, 1 - A contentious mishna

"Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabbi Yehuda the Prince said:

1.Good is Torah together with a worldly occupation (derech eretz), for the exertion in both makes one forget sin.

2.All Torah study without work will result in waste and will cause sinfulness.

3.Anyone who works for the community should work for the sake of Heaven...

This famous Mishna has served as a favourite destination for reading into it ideological positions of all different kinds. Some focused on the construct "X and Y", in this case, "Torah with Derech Eretz", explaining and bringing proofs that in such a construct it is the first word, Torah, is of the main importance and  "Derech Eretz" seconday to it (See Tosafos Yeshanim to Yoma 85b and Rash  quoted in Gro). Some even claimed that Derech Eretz refers to politeness and social graces and not to an occupation (Kovetz Heoros by R. Elchanan Wasserman based on a midrash rabba), which, of course, makes Torah study without working the ultimate goal. Others, on the contrary say that it is the second item in the construct "X with Z) is the predominant one, saying that work is more important than Torah study  (Tos. Yeshanim ibid).

It is quite clear to me that Derech Eretz must mean "occupation". That fact comes out of the way in which the mishna divides into three parts, each part with tis "key" word, and the key words are all about work and not about politeness and social grace.

1.Good is Torah together with a worldly occupation (derech eretz), for the exertion in both makes one forget sin.

2.All Torah study without work will result in waste and will cause sinfulness.

3.Anyone who labors for the community should work for the sake of Heaven...

Incidentally, this mishna is unusual because most such mishnayos that employ tripartite divisions do not obvously connect the different parts. In Avos, for example, certain commentators spilled much ink attempting to explain how these parts of many mishanyos fit together. Yet, this mishna is clearly organized around the concept of occupation, work, labor.

Personally, I think that mishanyos that are built in threes are a merely a special case of list-making.  Some list making is menumonic and some is the work of legal systematization. I wrote about it here. Briefly, I believe that early Tannoim received a mass of unorganized precedent, law and commentary, in the form of short statemetns and as commentary on Troah verses. They then, over several generations engaged in making lists. Many such lists, contain 3, 5, 7, or 10 examples of a rule or a law. The Tannaim who did these are caleld Sofrim, which means not scribes but counters. This is why we accasionally find mishnayos which list three apparently unconnected laws or axamples. Some of them are truly unconnected, except thorugh being united by their author. Others are connected by a "key" word, as in our mishna, and others are, in fact, thematically connected.

to be continued

Lists and exceptions

 

Avos 2:1, 4: Eye, ear, memory and the realm above

...Consider three things and you will not come to sin: Know what is above you: an eye that sees and an ear that hears, and all your deeds are recorded in the Book."

 

As we discussed, this chapter begins to focus on the personal relationship to Hashem. Personal relationships with others are established primarily through seeing hearing and remembering and that is what the mishna describes.

The commentators, Rabbeinu Yonah and Meiri, for example, are troubled by the ornate way in which the mishna describes the basic dogma of G-d's omniscience. Would it not be sufficient to simply remind us that G-d knows and remembers everything we do?  Why phrase it in such a complicated manner? Why bring in the metaphor of the eye and ear that smacks of "hagshama" (ascription of pysicality, something that troubles Rabbeinu Yonah)? Why bring forth the simile of both eye and ear; isn't one of the two enough to get the point across? What is it about "the book" that induces the mishna to use it over saying something like what we enunciate in Unsane Tokef, "remembers all things that are forgotten".

Compare to Akavia ben Mehalalel's formulation in the first mishna of the third chapter.  

"Akavia ben (son of) Mehalalel said, consider three things and you will not come to sin. Know from where you have come, to where you are heading, and before Whom you will give justification and accounting. From where have you come: from a putrid drop (of semen); to where are you heading: to a place of dirt, worms and maggots; and before Whom will you give justification and accounting: before the King of kings, the Holy One blessed be He."

The comparison between the two statements has much to teach us.

1.Our mishna does not mention accounting or punishment. It does not unpack  or explain its metaphors, as Akavaia ben Mehalalelel does. It does not explain how the knowledge about the eye, ear and book will keep us from sin.

2.It does not mention G-d at all! In fact, it substitutes "the book" for G-d. What is this book? Is it G-d's book or our own book?

3.What is the difference between "the eye that sees" and "the ear that hears".

I will start with a reinterpretation of the mishna that I believe is compelling but to my knowledge has never been proposed before.

What Rebbi teaches us is that the consideration of three facts about perception and consciousness will keep us from coming to sin. When we think about what is means to see, to hear and remember, when we realize that perception and memory are things of the mind and spirit and not an automatic translation of "what is there" into our brains, we will break the dominion of the body and its impulses over the soul and not automatically be drawn to its dictates, and we "will  not come to sin". Rebbi is saying: "Elevate yourself above thyself, know what is above your - your very eye, your hearing and your memory demonstrate that the mind is above the body and you will not come to sin". He also intimates that our actions influence that kind of people we are going to be, sort of like Oscar Wild's book "Picture of Dorian Grey", in which every action is etched on our being and makes us the kind of person that through our actions we will become.

Contemporary psychology taught us much about perception. Above all, we now know that what we see is not what is "out there" but a representation of reality that our minds construct out of sense impulses. This is now the predominant view, called empiricism. The realization that the function of seeing, hearing and writing down a unified picture is above the self, that it is a property of the mind which is above the ego, that we live in the world of mental constructs and not bodily perceptions, is liberating, for it elevates the self above physicality into the realm that "is above of you".

So what does eye and ear represent?

Greek civilization was above all visual. Its gods were concrete and material and so was its conceptual language. Its writers, such as Homer, wrote in long, detail laden paragraphs in order to describe a scene that the readers could visualize, as if it was taking place in front of their very eyes. Homer is famous for the mass of detail and leisurely development of his scenes, dress and deportment of characters, their physical surroundings, their movements and behavior. On the other hand, he is poor in describing their inner states. A picture may be worth a thousand words for an image with all of its attendant detail can be grasped in one glance. On the other hand, a picture is static; it can never be anything more than it is at the moment that it has been grasped. It does not allow for development or progression, only for replacement by another picture. Not so hearing. Although it transmits information but one syllable at a time, speech is dynamic and flexible. Every word and every saying must be actively perceived, related and reconciled with the words, syllables, and units of information that came before and that are yet to come. It is for this reason that Scripture is discontinuous and filled with gaps and apparent contradictions that must be filled in and reconciled by the Oral Tradition. The Jews were above all a nation devoted to hearing. Their Law was spoken and heard at Sinai; beyond this, the world itself came into being in an act of Divine speech. A Jew is not a passive receiver but an active participant in the act of revelation and Revelation and he is constantly in the process of perception and interpretation.

In kabbalistic writings, seeing is associated with Chochma and hearing with Bina.  When one sees, he receives the entire picture in a flush. Chochma is open, the stage before verbalizing and describing, the flash of knowing, of perception, the stage before, the  preinterpreted kernel of an idea. When hears, he needs to unravel and join what he just heard and join it to what he is hearing now, and then interpret and integrate it. Bina is understanding.

On the other hand, vision is easily blocked by even a flimsy barrier. Not so hearing. It takes an enclosure to block sound. The eys can only see what is nearby. The ear can hear from a great distance.

Vision is individualistic and personal. Hearing is communal and hemmed in by tradition and past experiences. 

R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin delivered a speech in honor of the publication of Kol Hanevuah and it is printed in the back of this wonderful work by the Nazir, R. Dovid Cohen. R. Zevin explains our mishna in this fashion. He says that vision ruled in the time of the First Temple, the period of prophecy and Ruach Hakodesh. During the second Temple period, prophecy ceased and hearing took tis place, "they used Bas Kol". After the destruction of the Second Temple, "all that we must do is now written in books", the Talmud, the Mishna, the Shulchan Aruch.

An individual cannot elevate himself except by raising his perceptions above the body into the realm of the spiritual. Rebbi advises us to know that our perceptions, our hearing, our seeing, our remembering are "above" us; they are non-physical functions. Once you know, truly know that, the body has ceased to exert its stranglehold over you and the allure of touch and taste has ceased its hold in favor of "seeing" and "hearing".

 

 

 

Avos 2:1, 3 The role of Mitzvos in choosing a derech

We explained that in the period after the destruction of the Temple, the Rabbis understood that individualism has become an important religious motive and that in the new era Judaism needed to be founded on the needs of the individual as well as those of the community.

Rabbi Judah HaNassi would say: Which is the right path for man to choose for himself? That which is beautiful for anyone who does it and the one that is (integrally) from within the person.

However, a question arises. ..

When we look around us there are so many different paths and each one claims large numbers of adherents. If we say that any path that appeals to one's inner desires and feels right is the correct path, have we given up on any objective criteria? Granted that a person cannot forge a competely individual path, but is the alternative choosing an established path solely on the grounds of its appeal? The Sages were fully aware of the many false reasons why a certain path might feel "right", reasons that the seeker discovers with time to be founded on unconscious and immature psychological needs or plain error. What then might be an objective criterion with which to evaluate a spiritual path?

A seeker sees around him a varied and multifaceted religious scene - liberal Orthodoxy, synthesis, Modern Orthodoxy, Chardal, Mussarnik and non-Mussar yeshivish, and Chassidic groups according to their kinds. Each one says: "I am true and only one - come hither". So which are ligitimate and how can one know?

 Rebbi says: "Mitzva observance!". Seek out and understand what a group considers a primary religious value. If it is keeping Hashem's Torah and commandments, then it is a legitimate path and you will not lose by adopting it. If not, remember that Judaism is at the most basic and essential level about keeping the mitzvos.

Be as careful with a minor mitzvah as with a major one, for you do not know the rewards of the mitzvot. 

In other words, whatever path you choose, do not forget the mitzvos.

Does this mean that Mitva observance is the only value? No, not at all. It is indispensable but it need not be the only element of a derech.

Now, Rebbi says something which partially contradicts his prior statement.

Consider the cost of a mitzvah against its rewards, and the rewards of a transgression against its cost.

How can one consider the reward of a mitsva when he just told us that  that "you do not know the rewards of the mitzvos"?

This question leads commentaries into a variety of approaches. Rambam, for example, says that even though we do not know what the exact reward is of each commandment, we can often approximately estimate it by looking at the related or opposite sin. One is ommanded to remove chometz on Pesach and we do not know what the reward of this positive commandment might be. However, when we look at the sin of keeping chometz in the house or the severe punishment of  eating it on Pesach, we can gain some insight into the relative "value" of the positive commendment of "biur chometz".

I like the comments of Tiferes Yisroel, who explains that we do not, of course,  know the actual reward for any particular commandment. However, as individuals we do know what each mitzva does to uplift, elevate and develop us, and this may work differently for different people. In this fashion, the individual orientation returns.

Yes, the different religious paths stress different approaches and different mitzvos. We should join the group whose spirit speaks to our hearts but that does not de-emphasize mitzva observance. With that in mind, it is also legitimate for us to seek out paths or philosophies that stress those mitzvos that uplift us as particular indviduals and lead us in the path that is "beautiful" and rewarding specifically to us.

Self expression in Avodas Hashem: Chometz and salt

A recent post in Avos discussed the tension within Judaism between a personal, individual path to Hashem and the path which is recommended to all. The best way is to follow both paths simultaneously.

I recently came across an early Avakesh post that expressed something important and true.

"On the one hand we are told that any minchah, or meal offering, may not include leaven or honey (Vayikra 2:11). This pasuk implies that the basic ingredients of flour and oil must remain free from anything extra.

And yet, just two pesukim later we are told “ba’melach timlach,” that all menachos should be salted (2:13). In fact, the verse continues and further commands us that all sacrifices must include the addition of salt.

The question is two-fold: Why may we not add leaven or honey to the korban? And if we are commanded not to add ingredients, why must we add salt?

A number of classical meforshim offer symbolic explanations for the problem with leaven and honey, but most of these explanations don’t address the positive contribution of salt.

R. Mordechai Gifter (Pirkei Torah), offers a beautiful explanation to both rules.

The problem with honey and leaven is that they are additives. They improve the taste or consistency of food by changing it. The external nature of the change they induce is the source of their prohibition.

Salt, on the other hand, preserves and enhances the natural flavor of food and this is the reason that we add it to korbanos.

R. Gifter goes on to explain that these twin halachos do not merely govern what ingredients can be added to a sacrifice, but – more profoundly – serve as a model for spiritual expression and aspiration.

Symbolically, we are being taught that our service of and relationship with God shouldn’t be artificial mimicry of others, but a natural expression of our true inner selves. [For a similar idea, see the comments of the Sfas Emes, on the phrase (Vayikra 1:2) “adam ki yakriv mi’kem.”]

Avos 2:1, 2: The Path of the Individual and the Path of the Community

Rabbi Judah the Prince said: Which is the straight path that a man should choose for himself? That which is beauty to those who do it it and beauty for him from the man.

The straight path is the one that is right for the all people in other words, for anyone who does it, but it must also fit the man. Not only that it is right for (any) person who does it, the path must be one that springs from the very core of this particular individual, the beauty must come from within the man.

This reading is the opposite of how the mishna is usually read. A common transplation of this mishna for example, is: "path which is beauty for the one who does it and beauty for him from others". This interpretation suffers from several deficiencies. It does not explain the phrase "from the man", which refers to a specific man, not to men in general, and it does not well fit the words. "to him who does it". However, whichever way you read it, the mishna is saying that the straight path is the one that fits other people and is right to the one who chooses it as well.

This mishna sets up two criteria for a religious path:

1.It must be something that is right for others and not a unique, indivdual path that has not ever been trodden and tested by others or that no other person can successfully "do". One often sees individuals, especially newcomers to Judaism, who attempt to strike their own individual path. Newcomers to religion not infrequently feel threatened by absolute demands of their newly found way of life. Before, they were independent, valued men and women; now, they are novices, beginners, those who receive rather than those who give. The sense of self-worth and sometimes even the sense of the self is threatened. A convert or even a Jew who is new to observance often feels unappreciated and misunderstood by the men and women who are so comfortable, so facile with the minutiae of ritual and observance, who are so secure in their faith, whose mannerisms, tongue and perceptions are so…. well, foreign. To affirm the self, a convert’s is often tempted to resort to syncretism – to merge the past and the future, to import beliefs that have no place in Judaism and to blindly affirm that he or she brings something to this community that is valuable and unique, something that only he has and can offer. “If only it could be joined to the truths that I experience here”, he thinks. “I only I could teach these self-satisfied and smug people true values, my values!” When the locals are less than receptive, the convert withdraws. The result can be spiritual ruin and estrangement for arrogance and self exaltation not only interfere with learning but also ultimately lead to heresy.

The three stages of estrangement are described in the following midrash, that explains Boaz' words to Ruth at their first meeting as religious advice. ‘Do not go to collect in the field of another – as it says, “Thou shall have no other gods with Me”. And also do not pass from this, as it says, “This is my God and I will dwell in Him”. “And so abide you with my maidens – this are the righteous, as it says, “Will You delight in it like a bird and join it to Your maidens” (Ruth Rabba 4:11).

Instead the newcomer should consider joining a community that appeals to his very soul, but a community and its established path nevertheless.

2.It's beauty must, however, "arise out of the man", and not be an imitation of something that others do but one to which the individual does not deeply relate deeply. One should not walk in a path that is right for others but feels inauthentic for himself. There is, of course, much thought and counsel that must go into this quest. Sometimes what feels foreign becomes less so after habituation and years of study and no path should be abandoned on frivolous grounds.

In practice what this says is that an individual must find a path that is resonates with his inner being but one that is well-trodden by others and found by their experience to be fitting and appropriate. Unlike Christianity which, at least in tis Protestant manifestations, crowns the individual with all the choices and unlike mainstream Islam to which there is (beyond Koran) no source of authority but sunna and umma, Judaism as is often the case in "big" religious truths, is in the middle between them. It is integrative and it heeds both the inner voice of the individual and the accumulated wisdom and experience of the nation.

Avos 2:1 - The Path of the Individual

 Rabbi Judah the Prince said: Which is the straight path that a man should choose for himself? That which is beauty to him and beauty for him from the other person.

The second chapter of Avos continues the strand of familial leadership that started with Hillel's descendents in the role of the Nasi. It continues until mishna four, which starts again with Hillel and now lists the non-familial chain of transmission from Hillel through R. Yochanan ben Zakkai and onward.

Another important development in this chapter is the preoccupation with the "path" of the individual in Divine Service. Whereas the fist chapter was focused on the political and societal role of Torah adherents in a larger, and after Shimon Hatsaddik, a corrupt and essentially areligious society, this chapter gives that quest up, or perhaps completes it, in a quest for the proper "path" for an individual. The question of :what is the right path" recurrs three times in this chapter ( I include the first mishna of the next chapter), once as an actual question. In mishna 10 and 11, R. Yochanan ben Zakkai asks his students:  אמר להם, צאו וראו איזו היא דרך טובה שידבק בה האדם

"Go and see which is the good way to which a person should cling?... What is the bad way from which a person should distance?"

Another signifcance change is the introduction of the terminology of going, entering, exiting and transitioning. One finds expression such as, "come into sin", "exit from the world", "floating on the water", "go out and see". It is as if the model of religious life as a journey begins to resonate and dominate in this chapter; the static and communal outlook gives way to a personal and unsettled travel through life as the predominant religious metaphor. The reasons for it are not hard to understand. As we discussed, the end of the Second Temple period saw the abandonment of the idea of the Jewish Polity based on the three pillars of Torah, Avodah and Sacrifical Service, an idea that the Rabbis struggled throughout this time and throughout this chapter to preserve in some way or fashion, for a religious group at least, if not for the entire state.

R. Yehuda Hanassi as a transitional figure was well suited for putting forth this teaching of individual's responsibility and a personal path. He was seventh generation to Hillel (Shabbos 56a). He is one the few Tannaim who had a dual identity, as R. Yehudah the Prince and simply as Rebbi (Shabbos 32b but see at the end of Ch.1 of Peah where we find R. Yehuda Hanassi and Rebbi in a disagreement). In this sense he was a way-station between a communal, familial model of religious leadership and life and the path of the individual that was now coming to the fore. Seder Hadoros on p.171 says that Rebbi was both a Tanna and an Amora; we find therefore an expression, "Rebbi tanna hu upalig" in Taanis 14b; in several places we find that he was treated as an Amora. This was because once the Mishna was completed, the era of Amoraim started, still while Rebbi was alive. After Rebbi, the model shifted from learning at the feet of the Sages as a group to studying from a particular individual Sage, though yeshivos still functioned as the places in which Torah was reviewed and the text of statements was fixed and elucidations were publicly offered (see Sanhedrin 17b). Until his time, you do not find that a Tanna was an exclusively student of a Sage who preceded him but you do increasingly find it after Rebbi's time.