Hillel] used to say, one who seeks a name loses his name, one who does not increase [his knowledge] decreases it (or: will perish), one who does not study deserves death, and one who makes use of the crown [of Torah] will pass away."
This mishna is unusual in several respects.
1. It is in Arameic. Surely there is some significance the the use of Arameic. In addition, it introduces multiple statements of Hillel, very unlike the pattern so far of one statement per Tanna.
2. It has four parts, which is unusual. The regular pattern thus far is a three-part statement.
3. It is cryptic. Every mishna we have seen so far is clear and self explanatory while this mishna is obscure.
One may speculate that Hillel represented a turning point in the relgious organization of Jewry, a final diminution of the authority of the Cohanim and its replacement with the office of Nasi. In the beginning of the series we saw how the royal family was replaced by Shimon Hatsadik and the rule of Cohanim. Now, we have a shift back to the David's descendents by the way of... converts.
We have already seen that Hillel's teachers were converts or descendents of converts - Shemia and Avtalion. We saw how these esteemed teachers were beloved by the people for their expression of the qualities of peace and seeking harmony that appear to have been abandoned by the priestly class but taken up by the rabbis. In fact, Hillel, as well as Shemaia and Avtalion taught that they and their followers were the true students of Aharon. Once the Bnei Baseira abdicated in favor of Hillel, and regarding a question of Temple practice no less, new aristocracy was ready to be established - the aristocracy of learning. It in this context that we can understand Hillel's criticism of Bnei Baseira for not learning from two "gedolei hador", Shemaia and Avtalion, or, to put it in a different way, for not recognizing who the true gedolei hador were - not priests but Shemaia and Avtalion. The Arameic language and the four-partite structure are designed to express that this mishna, and its author Hillel, represent a departure from the past.
Hillel was born in Babylon and, according to the Iggeret of Rav Sherira Gaon, Hillel descended from the tribe of Benjamin on his father's side, and from the family of David on his mother's side. Interestingly, we are not told anything about Hillel's father, not even his name. It may be that this was in order to emphasize his Davidic origin, or because his father was not in any way distinguished. Whatever it may be, as we go through the next several chapters of Avos, we notice that there are two lines of transmission that span Ch. 1-4 - the line of the Nessiim and the line of rabbis and students. Hillel stands at the head of each line. Chapter 1 concludes with Hillel's progeny to R. Shimon ben Gamliel (whose teachings in 1:22 echoe those of Shimon Hatsadik) onto Rebbi and his children.
In the middle of chapter 2, we finish with the line of the Nessim and again return to Hillel, tracing the line of Hilel and his students, through R. Yochanan ben Zakkai and his students. This back and forth organization can be understood as follows:
1. Moshe to Shimon Hatsadik (Ch. 1)
2.Zugos (pairs), under the overall authority of the Priesthood (Ch.1).
3. Shemaia and Avtalion - petering out of the priestly model and the development of the rabbinic model - from teacher to student (Ch.1).
4.Hillel as the originator of the line of the Nesiim (Ch.2-3)
5.Hillel as the originator of the rabbinic model (Ch. 3-4).
Hillel represents the meshing and joining together of what is best in each model of succession. Hereditary succession has the advantage of ensuring minimum competence since among Jews, at least, the child who is the most suited is elected for leadership, with the consent of the people. There is also a built-in apprenticeship. It promotes responsibility on the part of the leader since authority is somethiong that one receives from one's forebears and must preserve to pass on to one's descendents. Hereditory models of leadership avoid costly and destructive disputes after a death of a leader and they prevent the rise of demagogues and charlatans. On the other hand, they can and often do stagnate and "the burden of inheritance" stifles innovation and radical change of direction, which can sometimes be necessary and sometimes destructive. After HIllel, the Jewish people were again led collectively, represented by the hereditory institutions of Nasi and merit-based Head of Beis Din.
This fact is crucial for organizing and understanding the flow of the next three chapters. One can read the arrangement of Avos as an argument for a combination of merit based and hereditary leadership working together.
It also serves as the basis for the following explanation of our mishna.
1.He would also say: One who advances his name, destroys his name.
One does not seize leadership on the merit of his family name but through personal accomplishements in learning.
2.He who does not increase, diminishes.
At the same time, one must build upon the "name" of one's predecessors. One cannot bank on his forefathers' accomplishments but must increase what they accomplished.
3.One who does not learn is deserving of death.
Priesthood is not enough but learning is paramount.
4.And one who make personal use of the crown of Torah shall perish.
Crown of Torah is not inherited but earned. However, in some families, it can also be received. In such a case, one must use it for the benefit of the community and not for personal aggrandizement.
Comments