avakesh

Avos 2:15, The Emergence of Personal Prayer.

"Rabbi Shimon said: Be careful with the recitation of the Shema and the prayers. When you pray, do not regard your prayers as a fixed obligation but rather as [the asking for] mercy and supplication before G-d, as the verse states, 'For gracious and merciful is He, slow to anger, great in kindness, and relenting of the evil decree' (Joel 2:13). Do not consider yourself wicked in your own eyes."

What we see in this teaching its is the culmination of the process of the reversal of the relative importance of prayer as sacrifice versus prayer as individual service of the heart. Both are present in Tanach but in different proportion than now. To understand this sentence we need to take a step back.

The basis of Judaism is communal - the Covenant between Hashem and the Jewish People. However, it was ruptured and only partially restored after the destruction of the First Temple. In the commentary in the first chapter we showed that Shimon Hatsaddik's replacement idea of the Jewish state run by righteous priests and based on the three principles of Torah, Temple service, and Public Benevolence became untenable in the Hasmonean era of venal rulers. We followed the brief emergence of the concept of autonomous religious society functioning below and separately from the political order; however, it also was not tenable in the changing society of the end of the Temple era with its religious paradigm shifts. Replacing it after the destruction of the Temple and beginning with the teachings of Hillel but finding its greatest expression in the words of the five students of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, was the concept of individual service to the G-d of Israel.

Rabbi Shimon's statement shows the end result of a similar evolution in regard to prayer. As shown by Ziony Zevit in his article From Judaism to Biblical Religion and Back Again, published as chapter 8 in "Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship", New York University Press 2008, there existed both the public worships service centered around sacrifices, which I add was a primary type of worship, and a private prayer that was modeled after a personal conversation with other people. This private prayer was characterized by unique posture, usually prostration, and a conventional conversational style, as one man speaks to another. The posture of Daniel, in prayer on his knees, represented the coming to the fore of individual prayer as a distinct type of Divine Service. Upright posture and formalized, organized prayer, defines the third stage of development and prayer – elevating what was a minor component of divine service in Biblical times to the primary method. The two components of Biblical Prayer are outlined in the following disagreement:

 R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: The Tefilot were instituted by the Patriarchs. R.

Joshua b. Levi says: The Tefilot were instituted to replace the daily sacrifices.

(Talmud Berakhot 26b)

 

In this view, the way we pray in our time, it's simply their elevation of what was once a minor component of private prayer of biblical times to a more central role, and, consequent downgrading of the sacrificial aspects of the Prayer design to becoming a minor component of prayer. Certainly, one can see continuation of this process in the Hasidic elevation of individual prayer and its downgrading of public features pf prayer, such as disregarding set times for prayer, the lessened importance of the minyan and the emphasis on personal unifications versus keeping pace with the group.

Rabbi Shimon's statement is interesting for several reasons. It's noteworthy that he speaks about their citation of Shema and prayers in one breath. Personally, I believe that this is most consistent with the approach of the Tosafists who apply many of the laws of prayer to Shema because they seed the Shema as formalized within the prayer service to be in itself a prayer. This is unlike Rambam who sees it as the fulcrum of the prayer experience but not as the prayer, but a declaration of faith.  For more see here and in this book.

R. Shimon says that every individual must be careful with his own recitation of prayers and not rely on the public. The prayer must be mercy and supplication. It is not merely an individuals contribution to the public service. To support this point, R. Shimon reinterprets the verse in Joel that, in its context, speaks about Hashem's relationship to the nation of Israel. This reinterpretation is important in emphasizing the individualistic nature of this teaching. It also serves as the seguey into the third teaching which we will discuss please G-d, next time.

Avos 2:14: Learh all the Toras

Rabbi Yossi said: Let your fellow's property be as dear to you as your own, prepare yourself to study Torah which is not an inheritance to you, and let all of your deeds be for the sake of heaven.

Rabbi Yose is the Tanna in our Mishnah who said that the good way to which a person should cling to is "a good neighbor" and the bad way which a person should avoid is the "bad neighbor". R. Yose  himself certainly followed this philosophy. He tells us in Shabbos 118  that the reason that he lived a long life is because he would never transgress the words of his colleagues. R. Yose was not a Cohen. Yet, even if his colleagues were to tell him to go up and pronounce the Priestly blessings, he would do so. In the merit of his careful cultivation of the trait of congeniality, Rabbi Yose merited that in any dispute between him and one of his friends, the halacha is according to R. Yose (Eruvin 47a).

However, the second teaching of R. Yose is difficult to understand. Why would one think that Torah should come to him by inheritance? After all, there is no branch of knowledge that does not require careful application and many hours of study to master. Furthermore, what does it mean "prepare"? What is this preparation?

I think that R. Yose is teaching us something very important. Do not read, "prepare yourself to study Torah, because it is not an inheritance for you", but read, "prepare yourself to study that Torah which is not an inheritance for you". This reading had the advantage of preserving the tri-partite division of this mishna.

 [י [יב] רבי יוסי אומר, יהי ממון חברך חביב עליך כשלך

; התקן עצמך ללמוד תורה שאינה ירושה לך;

 וכל מעשיך, יהיו לשם שמיים.

The truth is that someone who grows up in a particular community does, almost by osmosis,  receive a certain perspective, a particular approach, a specific sensibility from his community, which can be called an "inheritance". The Torah of Satmar is not the same as that of the Yeshiva World and the Torah of Lubavitch is very different from that of R. Kook, and neither is like the Sephardic tradition. When one seriously engages with another Torah tradition from inside, he often experiences a sense of disorientation in which things are almost the same but not quite the same. One can compare it to the experience of looking  into a mirror that is made to distort. One kind of sees the same things, but the inter-relationships and the sense of emphasis and depth perception are very, very different. One does need to "prepare" to make a transition from one tradition to another.

Having done this, however, your actions will be for the sake of heaven. One who knows, understands and values multiple approaches, will not act by habit. He or she will not parrot slogans. A scholar who is proficient in many different pathways of Avoda will know what to do, and more importantly will know what to do for the right reasons.

This does not negate being a good member of the community. R. Yose teaches us that, at the minimum, one must care for one's neighbors money as much as one's own. Rising above parochialism leads one to the level of "for the Sake of Heaven" but the goal always is to remain within  a specific community as a way of life as one reaches to Heaven. 

Interestingly, ARIZAL in the SEFER DERUSHEI HA'NESHAMOS V'HA'GILGULIM (Perek 3) explains that a person who completed his learning in a prior lifetime only needs, in his present lifetime, to work on the method of learning that he did not yet master. (The words of the Arizal refer to the rest of a person's learning, when he is certain that he is not neglecting to learn basic Halachah; see SHACH YD 246:5.). The mishna then tells one to study Torah which one had not inherited from a previous gilgul.

Avos 2:13

Rabbi Yehoshua said: An evil eye, the evil inclination, and hatred of others (lit., of the creations) remove a person from the world."

We have previously asked: "How does this relate to what R. Yehoshua answered to R. Yochanan Ben Zakkai's query earlier: "He [Rabban Yochanan] said to them [his students]: Go out and see which is a bad way which a person should avoid. R. Eliezer said: A bad eye. R. Yehoshua said: A bad friend.".

Here. R. Eliezer says that the best thing is "good eye" and the worst thing is "bad eye". He follows it up with, " R. Eliezer said: May the honor of your fellow be as dear to you as your own. Do not anger easily. Repent one day before you die. Warm yourself before the fire of the Sages. But be wary with their coals that you not get burnt, for their bite is the bite of a fox, their sting is the sting of a scorpion, their hiss is the hiss of a serpent, and all their words are like fiery coals."

R. Eliezer seems to put the honor of others as primary.He calls that "good eye". R. Eliezer is consistent. However, R Yehoshua is not consistent. He says that the "bad way" is a "bad friend" but it is not a bad friend who "takes a person out of this world". Instead it is Yetzer Hara, Evil eye and Hate of people.

"Hate of people" is ambiguous. It could mean that one who hates others, that quality of his takes him out of this world. Or. it could mean that when others hate him, it will take him out of this world. In the second variant, hate is an external force that is directed at him from the outside.

Where R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua differ is the only thing that R. Yehoshua talks about that R. Eliezer does not - Yetzer Hara!

What is Yetzer Hara? In Iggeres Hamussar, R. Yisroel Slanater says that it is a subject to a disagreement between Rishonim from Spain and Ashkenaz. The former understood it as representing person's mental and psychological processes, as something that is internal to the person himself. In Ashkenaz, they understood it as somethng external, a power that influences people or groups of people to behave in an injurious manner to themselves, to no personal gain. R. Yisroel Salanter goes on to say that it is both.

A recent book devoted to this very question, "What is Yetzer Hara", suggests that the House of R. Ishmael viewed Yetzer Hara as a demonic force outside the individual whereas the school of R. Akiva saw it as a psychologically based inner force. The main support to this view comes from the fact that in R. Ishmaels' midrashim, Yetzer is called Yetzer Hara, the evil inclination, whereas in R. Akiva's midrash it is called simply Yetzer, without the apellation "Evil".

The word "Yezer" appears only four times in the Mishna, of them, three are in Avos(here, 2:11, 4:1) and one is at the end of Brochos (bishnei yetserecha). The clearest identification of Yetzer as an internal disposition is in 4:1 - "Ben (the son of) Zoma said:  Who is strong? He who conquers his inclination (inclination, not Evil Inclination), as it is said: 'Better is one slow to anger than a strong man, and one who rules over his spirit than a conqueror of a city' (Proverbs 16:32)." Couldn't be clearer - he who conquers his (inner) Yetzer is the same as one who rules over his spirit. Here the Yetzer is not called evil.

I would say that the same dichotomy exists regarding "Evil Eye". In some places, for example, Avos 5:19, the evil eye is a disposition to look at others uncharitably: "Whoever possesses the following three traits is of the disciples of our father Abraham; and whoever possesses the opposite three traits is of the disciples of the wicked Balaam. The disciples of our father Abraham have a good eye, a meek spirit and a humble soul. The disciples of the wicked Balaam have an evil eye, a haughty spirit and a gross soul." In other places (for example Brochos 55b), "evil eye" is a demonic force that one can summon that can injure others.

Perhaps this is the explanation for the two different statements of R. Yehoshua. When asked: "What is the straight path that a person should follow?". he says, "Good friend". That is what a person should pursue and he should avoid a bad friend. However, when we address outside forces, it is the Evil Eye and Yetzer Hara and the Hate of others against him that take a man out of his world.

 

Avos 2:12: Misplaced introduction?

They (each of the five students of R. Yochanan listed earlier) said three things. R. Eliezer said: May the honor of your fellow be as dear to you as your own. Do not anger easily. Repent one day before you die. Warm yourself before the fire of the Sages. But be wary with their coals that you not get burnt, for their bite is the bite of a fox, their sting is the sting of a scorpion, their hiss is the hiss of a serpent, and all their words are like fiery coals."

We are now launching into a distinct group of teachings, those of the students of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai. It is not perhaps surprising that they are introduced with the same words as the teachings of the Men of Great Assembly in 1:2: "They said three things". This is an appropriate introduction because it delineates a new chapter in Torah history,  of the students of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai, Rabbinic Judaism as we know it. The introduction that echoes the Men of Great Assembly tells us that a period of collective leadership had now began, just like in the period of the Great Assembly. It also establishes a continuity with the Men of the Great Assembly and emphasizes the fact that the students of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai are a direct continuation of the transmission of Moshe's teachings that he received from Sinai and transmitted to Yehoshua.

 What is, however, surprising that as soon as w are told that "they" said three things, we are taught something which is clearly more than three. R. Eliezer does say three things but then he launches into a warning about the words of the Sages: "...Warm yourself before the fire of the Sages. But be wary with their coals that you not get burnt, for their bite is the bite of a fox, their sting is the sting of a scorpion, their hiss is the hiss of a serpent, and all their words are like fiery coals.", which is more than three things.

I had not seen this discussed in the usual places. I did see that Maharal explains that there are two sets of threes in R. Eliezer's words. First he explained three matters of personal perfection and then three matters of Sekhel. Thus, we have three lessons in this 2nd group: 1) Warm yourself from the fire of the chachamim, 2) take care about being burned from the heat of the embers and 3).  "All their words are like fiery coals" warning us not to violate their teachings (Rabbinic commands), for one who violates the teachings of the Rabbis is liable for death. 

It seems to me that if we view this as an introductory mishna, the second part of the mishna is a part of the introduction. As we are being introduced to the new period of the transmission of the Torah, a period that in many ways parallels that of the Men of the Great Assembly, we are warned to be serious and accept the words of the students of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai with reverence. Whereas the teachings of the Great Assembly were introduced with the history of Torah's transmission, the students of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai are introduced with an appeal that we should respect their Torah and approach it with trepidation and great care. Perhaps not everything that they said is directly from Sinai; yet, "But be wary with their coals that you not get burnt, for their bite is the bite of a fox, their sting is the sting of a scorpion, their hiss is the hiss of a serpent, and all their words are like fiery coals."

Purely to illustrate this point, I rearrange the mishna (we will shortly discuss why our version is not presented in this way)

Warm yourself before the fire of the Sages. But be wary with their coals that you not get burnt, for their bite is the bite of a fox, their sting is the sting of a scorpion, their hiss is the hiss of a serpent, and all their words are like fiery coals."

They (each of the five students of R. Yochanan listed earlier) said three things. R. Eliezer said: May the honor of your fellow be as dear to you as your own. Do not anger easily. Repent one day before you die.

Compare it to this introduction in the beginning of chapter 6.

The sages expounded in the language of the Mishnah (blessed is He who chose them and their learning):

Rabbi Meir would say...

Why didn't arranger of the Mishan arrange it that way?

I think that there are two reasons.

1.It follows well after the first teaching of R. Eliezer, in that he taught, "May the honor of your fellow be as dear to you as your own". He tells us to respect fellow Rabbis and the mishna explains why and how (Warm yourself before the fire of the Sages...).

2. R. Eliezer is the one who can teach this principle of reverence for the Rabbis, even though he never taught anything that he did not receive from his teachers and they did( "I never taught anything that I did not hear from my teachers(Sukkah 28a)" Farthermore, R. Eliezer was placed under a ban by his colleagues(Bava Metsia 59b). You may think that this invalidates their teachings or that they do not neeed to be treated with the same respect as authentic Torah teachings from Sinai.Therefore, R. Eliezer is the one who explains that it is not so.

 

 

 

 

Avos 2:10-11, Lonely in a crowd

After introducing the five students of R.Yochanan ben Zakkai, the mishna tells us about their answers to a very important question.

He [Rabban Yochanan] said to them [his students]: Go out and see what is a good way to which a person should cleave.

This is reminiscent of another mishna, the first mishna in this chapter. By considering this parallel mishna we might understand better what it is that Rabban Yochanan was asking:

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.

This first mishna raises an improtant question. Whereas the fist chapter was focused on the political and societal role of Torah adherents in a larger society, this second chapter in Avos gives up that quest. History taught us that a Torah State is no longer possible, for now, and the proper quest is now for a "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).  In mishna 10 and 11, the ones we are reading right now, 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?"

Note the signifcant change, the introduction of the terminology of going, entering, exiting and transitioning. One finds expression in this chapter 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.

If we understand R.Yochanan ben Zakkai's question along these lines, the unusual structure (why ask the same question twice) and parallels(why repeat the same thing twice, once in the positive and once in thhnegative) in these mishnayos become more easily understandable.

I suggest that R. Yochanan, understanding that individual paths to G-d must be in some way integrated with the communal and national path, asked his students how practically can the individual and collective elements be combined. Each one then gave an example. Each example distributed itself along the individual-collective continuum, as follows:

R. Eliezer said: A good eye. R. Yehoshua said: A good friend. R. Yossi said: A good neighbor. R. Shimon said: One who considers consequences. R. Elazar said: A good heart. He said to them, I prefer the words of Elazar ben Arach over your words, for included in his words are your words."

Individual                                                                                                Collective

Good heart    Good eye    Consider consequences    Good friend    Good neighbor

A good heart is a purely personal accomplishment. A good eye has in it a communal component; while a property of an individual, it deals with others in the community. One who considers consequences is in the exact middle of the community-individual line because he considers results of his actions to himself and others. Similarly the obverse of this quality is that the one who burrows and does not pay back cheats himself and others. A good friend is heavily weighted toward the communal side but is still in a personal and individual relationship. Good neighbor, of course, is toward the extreme of communal based approach .

I will tell why you almost HAVE to say that these are examples and categories and are not meants to be taken literally.

Look in the next mishna, in which R. Eiezer and R. Yehoshua list three things. You would expect that R. Eliezer would emphasize the "good eye", which to him is the most important thing and R. Yeshoshua will underscore"a good friend"

But they do not. Instead they reverse their positions:

"They (each of the five students of R. Yochanan listed previously) said three things. R. Eliezer said: May the honor of your friend be as dear to you as your own.

"Rabbi Yehoshua said: An evil eye, the evil inclination, and hatred of others (lit., of the creations) remove a person from the world."

You have to say that in the former mishna they speak about specific examples as standing for categories, a feature of Tannaitic literature in general, while in the latter mishna they are speaking of a specific middah and are being literal.

 

 

Avos 2:9: Counting praises

R. Yochanan ben Zakkai would count their praises.

Why did R. Yochanan ben Zakkai "count" their praises? What does counting have to do with praises and what is there to count, when each one of them received but one epithet.

As we said, the leadership model changed after the destruction of the Temple, from zugos=2, to a leadership in a group of five. When this group gathered, they had a "quorum" and decisions could be made by taking a vote. You are not allowed to count people, as we see from I Samuel 15:4]: "and Saul gathered the people together and counted them using goats.(Yoma 22b)" We use the verse [Psalms 28:9]: Hoshi'oh es amecho..., when counting people for a minyan since it contains ten words.

Instead of counting the five students, which Torah prohibits, R. Yochanan ben Zakkai counted their praises. 

Since we are in the middle of Omer, I offer an explanation why the students of R. Akiva all died for "not practicing honor to one another".

The Gemora in the tractate of Yevamos 62b, tells us that "Rabbi Akiva had 12,000 pairs of students...and all of them died in one period of time because they did not conduct themselves with respect towards one another...they all died between Pesach and Shavuos...and they all died a terrible death. What was that it? R' Nachman said "Askarah" (a death from suffocating, from a croup-like illness). The world was desolate until Torah was rebuilt from R. Meir, R. Judah, R. Jose, R. Simeon and R. Eleazar b. Shammua, the 5 students of R. Akiva."

Seems pretty drastic for the mere deficiency of not being respectful. Also, why should they have had to die such a horrible death?

However, the meaning of this story is deeper than its surface.

After the Temple was destroyed, and it was destroyed because of internal conflict and machlokes, Torah could only be saved by collective leadership. It could not be saved by even thousands of students who wrangled and fought with one another, like in the past. Those had to go and they died by Askara, which affects those who speak Lashon Hara(Shabbos 33a). Those who spoke badly of the Land and fomented an insurrection  against Moshe died in a mageifah(Numbers 14:36). Mageifah is Askara( Sotah 35a).

Torah could only be saved by Sages who would work together and share their separate approaches and talents as a group: R. Meir, R. Judah, R. Jose, R. Simeon and R. Eleazar b. Shammua.

Avos 2:9 Leadership of Five

 
"Rabban Yochanan ben (son of) Zakkai had five [primary] students. They were: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurkenos, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya, Rabbi Yossi the Priest, Rabbi Shimon ben Nesanel, and Rabbi Elazar ben Arach."

The times of R. Yonchanan ben Zakkai were turbulent and confusing. They were times of turmoil and new sects and religious philosophies: Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, Christians according to their kinds, gnostics, pagans and everything in between. Whereas before Judsim sought balance and serenity in pursuit of national destiny to worship Hashem, now it had to form a defensive formation, that could both defend and attack. Zuggos (pairs) typified the situation in which there are two alternatives, thesis and anti-thesis. The challenge is keeping balance. The Hegelian paradigm of thesis, antithesis, catharsis was the reality of R. Yochanan's teachers, who were pairs and spoke in tripartite teachings. After R. Yochanan, Judaism became typified by five member leadership. The number five signifies a defensive formation, in which one warrior faces to each of the four direction and one holds them together to form the center. The advantage of five aligned in a formation is that it is both defensive and offensive, as long as the center holds and can guide them to withdraw or expand together.

We find that the three generations after R. Yochanan were led by groups of five.

1. Five students of R. Yochanan: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurkenos, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya, Rabbi Yossi the Priest, Rabbi Shimon ben Nesanel, and Rabbi Elazar ben Arach."

2. The five Sages of the Haggadah who were reclining in Bnei Brak: Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Elazar Ben Azaryah, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon.

3.Five students of R. Akiva, from whom Torah was rebuilt after his thousands of students died durng the days between Pesach and Shevuos: R. Meir, R. Judah, R. Jose, R. Simeon and R. Eleazar b. Shammua (Yevamos 62b)

4.These five are also the ones who were ordained by R. Yehuda ben Baseyra, for which he was killed by Romans: "And some say also R. Nechemya" (Sanhedrin 14b)

4.R. Jose had five sons: R. Ishmael, Eleazer, Menachem, Halafta (who died in his lifetime), and Eudemus(Shabbos 118b).

I am sure there are more examples but these are the ones I remember right now.

Once you take this approach, you can understand the forthcoming discussion on whether it is R. Eliezeror R. Elazar ben Arach outweighed everyone else.  The central point is whether it is R. Eliezer ben Hurcunus, the cemented cistern that loses not a drop who is the center of the formation, or R. Elazar ben Arach who is like an ever increasingly flowing spring. Who holds together the center, one who contains all of the traditions of the past  or one who engages and flows forward with an overpowering rushing of Torah? What is the center: tradition or innovation?

The paradigm of "five" explains why R. Akiva is not listed in our Mishna as a student of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai, whereas in Sotah 5:2 , R. Yehoshua calls him a student of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai. Rambam there comments that R. Akiva was called a student of R. Yochanan because he was a student of his student. We do find that a faithful student of a student can be termed a pupil of the original teacher; for example, Shmuel Hakaton is called a student of Hillel and Hillel is called student of Ezra in Sanhedrin 11a. However, in Pirke D/Rabbi Eliezer 7 it states that R.Akiva was one of a group who sanctified the new moon with R. Yochanan ben Zakkai. It seems that R. Akiva was a student of his after all. If so, why is he not listed in our Mishna. Perhaps, it is because he was not an official member of the Group of Five.

The next mishna tells us what the qualities were of each of the five, with which they confronted the challenges of the time. We will discuss them in due time but first let us look at them:

He used to enumerate their praises: R. Eliezer ben Hurkenos is a cemented pit which never loses a drop; R. Yehoshua ben Chananya - fortunate is she who bore him; R. Yossi the Priest is pious; R. Shimon ben Nesanel fears sin; and R. Elazar ben Arach is as an increasing river."

Taking credit: Avos 2:8

Rabban Yochanan ben (son of) Zakkai(RYBZ) received from Hillel and Shammai. He used to say: If you have studied much Torah do not take credit for yourself because for this were you created.

The sentiment of this mishna is laudable and straightforward, almost too straighforward. It raises many questions:

1.Why do we introduce R. Ychanan ben Zakkai as receiving from Shammai? Beside this mishna, I am not aware that RYBZ quotes Shammai anywhere else. Hillel-yes, there are many instances of that but not Shammai. Before his death Hillel described RYBZ, as "the father of wisdom" and "the father of coming generations" (Yer. Ned. v., end, 39b). Like that of Hillel, Yochanan's life was divided into periods of forty years each. In the first of these he followed a mercantile pursuit; in the second he studied; and in the third he taught (R. H. 30b). See Sukkah 28a where he is called the "smallest" student of Hillel.

2.What is new about this statement? Does it now already say: "Can a man be of benefit to God? Can even a wise man benefit him(Yov 22:2) and " If you becamse wise, it is for yourself..(Mishle 9:12)?

3.RYBZ was one of the rabbis of Yavne; in fact, he founded Yavne and begged its survival from Vespasian. He was not the only one among rabbis of Yavne to express this sentiment. "A gem in the mouths of the Rabbis of Yavneh: I am God's creature and my fellow is God's creature. My work is in the city and their work is in the field. I rise early for my work and they rise early for their work. Just as they do not presume to do my work, so I do not presume to do their work. Will you say, I do (learn) much and they do (learn) little? We have a tradition: One may do much or one may do little; it is all the same, provided one directs one's heart to heaven."Brochos 17a

To answer these questions and gain a broader understanding of RYBZ contribution, we must being by noting that he was the first Nasi who did not descend from a familial lineage (consult Tiferes Yisroel here for specifics). We don't really know much about how the sintitution of Nasi started but it is first mentioned as being headed by various individuals from the family of Baseyra. Bnei Baseyra abdicated in favor of Hillel. Hillel's descendents ruled for the 100 years before destruciton of the Temple. RYBZ served as the first and only non-Hillelian Nassi and after him, the house of Hillel returned into this office.

As such, RYBZ was the first "self -made man" Nasi. As we pointed out before, Pirkei Avos begins with the teacehr-student model, then lists the familial chain from Hillel to Rebbi and then returns once more to HIllel and his students. This is why it was appropriate for RYBZ specifically to now express this important teaching - that one should not give himself credit for attaining great learning. This is followed by the statement of Teacher-student model of Torah transmission: "RYBZ had five students...".

If not for RYBZ unique position, it would be OK to give oneself credit. We find that other Sages did themselves credit, precisely because they were not in the situation of being first in a line. In Pesachim 68b we find that Rav Sheshes would say: "Rejoyce for myself my soul, yours are verses(that you mastered), yours are Tannatic sayings." R. Elazar questions this because it is a commandment and a form of worshipping the Divine, as it is written "If it were not for My covenant [i.e., the Torah,] day and night, then I would not have put the laws of heaven and earth in place" (Jeremiah 33:25)? The Talmud answers that at first a person has in mind that he is learning in order to improve himself, and then afterwards he comes to study altrustically(lishmo), like  R. Elazar.

So we see here that sometimes it is OK to  take credit for one's learning, as a preliminary self-educational step on the road to full selflessness. There is also another, intermediate step, where one acknowledges one's accomplishment but gives credit to Hashem. R. Yosef knew that he was humble(Sotah 49b), but knew that he accomplished and gave credit to the day of Mattan Torah. The Gemara (Pesachim 68b) tells us: “On Atzeres [Shavuos], Rav Yosef said, ‘Prepare three calves.’ He also said: ‘If not for that day occurring, I would be just another Yosef in the marketplace.’”

There is another way to explain when one can take credit and when one cannot:

Ari explains this when he explains the concept of double gilgul in Shaar Hagilgulim 4:8:

Baba ben Buta the Pious was a student of the elder Shammai. All of his life he daily brought a Doubtful Transgression Offering.

It was Baba ben Buta who returned as the reincarnation of Rav Sheshet in order to complete some tikun that was required of him. Since King Herod had taken out the eyes [of Baba ben Buta], therefore he [Rav Sheshet] was also blind, as is known.

In the form of gematria called "AT-BaSh" the letters that spell Baba change into the letters that spell Sheshet.

Rav Sheshet knew that his Nefesh had first been in the body of Baba ben Buta, a man of great learning and well known for his piety. He only reincarnated a second time to rectify a small amount that had been left incomplete. This made his body sad, because it meant that all of his efforts were for the sake of that Nefesh, which in the end would return to that first body in the time of the Resurrection. All the benefit of the Torah that he studied and the mitzvot that he performed were for that Nefesh, and not his body. It was the Nefesh that had to rejoice, and not the body. Thus, he [Rav Sheshet] would say, "Rejoice my Nefesh…" and not me. "For you I read, for you I studied." It was for your benefit, and not my own.

I add that Baba ben Buta was also the first Nasi, as Tiferes Yisroel explains.

Now we can understand this statement of RYBZ and why he learned from Shammai. For RYBZ, it was straightforward - unlike Bava ben Buta (in his gilgul) and Rav Sheshes, he would not take the credit for his immense learning to which he, credit to whcih he, as the first non-hereditary Nasi was  entitled. The Mishna tells us that he was a student of Shammai to emphasize that he encompased all of tradition, not only its Hillelian aspects, but also its Shammaitic aspects. This corresponds to Bava ben Buta who was a student of Shammai. Furthermore, his statement is novel, because other Sages did take credit for their learning, because the credit was accruing to some part of them that was not really them, a gilgul, a guest within their souls. So the Sages of Yavne explained: "I am a creature and my fellow is a creature. I do my work and he does his work. I am no different than him, so how can I accrue personal credit". With these words they excluded the rare situation of people like Rav Sheshes, who was not a creature like other creatures but a man who included a gilgul of a great another soul.

 

Avos 2:7, The number 5

He [Hillel] used to say: 1.The more flesh [a person possesses], the more worms [will eventually consume him in the grave]; 2.the more property the more worry; 3.the more wives the more witchcraft; 4.the more maidservants the more lewdness; 5.the more slaves the more thievery.

1.The more Torah the more life; 2.the more study the more wisdom; 3.the more advice the more understanding; 4.the more charity the more peace. 5.One who acquires a good name acquires it for himself; one who acquires words of Torah has acquired himself a share in the World to Come."

In Chapter 1, the number 3 reigned. Every saying came in threes; the chapter opened with the three things that Men of the Great Assembly said and ended with the three things that R. Shimon ben Gamliel said. The numerology of this chapter is certainly less straightforward than merely a number 5 but each Tanna's saying hovers someweher in the vicinity of 5, either clearly in five parts or somewhere near it and can be fitted into it, if one desires.The number itself also makes its appearance: "Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai had five disciples...". Then each of the dsciples says three things.

In the first misnha of the chapter, there are five saying but the number three also makes an apearance.Since this is found in the first and subsequent mishnas, it supports the supposition than numbers are intentional.What we have here is transitioning from three to five, with the three fading away and five taking over as we go through the chapter.

The first mishna is: Rabbi Judah the Prince said: 1.Which is the proper course that a man should choose for himself? 2.That which is an honor to him and elicits honor from his fellow men. 3.Be as scrupulous about a light precept as of a weighty one, for you do not know the reward allotted for each precept. 4.Balance the loss incurred by the fulfillment of a precept against the gain and the accruing from a transgression against the loss it involves.5. Reflect on THREE things and you will never come to sin: Know what is above you--a seeing eye, a hearing ear, and all your deeds recorded in a book.

I am not trying to fit our chapter into the Procrustean numerology bed but the number 5 and 3 hover somewhere in the background in tis chapter, from beginning to the end. We certainly have it in the mishnah 7 which we are discussing now, in which there are five things of vanity and five things of eternity.

The chapter closes with a five-partite saying (three havng faded away by now),  1.He(R. Elazar) used to say: It is not incumbent upon you to finish the task. 2.Yet, you are not free to desist from it. 3.If you have studied much in the Torah much reward will be given you, 4.and faithful is your employer who shall pay you the reward of your labor. 5.And know that the reward for the righteous shall be in the time to come.

The next chapter starts again with a three but we will dsicuss that later.

Avos 2:6: Floating skull

 

Rembrandt: Aristotle contemplating the skull of Homer.

 

He(HIllel) also saw a skull floating on the waters. He said: because you drowned (others) you were drowned and those who drowned you, will (too)drown.

 This is such a difficult passage that Rashi says that in some places they did not include it. The following are some of its many difficulties:

1.Why is it in Arameic, coming in the middle of other teachings of HIllel, which are all in Hebrew?

2.He also(af)! What does "also" mean?

3.How did Hillel know that man drowned others? Perhaps he committed another transgression that is punished by drowning, such as adultery. If it is an involate principle that those who kill others are killeld, what sin did Hevel committ that he was murdered?

4.Why did the gentle scholar HIllel accuse this skull of such a heinous transgression? If it was to teach a lesson, why is he directly addressing the skull and not delivering the teaching to the bystanders?

Various answers are given. Rashi in Sukkah 53a says that Hillel must have recognized this skull as belonging to a known murderer. Presumed phrenological powers aside, this still does not explain how Hillel knew that murderers of this murderer will themselves be drowned? How did he know that he was drowned and not killed elsewhere and cast into the water? Similarly, Ari wrote that this was the skull of Pharaoh who attemtped to drown the Jews in the Red Sea and was himself drowned.

The construction of a sentence starting with "Also" is preserved in Sukkah 53a. The first two teachings are different than in our mishna. There it is says:

"It was taught, Of Hillel the Elder, It was said that when he used to rejoice at the Rejoicing at the place of the Water-Drawing, he used to recite thus, ‘If I am here, everyone is here; but if I am not here, who is here?’

 He used to recite thus, ‘To the place that I love, there My feet lead me: if thou wilt come into My House, I will come into thy house; if thou wilt not come to My House, I will not come to thy house, as it is laid, In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned, I will come unto thee and bless thee’.

He also once saw a skull floating upon the face of the water. ‘Because’, he said to it, ‘thou didst drown others, they have drowned thee, and they that drowned thee shall be drowned too’."

What you see from here is that when you already have two statements in the name of one rabbi, the third statement of his is introduced with "also(af)", for stylistic and syntactic reasons. This construction is found as well in Yoma 37a

שני גורלו' של אשכרוע היו ועשאן בן גמלא של זהב והיו מזכירים אותו לשבח בן קטין עשה י"ב דד לכיור שלא היה לו אלא שנים ואף הוא עשה מוכני לכיור שלא יהיו מימיו נפסלין בלינה מונבז המלך היה עושה כל ידות הכלים של יוה"כ של זהב הילני אמו עשתה נברשת של זהב על פתח היכל ואף היא עשתה טבלא של זהב שפרשת סוטה כתובה עליה

There a number of other examples of this syntactic device as well as examples that do not follow this pattern and where "af" , means not 'also' but "even".

I think that a curious aggadata in Sanhedrin 104a may provide some insight. Talmud explains why King Yehoakim, who was a very evil king, is not listed among those kings who lost their protion in the World-To-Come. It is because of the degradation that he suffered that expiated his sin.

Now, R. Perida's grandfather found a skull lying about at the gates of Jerusalem, and upon it was written, 'This and yet another.' So he buried it, but it refused to be buried [i.e., it re-emerged]; again he buried it, and again it would not remain buried. Thereupon he said, 'This must be Jehoiakim's skull, of whom it is written, He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem.'  'Yet,' reflected he, 'he was a king, and it is not meet to disgrace him'. So he wrapped it up in silk and placed it in a chest. On his wife's seeing it, she thought that it must be the skull of his first wife, whom he could not forget. So she fired the oven and burnt it. This is the meaning of the inscription: 'This and yet another."

There are two ways that I would explicate this strange aggada. If readers are aware of published explanations in seforim, I'd appreciate if they share them.

The simplest is that the back of the skull is the bone luz, which according to Chazal is never destroyed and from which the resurrected body will arise in Techias Hameisim. Some explain that luz is in the lowest back(Bareishis Rabba 28:3, Tosafos B"K 16a-b) but others say that it is the back point of the skull(LikuteiAri, Parshas Shoftim, Likkutei Shas on Rosh Hashana). This is really the same explanation. These two points are the two ends of "bending the body like a snake" in Shmone Esrei and also the path of Chochma as it comes down the spine in the 32 paths of Wisdom (Commentaries to Sefer Yetzirah 1:1). In Shmone Esrei we conduct Wisdom down the spine throughout the body, from Above to Below. Hindus recognize it by sitting on chakras, which direct spiritual energy in the opposite direction, from lowest spine toward the head; this is the idolatrous reversal of a Jewish mystical teaching.

Accordingly, Hillel was contemplating the luz and commenting on the eternal and immutable nature of Divine Law of Retribution, "middah kneged middah", as Rambam points out in his commentary to this verse.

Another direction to understanding of the symbolic meaning of a skull is its presence in many medieval and renaissance paintings. It signifies permanence of death and the fleeting significance of earthly existence.

Why Arameic? Well, the teaching of Hillel was directed to bandits and potential murderes, who presumably were more fluent in Arameic than in Hebrew. Interestingly, it was reported that the well-known collector Shlomo Moussaieff acquired two Talmudic era earthenware bowls, the open ends of which were adjoined to form a kind of case—inside the case was an ancient human skull. A magic incantation, written in Aramaic, was inscribed on the skull.

There may be more to this Mishna than we can figure out.

 

A Tangent on spines and snakes

By the way, the spine-snake analogy is deeper than it first seems. There is of course that echo of the Primordial Serpent of Kabbalistic thought. The Gemora (Bava Kamma 16) cites a braisa: The spine of a deceased person becomes a snake after seven years, if he does not bow down for the modim prayer.

Tosfos explains that this is measure for measure. Rav Sheishes (Brochos 12b) said that when he bowed down during Shemoneh Esrei, he would bow like a rod (in one swift motion), and when he straightened up, he would straighten up like a snake (which raises its head first and then slowly raises the rest of its body). Tosfos brings another explanation: The Midrash says that there is a vertebra in the spine of a person from which he is resurrected in the World to Come. This bone is so strong and hard that fire cannot consume it. And now, when that bone becomes a snake, he will not be resurrected and will therefore not live in the World to Come.

Tosfos rejects this explanation, for it is not logical to say that one will punished so harshly for committing this minor transgression, for we have learned that all of Israel has a share in the World to Come.

Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch wrote in a letter: "Anyone who reads this Gemora finds it laughable, but Pliny says the same statement almost word for word, “After a number of years the human spine turns into a snake”. Chazal, however, used a recognized scientific fact to teach a moral (my note: or mystical) lesson. To any mind it is clear that every similarly surprising statement of Chazal, if we look into it, was accepted as true by the scholars of the time."

Maharal writes:

The snake originally walked with an upright posture, for he was originally the king of the beasts. But because he persuaded Man to become a complete heretic (Sanhedrin 29a), and to refuse to bow down to Hashem, the snake was cursed. His curse was that he must walk upon his belly; that he should lose his upright posture. Therefore anyone who does not bow down before Hashem, his spine will also become a snake; he will lose his upright posture.

(Maharal of Prague, Netivot Olam, Netiv HaAvodah, ch. 10)

 

According to this, one who does not subjugate his lower desires located at the base of the spine by drawing down from the head to the lowest spine through Prayer, becomes like a snake that lost its ability to transcend the earthly and lives in one plane alone and can only swish around spiritual power laterally and not from Above to Below or even Below to Above.