We’re discussing Pirke Avot; I started with some general ideas about the discussion before we began, and now in order to facilitate some sort of coherent discussion that can be joined in and followed, I’ve broken the first verse into four notes. Here’s the verse:
Moses received the Law on Sinai and delivered it to Joshua; and Joshua to the Elders; and the Elders to the prophets; and the prophets to the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be not hasty in judgment; Bring up many disciples; and, Make a hedge for the Torah.
I broke out the first sentence, and then had a note on hasty, this note about disciples, and another one about the hedge. I hope this isn’t confusing. YHB is making it up as we go along, you know.
One of the differences between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel is that the former says that a teacher should be very choosy about who he teaches, while the latter says that anybody should be eligible. As a democrat (I mean, as a believer in democracy, politically and socially and whatnot), I’m on Hillel’s side. But you have to look at Shammai as not so much wanting to keep the knowledge (and therefore the authority, the positions of power and the status) in a small group of wealthy aristocrats as stating that there are plenty of worthy people to teach, so why not teach the best? Well, and that other thing, too.
There’s a story that most Jews know and I believe that it has become well-known among Christians as well. An asshole goes to Shammai and demands, mockingly, to be taught all the Law whilst standing on one foot. Shammai beats the asshole with a stick and throws him out. Then the asshole goes to Hillel, and again demands to be taught all the Law whilst standing on one foot. Hillel looks at him and quietly says That which is hateful to you, do not do to other people. That is the whole of the Law; the rest is commentary. And, in the story, the asshole is humbled, and comes to study with Hillel, and becomes Jewish, and everybody is happy, and there is hot cider when it’s cold out. So that’s all right.
This is actually only one of several stories where some obnoxious goy comes to both Shammai and Hillel and one returns his obnoxiousness and the other is pleasant and persuasive. And when the two houses differ in interpretation of the Law, the version that is binding is usually Hillel’s. And there’s a sense in which Hillel becomes the role model for rabbis and for Judaism generally and that’s a good thing. But the Talmud points out that Shammai did have better students.
But enough about Hillel and Shammai, we’ll get to them later. The point is that the advice to raise up many disciples does not necessarily mean to maximize quanitity, but to spread the wisdom around. As we said even before the beginning, all Israel have a portion in the world to come. How much more so, then, does all Israel have a portion of the Torah?
Furthermore, as will be discussed later, a sage should bring up many disciples for the good of all Israel, but also for the good of the sage himself. Teaching something is the best way to learn, after all. And it’s just generally a bad thing to keep yourself apart from other people. There are a few holy hermits in the tradition, but it’s viewed as an aberration, not a matter of pride. The relationship between teacher and pupil, which is one of the most powerful and passionate relationships in the world, is a source of tremendous virtue. Well, and sin, too, of course. So you can read this as a warning that you shouldn’t avoid the opportunity for sin by avoiding the opportunity for virtue. To bleed over into the next saying, you should not view your students across a hedge, but should make your students into a hedge themselves.
And to go back to the first, and look at the three: what are the active duties of a member of the Great Assembly? To adjudicate in cases brought to him, to bring up disciples to be new members of the Great Assembly, and to legislate for the daily lives of the people so as to prevent violation of the eternal Law. The three sayings in this verse govern those three active duties. The sages should just deliberately, and should view the law with caution, but when it comes to disciples, here we are urged to abundance.
Tolerabimus quod tolerare debemus,
-Vardibidian.
“You who are on the road must have a code that you can live by” and all that. Teach ’em if you got ’em. But teach them well, after all. Hillel, I’m looking at you. (Yeah, there’s even Discordians know that one.)
peace
Matt
We bring up children; the echoed verb applied here to disciples must be deliberate on the translator’s part if not in the original. Treat your children as disciples? Treat your disciples as children? Having children is not enough; they must also be well-learned in the Torah?
I suddenly find myself interested in the four words V left out of the discussion, “They said three things…” So, “Moses received the Law on Sinai and delivered it to Joshua; and Joshua to the Elders; and the Elders to the prophets; and the prophets to the Great Assembly.” Indisputably, Moses received the Law on Sinai and it was duly delivered. Are we to understand then that the Law is the three things they said? Shall those three things be the whole of the Law? Did the prophets play Telephone with the Law?
Hillel’s “Golden Rule plus Commentary” construction is nice, but Moses got the Ten Commandments on Sinai, and these three things they said are not those ten things, and they’re also not a lot of other things that the Observant should Observe, or so I hear. Anyway, clearly we’re dealing with Commentary. How binding should Commentary be? Is some Commentary more binding than other Commentary? How does one decide which is which?
peace
Matt
Michael—or treat your students as you would your own children? There’s a curious lack of emphasis on transmission parent-to-child; the father is responsible for making sure that the child has an opportunity to study, but not to teach the child himself. Perhaps it’s a hint that it takes a village to bring up a child in the Torah. I should add that some translators prefer raise up many disciples, which combines the parental metaphor with the image of lifting up perhaps higher than yourself…
Matt—I mentioned the three-things phrase back in the first thing note, but I was tempted to write a whole note about it, but seriously, it was getting out of hand, wasn’t it? Anyway, the men of the Great Assembly said a great deal more than three things, but presumably the compiler of Avot meant to say that these three things were important principles to be kept in mind when studying the details of what they said. I could imagine a statement that YHB said three things: People are different one to another, which is what makes the world interesting and fun; the point of democracy is not to ensure good government but to foster a democratic civilization; and tolerabimus quod tolerare debemus. They aren’t the only things I say, but they sure are things I say.
Thanks,
-V.