We are on the third verse of Pirke Avot, moving very quickly indeed, I think:
Antigonus of Socho received the tradition from Simeon the Just. He used to say, Be not like servants who minister to their master upon the condition of receiving a reward; but be like servants who minister to their master without the condition of receiving a reward; and let the fear of Heaven be upon you.
Antigonus? Antigonus? What the hell kind of name is Antigonus for a nice Jewish boy? Why didn’t the rabbis who put this stuff together give him a nickname or just change his name altogether? Is it particularly important that this topic, or this generation, gets linked with the Greeks? How does a guy with a Greek name get to be chief of his generation anyway? He couldn’t have been a proselyte, could he? Seriously, before we can talk about what he said, don’t you get an impression of the guy himself, either taking a little shit for his name or (more likely) getting on pretty well with the outside authorities because he doesn’t have a goofy and barbaric local name, but an civilized name like an honest man? Because the third century BCE or so (which is more or less when we seem to be able to place him, as best we can) is a pretty good time to have a Greek name.
And when we look at the rabbis who put the book together, they were working under the rule of the Romans and by their permission. By glorifying this fellow with a Greek name, I have to think they were indicating (or perhaps hinting) that it is permitted for the chiefs of the Jews to have commerce with the occupying forces. That the correct relationship between the Jews, as a conquered if not yet truly dispersed people, and the Empire that encompasses them is … complicated.
And we can take the idea of Antigonus himself, and our wholly fictional but persuasive imaginings of his life and his relationship with the Greeks, and we can take this idea of the sages under Roman rule and their relationship with their Imperial overlords, and we can keep them in mind when we look at his choice of metaphors. This metaphor of servant and master is meant to stand in for the pious individual and the Divine, but can also be read as the People Israel and the Divine, and also as any combination of servant-and-master pairs that come naturally to mind, including subject and sovereign. Or servant and master, for that matter. We aren’t restricted to a single meaning, as if it were a code. It can have multiple meanings all at once, and the different meanings can play off each other, and be affected by things like the name of the High Priest.
Well, I think that’s enough to start a conversation about Antigonus, yes? And although his saying is technically a triple (and we can talk about that), I suspect we’ll only need two more threads: the servant-master metaphor, and the fear of Heaven.
Tolerabimus quod tolerare debemus,
-Vardibidian.
So, Antigonus of the Greek name: what does your motto say about you? What is your relationship to the conquerors, if not of a servant to his master? What is your reward for your service? Why should we listen to anything you say?
peace
Matt
Well, and Why should we listen to anything you say? is answered right there: Antigonus of Socho received the tradition from Simeon the Just. And Simeon received it from the men of the Great Assembly, who received it from the prophets, who received it from the Judges, who received it from Joshua, who received it from Moses, who received it from the Divine at Sinai face-to-face.
And if you don’t accept that the tradition was passed correctly to Antigonus, then you can’t accept that he passed it on correctly to next week’s boys, and on down to Hillel and Shammai, and down to the sages of the generation after the Destruction of the Temple, which then calls into question the entire project of Rabbinic Judaism.
Which is cool, really. You can call it into question. I’m just warning you—you pull out one Rabbi and the whole thing starts tumbling down.
Thanks,
-V.
Sort of an exegetical Jenga?
I’m curious, though: in “Pirke Avot, verse three: servants, masters, rewards,” you tell the story of two scholars of the Law (it is unclear whether they would have been called Rabbi) who, the story seems to go, were indeed pulled out of the structure as flawed building stones. Or am I misreading the syntax of your warning? May one question an arbitrary number of rabbis so long as one does not pull out a Rabbi?
Well, that’s the idea. Or, rather, the Tsadok and wossname pulled themselves out, from the point of view of the tradition. One of the things that Pirke Avot is about in addition to simply passing along some advice about how to live is to reiterate the tradition. There is a plot that follows the tradition as it comes down the line; in essence the people who put the book together (after the Destruction of the Temple) are telling you which sages are, um, load-bearing sages, and then inevitably which are not. And of course at the end it turns out that
the butler did itthe Rabbis who put together the Mishnah and the Siddur and Rabbinic Judaism generally are load-bearing sages.This is probably pretty off-putting to outsiders, and insiders, too, for that matter. However, we do have simultaneously lots of stories about sages disagreeing with each other, which takes a bit of the edge off. There is a story (did you see that coming) about–I forget which two sages were arguing a point in the Bet Din (a sort of lesser Great Assembly), and one was failing to persuade the gathering and cried out that if his view was the correct one, let the Divine shake the very walls of the building! And lo, the walls began to shake. And then the Rabbi asked that the walls be still, and lo, the walls were still. And the gathering of rabbis were very impressed with his piety and the signs of Divine favor, but as a matter of law, sided with the other guy. Because it’s not like a message from the Divine is admissible evidence. That’s the sort of thing you resort to when you don’t have any good arguments.
Does that help?
Thanks,
-V.
Perfectly clear — and, to clarify a bit myself, I wasn’t particularly put off about the earlier comment, just curious about an apparent contradiction.
Mmm… Existential Jenga…
*drools*
peace
Matt