The More Torah, the More Life: A Christian Commentary on Mishnah Avot 9789042935129, 9789042936867

Citation preview

CHRISTIAN COMMENTARIES ON

NON-CHRISTIAN SACRED TEXTS

The More Torah, The More Life A Christian Commentary on Mishnah Avot

by

Daniel Joslyn-Siemiatkoski

THE MORE TORAH, THE MORE LIFE A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON MISHNAH AVOT

CHRISTIAN COMMENTARIES ON NON-CHRISTIAN SACRED TEXTS

GENERAL EDITOR Catherine Cornille EDITORIAL

BOARD

David Burrell, Francis Clooney, Paul Griffiths, James Heisig EDITORIAL ADVISORS Daniel Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, Leo Lefebure, Daniel Madigan, Joseph O’Leary, Nicolas Standaert, Paul Swanson, Elliot Wolfson

The series “Christian Commentaries on Non-Christian Sacred Texts” provides a forum for Christian reflection on the meaning and importance of sacred texts (scriptures and religious classics) of other religious traditions for Christian faith and practice.

THE MORE TORAH, THE MORE LIFE A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON MISHNAH AVOT

BY

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2018

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN 978-90-429-3512-9 eISBN 978-90-429-3686-7 D/2018/0602/70 Copyright © 2018 by Peeters Publishers All rights reserved

To my teachers Marvin Wilson Anthony Saldarini Ruth Langer

ABBREVIATIONS

ARN ARN A ARN B BT M PT

Avot de Rabbi Natan Avot de Rabbi Natan A Avot de Rabbi Natan B Babylonian Talmud Mishnah Palestinian Talmud

All quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures are from the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh translation. All quotes from the New Testament are from the New Revised Standard Version.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS ..............................................................................

VII

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .....................................................................

XV

INTRODUCTION A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON MISHNAH AVOT............................ A Comparative Theology Approach ......................................... Introducing Mishnah Avot ....................................................... The Purpose, Structure and Major Themes of Avot ................ Avot as Wisdom Literature....................................................... Avot as Representative of a Spiritual Movement ...................... The Development of Early Rabbinic Judaism and Comparative Theology.............................................................................. Writing a Christian Commentary on Avot ..............................

17 19

CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................... Avot 1:1 ................................................................................... Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 1:2 ................................................................................... Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 1:3 ................................................................................... Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 1:4 ................................................................................... Avot 1:5 ................................................................................... Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 1:6 ................................................................................... Avot 1:7 ................................................................................... Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 1:8 ...................................................................................

31 31 31 41 55 56 60 62 63 66 68 69 69 74 77 77 77 80 86

1 2 4 6 9 14

X

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Avot 1:9 ................................................................................... Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 1:10 ................................................................................. Avot 1:11 ................................................................................. Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 1:12 ................................................................................. Avot 1:13 ................................................................................. Avot 1:14 ................................................................................. Avot 1:15 ................................................................................. Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 1:16 ................................................................................. Avot 1:17 ................................................................................. Avot 1:18 ................................................................................. Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ...........................................................

86 86 86 88 88 88 91 94 94 94 94 95 101 108 108 108 108 111

CHAPTER TWO .............................................................................. Avot 2:1 ................................................................................... Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 2:2 ................................................................................... Avot 2:3 ................................................................................... Avot 2:4 ................................................................................... Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 2:5 ................................................................................... Avot 2:6 ................................................................................... Avot 2:7 ................................................................................... Avot 2:8 ................................................................................... Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 2:9 ................................................................................... Avot 2:10 ................................................................................. Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 2:11 ................................................................................. Avot 2:12 .................................................................................

117 117 117 120 122 122 123 123 126 129 129 129 129 130 135 142 142 143 146 148 148

TABLE OF CONTENTS

XI

Avot 2:13 ................................................................................. Avot 2:14 ................................................................................. Avot 2:15 ................................................................................. Avot 2:16 ................................................................................. Avot 2:17 ................................................................................. Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ...........................................................

148 148 149 149 149 149 152

CHAPTER THREE ........................................................................... Avot 3:1 ................................................................................... Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 3:2 ................................................................................... Avot 3:3 ................................................................................... Avot 3:4 ................................................................................... Avot 3:5 ................................................................................... Avot 3:6 ................................................................................... Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 3:7 ................................................................................... Avot 3:8 ................................................................................... Avot 3:9 ................................................................................... Avot 3:10 ................................................................................. Avot 3:11 ................................................................................. Avot 3:12 ................................................................................. Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 3:13 ................................................................................. Avot 3:14 ................................................................................. Avot 3:15 ................................................................................. Avot 3:16 ................................................................................. Avot 3:17 ................................................................................. Avot 3:18 ................................................................................. Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ...........................................................

155 155 155 156 157 158 158 158 158 158 162 168 169 169 169 169 170 170 174 180 180 180 181 181 181 181 189

CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................. Avot 4:1 ................................................................................... Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ...........................................................

195 195 195 197

XII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Avot 4:2 ................................................................................... Avot 4:3 ................................................................................... Avot 4:4 ................................................................................... Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 4:5 ................................................................................... Avot 4:6 ................................................................................... Avot 4:7 ................................................................................... Avot 4:8 ................................................................................... Avot 4:9 ................................................................................... Avot 4:10 ................................................................................. Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 4:11 ................................................................................. Avot 4:12 ................................................................................. Avot 4:13 ................................................................................. Avot 4:14 ................................................................................. Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 4:15 ................................................................................. Avot 4:16 ................................................................................. Avot 4:17 ................................................................................. Avot 4:18 ................................................................................. Avot 4:19 ................................................................................. Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 4:20 ................................................................................. Avot 4:21 ................................................................................. Avot 4:22 ................................................................................. Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ...........................................................

199 199 199 199 202 202 203 203 203 203 203 203 207 210 210 210 211 211 214 217 217 217 217 218 218 221 223 223 223 223 225

CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................... Avot 5:1 ................................................................................... Avot 5:2 ................................................................................... Avot 5:3 ................................................................................... Avot 5:4 ................................................................................... Avot 5:5 ................................................................................... Avot 5:6 ................................................................................... Jewish Interpretations ..........................................................

229 229 229 229 229 229 230 230

TABLE OF CONTENTS

XIII

Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 5:7 ................................................................................... Avot 5:8 ................................................................................... Avot 5:9 ................................................................................... Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 5:10 ................................................................................. Avot 5:11 ................................................................................. Avot 5:12 ................................................................................. Avot 5:13 ................................................................................. Avot 5:14 ................................................................................. Avot 5:15 ................................................................................. Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 5:16 ................................................................................. Avot 5:17 ................................................................................. Avot 5:18 ................................................................................. Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 5:19 ................................................................................. Avot 5:20 ................................................................................. Avot 5:21 ................................................................................. Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ........................................................... Avot 5:22 ................................................................................. Avot 5:23 ................................................................................. Jewish Interpretations .......................................................... Christian Resonances ...........................................................

237 243 244 244 244 250 256 256 257 257 257 257 257 260 264 264 264 265 266 268 268 268 268 270 272 273 273 274

CONCLUSION ................................................................................. Who is Jesus in Light of Avot? ................................................. What is the Relationship between Israel and the Church? ....... What is the Significance of Torah for Christians? ....................

277 277 278 280

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................... 285 Primary Sources........................................................................ 285 Secondary Sources .................................................................... 287

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This commentary has been a long time coming. Catherine Cornille first approached me about writing on a Jewish text for this series in 2005 just as I was transitioning from being a doctoral student to a professor. It has taken over a decade to bring this project from an idea to a completed work. I am grateful to her for her persistent encouragement and her patient belief in me. I wrote this commentary constantly aware of how much I relied on my own teachers. I first read Mishnah Avot as an undergraduate at Gordon College. As a senior, I took a course on Judaism in which my professor Marvin Wilson introduced his students to rabbinic thought by reading Avot. At that time Avot made a deep impression on me and provided a foundation for further study of rabbinic Judaism. At Boston College I learned more about the world of early Judaism from Anthony Saldarini. During my time there, Tony lost his battle with cancer. All through writing this commentary I thought of the great debt I had to him because of his work that so informed my own thoughts. Finally, it is because of the wise teaching and mentorship of my doctoral director Ruth Langer that I was able to write this commentary at all. She is my model for what a teacher ought to be. Her advice and comments have been invaluable to me. It is in humble gratitude that I dedicate this book to these three teachers. This book was in part made possible by generous grants I received from the Conant Fund of the Episcopal Church in support of sabbatical research in 2009 and 2012. I am very thankful for this generous resource that the Episcopal Church makes available to professors in its seminaries. Many colleagues have been helpful and insightful dialogue partners and readers over the year. In particular, I would like to thank James Harding, Devorah Schoenfeld, Michal Bar-Asher Sigal, Larry Wills, Katja Vehlow, Michael Lakey, Robbie Harris, and David Freidenreich. I had the great pleasure of co-teaching with Daniel London a course on Mishnah Avot. I want to thank him and all the students in ““Comparative Theology as a Spiritual Discipline.” I am also grateful to Ferenc Raj and Temple Beth El of Berkeley and to Havurah Nishmat Shalom of Berkeley for hosting me at various occasions over the years.

XVI

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am also grateful to my colleagues who have supported me over the years, starting with those at Church Divinity School of the Pacific and the Graduate Theological Union and now those at Seminary of the Southwest. Finally, I want to express my profound gratefulness to my wife Jennifer and my children Greg and Miri. Their love and care for me are always a source of inspiration and gratitude.

INTRODUCTION: A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON MISHNAH AVOT

This is a unique commentary on Mishnah Avot. There is a long and rich history of commentaries on Mishnah Avot, written by and for Jews. At times, Christian scholars have composed scholarly commentaries on this text to advance the field of Jewish studies. But this commentary is not for either of these audiences. Rather, I have written this commentary as a contribution to the field of comparative theology. Perhaps for this reason this commentary is a risky endeavor. In this introduction I will explain the challenges for a Christian to write a commentary on Mishnah Avot and the methods undertaken to attempt such a work. For a Christian to write a commentary on a Jewish text is a sensitive undertaking. The history of Jewish-Christian relations is replete with instances of Christians taking up rabbinic texts and using them for their own purposes. Sometimes, Christian scholars and theologians have consulted with rabbis in order to better understand the original text of the Hebrew Scriptures.1 But all too often, Christian readings of Jewish texts were polemical in nature, often to prove the truth of Christianity and the failure of Jewish faith. At times, Christian interpretations of rabbinic works, such as the Talmud and midrash, were given Christian interpretations to further efforts to convert Jews. At other times, Christians understood these same works to be anti-Christian in nature, leading to their destruction in public spectacles, such as the burning of the Talmud in Paris in 1240.2 Interpretations, and even distortions, of Jewish literature for the sake of Christian agendas, have continued into the modern era. It is because of this history, that any Christian attempt to critically reflect 1 See for example Marcus Hirshman, A Rivalry of Genius: Jewish and Christian Biblical in Late Antiquity (New York: SUNY Press, 1996); Michael Signer and John Van Engen, ed., Jews and Christians in 12th Century Europe (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001). 2 Jeremy Cohen, Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999).

2

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

upon Jewish texts must include a conscious awareness of the ethical implications of such an undertaking.3 A Comparative Theology Approach While Christian history contains numerous examples of Christian appropriation of Jewish sources that have resulted in distorted readings of these documents for the sake of Christian aggrandizement, there have also been positive and respectful works. Certainly the work of Christian Hebraists who engaged with Jewish texts in order to secure a better understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Jewish world of Jesus of Nazareth show many instances of positive regard for Jewish figures and learning.4 Given the intertwined relationship between Jewish and Christian traditions, and the implicit assumption by many Christians that they know something about Judaism because the New Testament reveals Jesus of Nazareth in a specifically first-century Jewish context, the primary challenge for any Christian reader of Jewish texts is to let Jewish texts speak for themselves before making any evaluations of it based on a Christian world view. Composing a commentary situated within the discipline of comparative theology provides a useful methodological framework that guarantees a first reading of a Jewish text within its own thought world while providing space for a critically reflective theological engagement of this same text by a Christian reader. The discipline of comparative theology might be best described in the words of Francis X. Clooney as the work of “reread[ing] one’s home theological tradition… after a serious engagement 3 In the context of Jewish-Christian relations, there are many shared texts. Obviously, Jews and Christian alike share the collection of Scriptures that sets forth God’s relationship with Israel. I will refer to these texts as the Hebrew Scriptures, acknowledging the range of descriptive terms that exists for them, ranging from Old Testament to Tanakh. I would also note that the New Testament is itself a fundamentally Jewish text that only becomes explicitly Christian (that is, not Jewish) as Christianity and Judaism gradually emerged as distinctive religious movements in the second and third centuries. On the New Testament as a Jewish text see The Jewish Annotated New Testament, eds. Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); Peter Schäfer, The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012); and Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (New York: The New Press, 2012). However, in this work when I speak of Jewish texts, I am referring to post-biblical works by Jews, primarily those representing rabbinic literature. 4 Hebraica Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in the Early Modern Period, Allison P. Coudert and Jeffrey S, Shoulson, eds. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004).

A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON MISHNAH AVOT

3

in the reading of another tradition.”5 By suspending one’s own religious suppositions in the exploration of another tradition, one gains insights that when brought into conversation with elements of one’s home tradition deepen understandings of it. Such readings do not come without their challenges. In particular, a commentary on a text that is regarded as sacred or foundational for another community requires the comparative theologian to directly encounter the truth claims contained in that text. As Clooney notes, such a reading requires the “cultivation of empathy for a new tradition” while maintaining loyalty to one’s own home tradition. Yet the practice of commenting on the text of another tradition requires a heightened accountability not just to one’s own tradition but also to the tradition from which the text emerges. “Even sincere efforts to learn from another tradition… may be problematic if we seem to have asserted a right to do as we wish, regardless of reactions.”6 Any author writing a Christian commentary on a Jewish text must especially exercise caution. A heightened sense of responsibility is due to the simple history of anti-Jewish thought and practice that has permeated Christian life and theology for millennia. Sometimes negative Christian attitudes towards Jews and Judaism have been expressed in explicitly supersessionist modes that portray Judaism as a failed, legalistic religion that has been replaced by Christianity as its spiritual superior. At other times, especially in the modern era, these negative attitudes have been subtler. As I have shown elsewhere, even the discipline of comparative theology, as practiced predominantly by Christians, has been guilty of failing to adequately consider post-biblical Judaism in its methodological and constructive reflections. And in those instances when Christian comparative theologians have used post-biblical Jewish writings, they are often by figures that figure neatly into Christian conceptual frameworks, most notably Moses Maimonides.7 One of the primary 5 Francis X. Clooney, Theology After Vendata: An Experiment in Comparative Theology (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), 2-3. On the development of the field of comparative theology and the focus on textual sources see Reid B. Locklin and Hugh Nicholson, “The Return of Comparative Theology,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 78.2 (2010): 477-514; Francis X. Clooney, ed., The New Comparative Theology: Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation (New York and London, T & T Clark, 2010). 6 Francis X. Clooney, Comparative Theology: Deep Learnings Across Religious Borders (Malden and Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2010), 63. 7 Daniel Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, “Comparative Theology and the Status of Judaism: Hegemony and Reversals” in The New Comparative Theology, 89-108.

4

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

purposes of this commentary is to introduce into the field of comparative theology a sustained Christian theological reflection upon a rabbinic Jewish text that does not appropriate the text for its own purposes but dwells with its meanings. This commentary not only considers the individual passages but will also incorporate pre-modern Jewish commentaries. This not only offers deeper insights into Jewish interpretations of Avot, but also reflects the important role of textual commentary in the Jewish tradition. Only after this will I offer theological reflections from the Christian tradition. Introducing Mishnah Avot The text under consideration in this volume is Mishnah Avot (or “Fathers”), also known as Pirqe Avot (“Chapters of the Fathers”).8 This text is one of the sixty-three tractates of the Mishnah, a codification of oral teachings mostly from the first and second centuries of the Common Era and redacted around 220 C.E. This period is termed the tannaitic period after the tannaim (“repeaters” or teachers active from about 10-220 C.E.), the rabbis whose teachings are found in the Mishnah. In turn the Mishnah served as the foundation for much of the subsequent rabbinic tradition; it is the Mishnah that the Talmud offers commentary upon. In this context, the tractate Avot is an important early witness to rabbinic thought and values transmitted via sayings, often couched in ethical terms, by the earliest generations of the rabbis and proto-rabbinic sages.9 Despite the importance of Avot, many questions surround its origins. While scholars are fairly confident about when the Mishnah was redacted, there is lack of clarity about when Avot was set into its written form or when it was included in the Mishnah. Avot is unlike most of the rest of the Mishnah in that is does not deal with halakhah, or legal questions concerning the fulfillment of the Torah given at Sinai to Israel. Avot can be classified as a work of aggadah, that is, non-legal material produced in rabbinic circles that includes sayings, moral exhortations, homilies, and narrative exegesis, among other features. Avot collects the characteristic

8 For the rest of this commentary I will simply refer to this text as Avot. This text is sometimes rendered in English as “Abot,” but I have chosen the more phonetic transliteration. 9 On the development of the Mishnah, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. and ed. by Markus Bockmuehl (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), 108-48.

A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON MISHNAH AVOT

5

sayings of sixty-three different sages (the largest number for any tractate in the Mishnah).10 The placement of Avot indicates difficulties with dating it. Avot is oddly located towards the end of the fourth section of the Mishnah, Neziqin, which deals with laws concerning damages. It is speculated that this might be because Neziqin was originally the concluding section of the Mishnah. Thus Avot would have served as a coda of instructions and exhortations to those committed to the teaching contained in the Mishnah. Originally, Avot only had five chapters, but a sixth chapter was added later.11 The placement of Avot in the Mishnah has contributed to debates about its origins. In this commentary, I will strike the position that the insertion of Avot into the Mishnah occurred sometime in the third century after the initial redaction of the Mishnah. At the same time, I will seek to situate each individual saying within the context of the sage or rabbi to whom it is attributed.12 The title of Avot and its possible meanings also indicates uncertainty over its origins. Michael B. Lerner has summarized four possible interpretations of this title. Avot in its plainest sense is the plural of the Hebrew word av, or “father.” The first option is to understand this to refer to the avot ha-olam, or “fathers of the universe,” a reference to the most significant teachers in the Mishnah. Alternately, the word can refer 10 Michael B. Lerner, “The Tractate Avot” in The Literature of the Sages: Oral Tora, Halakha, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates, ed. Shmuel Safrai, et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 263-76. 11 Strack and Stemberger, 122-23. This commentary will only include the first five chapters comprising the original form of Avot. 12 The debate over the dating of Avot has several strands to it. W. D. Davies believed this text was a pre-Mishnaic text that originally reflected the worldview of first-century rabbis. Others, represented by the views of Jacob Neusner, hold that Avot was added to the Mishnah at a later point to defend the rabbinic interpretation of Torah. The current consensus view is that Avot was redacted and inserted into the Mishnah around 300 C.E. But others, notably Daniel Boyarin and Amram Tropper, argue for the composition of Avot by the redactor of the Mishnah, Judah the Patriarch or his immediate circle, at the same time as the completion of the Mishnah. Günter Stemberger has gone so far as to argue that Avot is an even later composition, having been added to the Mishnah only sometime around 800 C.E. W. D. Davies, Jewish and Pauline Studies (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 27-48; Jacob Neusner, Introduction to Rabbinic Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 572; Daniel Boyarin, Borderlines: The Partition of Judeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 83ff; Amram Tropper, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography: Tractate Avot in the Context of the Graeco-Roman Near East (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 102; Günter Stemberger, “Mischna Avot: frühe Weisheitsschrift, pharisäisches Erbe oder spätrabbinische Bildung?,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 96:3-4 (2005): 243-58.

6

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

to the avot ha-rishonim, or “first fathers,” the earliest transmitters of the rabbinic traditions. Third, avot can be taken to refer to major rabbinic authorities and thus Avot is a collection of the most important teachers. Finally, Lerner cites the thirteenth-century Catalan Talmudic scholar Rabbi Menachem ha-Meiri that the title refers not to teachers but to the teachings set forth in the text. Quoting him, Lerner writes that avot refers to “things which are fundamental principles (Avot), essentials and roots and sources for all Torah wisdom and precepts, and a pathway to perfection.”13 Lerner and other contemporary scholars have followed this final interpretation, advocating that the title of this tractate is best translated as “Essentials” or “First Principles.” The title itself shifted further when around the eighth century Avot began to circulate independently from the Mishnah either as a separate document or included in prayer books. At that time it acquired the title by which it is now commonly known, Pirqe Avot or “Chapters of the Fathers / Chapters on Essential Things.” It was also around this time that Avot acquired a sixth chapter.14 The Purpose, Structure and Major Themes of Avot Avot is a difficult text to comment upon because it does not have a consistent structure or single theme. Avot is like a piece of music in different parts with differing themes held together by the style in which it was composed. The overarching purpose of Avot is to continue the tradition of wisdom teachings from Second Temple Judaism and align it with the emerging rabbinic movement. In particular, Avot clearly portrays the focus of rabbinic life upon the study of Torah as the pursuit of wisdom that is praised in earlier Hebrew wisdom literature. There is a strong link with the book of Ben Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus) in the way that the rabbis are modeled as wisdom teachers transmitting a form of wisdom piety.15 As Tropper argues, the wisdom form employed in Avot is designed to illustrate that the wisdom taught by earlier sages is continued by the Torah-centered wisdom promoted by the rabbis of the tannaitic period.16 Avot can be divided into four major sections: chapters one and two; chapters three and four; chapter five; and chapter six. Chapters one and two contain the most well-known parts of Avot. The major purpose of

13

Lerner, 263. Lerner, 264. 15 Isaac B. Gottlieb, “Pirqe Abot and Biblical Wisdom,” Vetus Testamentum 40:2 (1990): 162-63. 16 Tropper, 86. 14

A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON MISHNAH AVOT

7

this first section is to establish a chain of transmission situating the rabbinic tannaim as authoritative teachers for the Jewish community. The introductory sentence of Avot illustrates this: “Moses received Torah at Sinai and he transmitted it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, and raise up many disciples, and make a fence for the Torah.” Beginning here, the rest of Avot in chapters one and two seeks to show that there has been a trustworthy transmission of teachings from the time when Moses received the Torah from God at Sinai down to the rabbis of the early third century. In these first two chapters, this transmission of Torah teaching follows three trajectories. Chapter one contains fifteen sayings that trace the transmission of rabbinic teaching from Sinai, through teachers active during the second and first centuries B.C.E. down to the seminal figures of Rabbis Hillel and Shammai who taught in the early decades of the first century C.E. The majority of these sayings up to this point in chapter one are noteworthy for their tripartite structure. The last three sayings of chapter one and the first four of chapter two feature a group of teachings of the patriarchal family, culminating with Judah the Patriarch, the compiler of the Mishnah, who was a descendent of Hillel.17 Chapter two concludes with teachings of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, who taught during the period of the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E., and then transmits teachings from his immediate circle of disciples.18 The contents of the second major section of Avot, chapters three and four, are harder to categorize. Chapter three clusters sayings by teachers of the third generation of tannaim active towards the end of the Second Temple period who had similar sounding names. There are also numerous doublets included in which different rabbis articulate similar teachings. Chapter three also contains a significant amount of citations from biblical texts, notably from wisdom literature. Chapter four contains teachings by rabbis from the fourth and fifth generation of the tannaim active through the second century. While covering a range of topics, the most prominent themes of these two chapters are the importance of

17 There is a debate about whether the next group of sayings that end with Avot 2:7 in the name of Hillel represent someone in the family of Judah the Patriarch or is a return to the teachings of the earlier Hillel from the first century. 18 Lerner, 264-65; Anthony J. Saldarini, Scholastic Rabbinism: A Literary Study of the Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (Chico: Scholars Press, 1982), 9-11.

8

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Torah study, the acquisition of wisdom, exhortations to avoid sin, and the importance of performing good deeds.19 The third section of Avot, chapter five, contains twenty anonymous numerical sayings that discuss items such as the ten sayings by which the world was created (5:1) or the ten things created just before the first Sabbath evening (5:6). The first five sets of sayings in this chapter are arranged according to biblical chronology. The rest do not have as clear an organizational principle, though 5:10-15 have an ethical focus. This chapter ends with a final quartet of sayings focused on the acquisition of wisdom through Torah study, that is the revelation of the five books of Moses and the commandments therein given at Mount Sinai.20 The final section of Avot, chapter six, is a later addition known as Kinyan Torah, or “On the Acquisition of Torah.” As indicated by this title, this final chapter lauds the study of Torah and describes the virtues acquired by those who pursue it. This chapter contains later sayings from the third and fourth centuries C.E. and it was added sometime around the eighth century when it became common to study Avot on Sabbath afternoons in the period between the feasts of Passover and Shavuot (i.e., Pentecost). The extra chapter was added to cover the sixth Sabbath that fell between these feasts. Although now considered as part of Avot, this commentary will not include chapter six as it did not receive significant commentary by the earliest generation of commentators nor is it original to Avot, having been drawn from other rabbinic sources.21 According to Anthony Saldarini the majority of sayings in Avot consist of two broad thematic categories, Torah and good behavior.22 In some ways, these are also the major themes around which rabbinic Judaism organized its practice and piety. The two categories of Torah and behavior ought not to be seen as separate spheres of study and action. Rather, the study of Torah and the doing of righteous deeds were mutually reinforcing. Nonetheless, it was understood that righteousness emerged from a discipline of Torah study. With the interrelationship of the categories 19 Lerner, 265-66, 268; Saldarini, 13-15; Devora Steimetz, “Distancing and Bringing Near: A New Look at Mishnah Tractates Eduyyot and Abot,” Hebrew Union College Annual 73 (2002): 74. 20 Lerner, 266-67; Saldarini, 15. 21 Lerner, 267; Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E.-IV Century C.E. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942), 69-71. This sixth chapter also has complete parallels in Derekh Eretz Rabbah and select passages in Midrash Proverbs and Massekhet Kalla Rabbati. 22 Saldarini, 21.

A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON MISHNAH AVOT

9

of Torah and action in mind, we can list the following prominent themes found in Avot: the transmission of Torah by teachers; the link between Torah study and wisdom; the creation of disciples engaged in Torah study; the qualities of teachers and disciples pursuing wisdom as found in Torah study; the distinction between the righteous and the unrighteous; and the rewards of the righteous and punishment of the unrighteous. Avot as Wisdom Literature A first reading of Avot can be a bewildering experience. Saying follows upon saying with no narrative structure or thematic exposition that serves as an obvious aid to the reader. A contemporary reader from outside the Jewish tradition might even be uncertain as to what sort of text one is reading. Yet the depth of teachings in Avot is striking. This text has conveyed deep spiritual meanings for Jewish readers over the centuries. Avot is commonly found in Jewish prayer books (siddurim) and is a frequent subject of study and countless commentaries. The appeal of Avot and the way in which the text forms its audience can be best appreciated by approaching Avot as a form of Jewish wisdom literature. The traditional division of the Scriptures of ancient Israel is three-fold: Torah (Pentateuch), Nevi‘im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings). In this third category are found a group of books, the core of them being Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (or Qohelet), that are categorized as wisdom literature. Although incredibly diverse in contents, biblical wisdom literature shares qualities with other forms of wisdom writing in the ancient Near East including a delineation of ideal values, the challenges of life, a pragmatic focus, and a didactic style of instruction. Biblical wisdom literature focuses on an evaluation of the human condition. It exhorts students to learn from their elders, emphasizing the acquisition of knowledge through a body of traditions. Although at times scathing in its assessment of the human condition, wisdom literature ultimately acknowledges that God is the source of all wisdom and that humans can be transformed by this realization.23 This commentary will follow the lead of recent scholarship on Avot that has argued that it is a late example of Jewish wisdom literature. In particular, the book of Ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) is identified as an important predecessor. The eponymous teacher of this book (whose full 23 Robert Alter, The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes (New York: W. W. Norton, 2010), xv-xvi; J. L. Crenshaw, “The Acquisition of Knowledge in Israelite Wisdom Literature,” Word and World 7 (1987): 245-52.

10

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

name was Yeshua ben Eleazar ben Sira) appeared to have been a sage active in the early decades of the second century B.C.E. His teachings were written down by his grandson sometime late in the second century, after 117 B.C.E. The purpose of this work was to form sages who could be adept in the worlds of Israelite and Greek society, able to argue points of law and engage in rhetoric equally well in both contexts. “Ben Sira’s ideal sage was God-fearing; a student of rhetoric, Israelite law, proverbs, and prophecy; and a self-conscious composer who was aware of the extent to which his own writings would outlive him and be a blessing to posterity as well as to his own people.”24 The ideal sage is one who reveres the Torah that God revealed to Israel at Sinai. Indeed, Torah is specifically identified with wisdom. Wisdom praises herself, and tells of her glory in the midst of her people. In the assembly of the Most High she opens her mouth, and in the presence of his hosts she tells of her glory: ‘I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth like a mist. I dwelt in the highest heavens, and my throne was in a pillar of cloud. Alone I compassed the vault of heaven and traversed the depths of the abyss. Over waves of the sea, over all the earth, and over every people and nation I have held sway. Among all these I sought a resting-place; in whose territory should I abide? ‘Then the Creator of all things gave me a command, and my Creator chose the place for my tent. He said, “Make your dwelling in Jacob, and in Israel receive your inheritance.”… Whoever obeys me will not be put to shame, and those who work with me will not sin.’ All this is the book of the covenant of the Most High God, the law that Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob. (Sirach 24:1-8, 22-23)

A student who follows the exhortation to make a constant study of the commandments and decrees of God (Sirach 6:37) will not only ensure growth in his wisdom but also will cultivate fear of the Lord (Sirach 15:1). This will lead to divine protection against the hazards of life. Study of Torah yields wisdom and merit (Sirach 29:11-13).25 Avot continues many of the themes in Sirach, notably an emphasis on the study of Torah as the premier path of wisdom and the assurance that those who labor will reap rewards either in this life or the world to come. While Avot does not frequently display the formal literary characteristics 24 John G. Gammie, “The Sage in Sirach” in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue, eds. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 368. See also Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, The Anchor Bible, vol. 39 ((New York: Doubleday, 1987). 25 Gammie, 360.

A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON MISHNAH AVOT

11

of wisdom texts like Sirach, its teachings clearly build upon it. Indeed, Avot has the highest number of direct biblical quotations in the Mishnah. Its frequent use of numerical statements and parallel repetitions of similar concepts also echo traits of wisdom literature.26 Just as Sirach emerged out of a scribal context in which literate knowledge of Torah was a prerequisite for wisdom, the same was the case for Avot. These qualities of Avot reinforce our understanding of the formation of the rabbinic movement around Judah the Patriarch as occurring in a scribal or school context. But while Sirach viewed this path as an option for only an elite learned class, the rabbinic movement represented in Avot had a more expansive view. It was understood in the rabbinic movement that all men could be drawn to the study of Torah, regardless of social class.27 In other words, Avot opened up the scribal approach of Sirach to a wider potential source of followers. And the purpose of opening the study of Torah to more people was in order to set more on the paths of righteousness discerned by the rabbis in Torah.28 The core message of Avot is that “one should act righteously, observe the commandments, and study Torah.” This path will lead to rewards from the God of Israel who will exercise final judgment over all.29 Avot also shows that the early rabbinic movement was formed by the thoughts and practices of Greek philosophical schools of the GrecoRoman world.30 That this is the case should not be surprising. Jews did not live in cultural isolation but rather were active participants in Hellenistic culture while carrying on an internal debate among other Jews about the degree and forms of participation in Hellenism that was appropriate. Much as Hindu and Buddhist texts exhibit a shared cultural context, the same can be said in this context. Recent scholarship has shown a high degree of competency in Greek in everyday Jewish life.31 For example, the network of caves in Beth She‘arim where Judah the Patriarch, the redactor of the Mishnah, is buried are covered in bilingual 26 Lerner, 268-69; Samuel Rosenblatt, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Mishnah (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1935), 65-66, n. 55-56. 27 Except for the notable exception of a few women such as Beruriah (BT Pesachim 62b), the rabbis only permitted men to be students of sages. 28 Lawrence M. Wills, “Scribal Methods in Matthew and Mishnah Abot,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63:2 (2001): 255-56. 29 Anthony J. Saldarini, Scholastic Rabbinism, 21; Tropper, 49. 30 On the general context see George B. Kerferd, “The Sage in Hellenistic Philosophical Literature (399 B.C.E. – 199 B.C.E.)” in Gammie and Perdue, 319-28. 31 The seminal work in this area is Saul Lieberman’s Hellenism in Jewish Palestine cited above.

12

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Hebrew-Greek inscriptions that reference him and his circle. The rabbinic movement was at ease in Hellenistic culture.32 Three different literary elements of Avot also demonstrate Hellenistic influences: diadoche, sorites, and chria. Concerning the first, diadoche refers to a chain of transmission of teachings by authorities from a particular philosophical school. This form functioned as a succession list that established a clear body of teachings for a particular school of thought. Two prominent Greek examples of such lists are found in the work of Philostratus who composed the Lives of the Sophist in the 230s C.E. and Diogenes Laertius who wrote the Lives of Eminent Philosophers in the early third century C.E. These works established a body of teaching by setting forth a clear set of links between teachers and students over generations. In light of this we can read parts of Avot as setting forth a succession list that goes down to the time of Judah the Patriarch.33 The contents of this chain of transmission took on the form of sorites, or a sequence of syllogisms, that reinforce the teaching authority found in this chain. This is the basic sequence of Avot, especially in chapters one through four, where saying is laid upon saying in a general chronological sequence. While bewildering to the modern reader, this was a classic form in the Greco-Roman world, rooted in Homeric literature itself.34 In the Iliad one finds the locus classicus of the sorites: “King Agamemnon rose to his feet, raising high in hand the scepter Hephaestus made with all his strength and skill. Hephaestus gave it to Cronus’ son, Father Zeus, and Zeus gave it to Hermes, the giant-killing Guide and Hermes gave it to Pelops, that fine charioteer, Pelop gave it to Atreus, marshal of fighting men, who died and passed it on to Thyestes rich in flocks and he in turn bestowed it to Agamemnon, to bear on high as he ruled his many islands and lorded mainland Argos.”35 Whether it is the staff by which a king rules or wisdom teachings spoken by sages, the sorites form in the ancient world expressed the possession of authority recognized by a wider community. Avot also contains a very particular form of a wisdom saying common in philosophical school, especially among the Cynics. This form, known as a chria, is “a terse, realistic anecdote, originally and usually about a 32

Tropper, 120. Ibid., 146-47; Boyarin, Borderlines, 74-86. 34 Henry A. Fischel, “The Transformation of Wisdom in the World of Midrash” in Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Robert L. Wilken (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), 75 35 Homer, The Iliad, trans. Robert Fagles (New York: Penguin, 1990), 2.118-27. 33

A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON MISHNAH AVOT

13

Sage-Philosopher, that culminates in a meaningful action or a truth in the form of a gnome, apophthegm, or proverb.”36 As deployed by Cynics, the chria contained outrageous concluding statements or actions in order to better express to disciples the core ideals of the Cynic’s philosophy including the control of the self, the use of reason as a check against the passions, and discerning the shortest path to true happiness. In this form, the chria became a way of expressing the distinctive teachings of leaders of philosophical schools.37 The chria form is present in the tannaitic literature of the rabbis, including in Avot. Most famous is this saying by Rabbi Hillel: “He also saw a skull floating on the surface of the water. He said to it: Because you drowned someone, you were drowned, and in the end those who drowned you will be drowned” (Avot 2:6). While this saying will be discussed in detail within the body of the commentary itself, the surprising address to a skull floating in the water that contains an ethical teaching representative of Hillel’s thought is a clear example of a Hebrew version of a cynicizing chria. According to Henry Fischel, all tannaitic sages embraced the chria; the form was transformed or “naturalized” by the rabbis. It expressed Jewish concerns distinct from Cynic thought, such as the proper relationship with God through Torah. Rabbinic chria are more humane, showing a concern for other people outside the sage himself. Their settings are Judaized in so far as they take place in the context of the land of Israel. And they are frequently utilized outside of Avot in the context of debates over interpretations of halakhah. Finally, these sayings rarely touch upon political matters whereas this was a feature of the Greek form of chria.38 The early rabbis were also known to have simply transformed other sorts of Greek proverbs that circulated commonly and insert them into texts like Avot in the name of specific rabbis (such as Avot 5:23). The early rabbinic movement recognized wisdom from Greek culture and was willing to incorporate it into their teachings when it accorded with their broader pedagogical program.39 Given the transformation of the chria by rabbis and their willingness to appropriate Greek literary forms and even specific sayings, it is useful 36 Henry A. Fischel, “Studies in Cynicism and the Ancient Near East: The Transformation of a Chria,” in Religions in Antiquity. Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. Jacob Neusner (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 373. 37 Fischel, “Studies in Cynicism,” 373-74. 38 Ibid., 407-11. 39 Daniel E. Gershenson, “Greek Proverbs in the Ethics of the Fathers [Aboth],” Grazer Beiträge 19 (1993): 207-8.

14

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

to think of how the rabbis were not so much directly influenced by Greek thought, but rather utilized elements of Hellenistic intellectual culture in order to present their own vision for how Jews might live best. The early rabbis understood themselves as sharing similar roles in Jewish society to philosophers in the Greco-Roman world of the eastern Mediterranean. As a group not holding official roles, they also did not see themselves as ordinary members of society. Rather they sought to shape their surrounding Jewish culture, and specifically the subcultures to which they belonged, so that this wider group might adhere to their visions of an ethical life lived publically and privately.40 Avot as Representative of a Spiritual Movement Having examined how Avot contains elements representative of both Jewish wisdom traditions and Greek philosophical schools, we can see that as a text it offers a window into how the early rabbinic movement in the tannaitic period understood itself. But just as a Christian ought not to imagine early Christian bishops exercising their office like a medieval bishop would, so too the leadership of the early rabbinic movement differs from what emerges several centuries later as a more cohesive institution. For the first four centuries of the Common Era, there is no sign that the rabbinic movement consisted of anything more than a network of individual or small groups of rabbis in specific locations who gathered around them relatively modest circles of students who rarely numbered more than a handful at a time.41 The rabbinic movement was what Catherine Heszer describes as a “personal alliance system” in which clusters of allies formed associations. While leading to cooperation, it could also lead to rivalries and competition, the paragon of which is that between the schools of Hillel and Shammai. The emergence of a significantly organized rabbinic form of Judaism begins sometime in the fourth century and finds full expression in the rabbinic academies of Babylon that emerged in the late sixth century.42 Although not operating as a centralized institution, the tannaitic rabbis sought to spread their vision of Jewish life, especially their role as the 40 Catherine Hezser, “Interfaces between Rabbinic Literature and Graeco-Roman Philosophy,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol. 2, ed. Peter Schäfer and Catherine Hezser (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 161-62, 166; Steven Fraade, “The Early Rabbinic Sage,” in Gammie and Perdue, 436. 41 Saldarini, Scholastic Rabbinism, 135-36. 42 Catherine Hezser, The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 492-94.

A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON MISHNAH AVOT

15

most effective teachers of Torah who could best teach their students, and Israel as whole, how to be a holy nation before God. Thus they began a long period of presenting themselves as the ablest leaders and teachers of the Jewish community.43 The key to developing the rabbinic movement rested with nurturing and teaching a circle of students. No one was compelled to come to the rabbis since they had no central authority in the Jewish community. Rather, rabbis had to draw students by their own wisdom and charisma. Students drawn to study with a rabbi became the receptacles of his teachings and when they became rabbis they would in turn teach others in the name of their rabbi. Hence strong bonds existed between rabbis and students and within the alliances rabbis created among themselves.44 Given the possibility of friction and conflict in the emerging rabbinic movement, it is useful to note that Avot contains little of the quality of disagreement and debate present in other rabbinic literature from this same era. In the words of Devorah Steinmetz, Avot presents an idealized rabbinic community that “shares commitments and yet seeks, as much as possible, not to exclude those who would be included and whose inclusion enhances the life of the community; a community that asserts its continuity with the past in the face of a consciousness of the rupture of the tradition; a community that can incorporate multiplicity without succumbing to the threat of fragmentation.”45 This idealized vision fits the tenor of Avot as a tractate concerned with wisdom and an ethical vision of communal life. It stands as a sort of framework for the way of wisdom found in Torah whose deepest understandings, according to rabbinic practices, emerge through intense analysis of its teachings. In other words, Avot presents the spiritual framework within which rabbis came to practice their method of Torah study in all its disputations about the surest and most valid traditions of interpretation of Torah.46 Avot is the text that reminded rabbis and students alike of their shared values as a distinct movement much as a monastic rule might for a Christian community.47 43

Fraade, 436. Hezser, Social Structure, 495. 45 Devora Steinmetz, “Distancing and Bringing Near: A New Look at Mishnah Tractates ‘Eduyyot and ’Abot,” Hebrew Union College Annual 73 (2002), 50. 46 Ibid., 71-73 47 For a more detailed look at parallels between rabbinic Judaism and early Christian monasticism see Michal Bar-Asher Siegal, Early Christian Monastic Literature and the Babylonian Talmud, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013); idem, “Sayings of 44

16

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Rabbinic literature is based upon a complex series of intertextual citation and commentary. The best way to see how Avot operates as a text instructive for spiritual and ethical growth is by utilizing the commentaries upon it. The text Avot de-Rabbi Natan, or the Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan, is illustrative. As stated before, Avot is a unique tractate in the Mishnah in that it does not contain halakhic, or legal, material, unlike the rest of the Mishnah. As the core text for rabbinic Judaism, the Mishnah received commentary to it. The Babylonian and Palestinian Talmud are the codification of the major commentaries on the Mishnah. However, Avot lacks a commentary to it in either version of the Talmud. Although lacking the traditional form of Talmudic tractates, Avot deRabbi Natan (hence cited as ARN), served as a type of commentary and was placed in some versions of the Talmud. Existing in two versions, known as ARN A and ARN B, some portions of ARN contain alternate readings from the version of Avot found in the Mishnah, indicating the diffusion of traditions of teaching from the early rabbinic period. The commentary on Avot in ARN and its focus on cultivating a life of Torah study indicate that ARN emerged in some type of school or scribal context in Roman Palestine. Although reflecting mostly second century teachings, the text was likely edited in the third century.48 The purpose of ARN (and thus the teaching traditions represented by Avot) is the cultivation of spiritual exercises common among the philosophical schools of the ancient Mediterranean world.49 In this regard, recent scholarship has followed the work of Pierre Hadot. He argued that the cultivation of philosophy in the Hellenistic world was a form of spiritual exercise by which members of a school would learn how to regulate their inner and outer selves in order to acquire an ideal state that

the desert fathers, Sayings of the rabbinic fathers: Avot deRabbi Nattan and the Apophthegmata Patrum,” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 20.2 (2016): 243-59. Unfortunately I was not able to utilize the second work in the composition of this commentary. 48 Strack and Stemberger, 225-27; Saldarini, Scholastic Rabbinism, 5, 137-42. On the difference between ARN A and ARN B, see Solomon Schechter, Abot de Rabbi Nathan (Vienna: Georg Olms Verlag, 1887); Saldarini, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (Abot de Rabbi Nathan Version B): A Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1975). 49 Jonathan Schofer, “Spiritual Exercises in Rabbinic Culture,” AJS Review 27:2 (2003), 203-25; Schofer, The Making of a Sage: A Study in Rabbinic Ethics (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2005); Cass Fisher, “Beyond the Homiletical: Rabbinic Theology as a Discursive and Reflective Practice,” The Journal of Religion 90:2 (2010): 199-236.

A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON MISHNAH AVOT

17

concerned all aspects of life.50 If we can understand the early rabbinic movement as similar in form to the Greek philosophical schools of the period, then viewing their activities through the lens of spiritual practice helps clarify one of the primary purposes of this movement. The combination of textual study, organization of life around and imitation of a sage, and the development of knowledge of the divine are shared qualities between the followers of the philosophers and the rabbis.51 Jonathan Schofer argues “Rabbis also set out scholastic activity – particularly Torah study – as an exercise, in the broad sense that the process is not only intellectual but also central to the transformation of a student into a sage.”52 Schofer does not argue for an exact parallel in forms and method of these spiritual exercises. Rather, he focuses on Hadot’s category of the cultivation of attention and the qualities and practices that flow from that: ‘“First attention, then meditations and ‘remembrances of good things,’ then the more intellectual exercises: reading, listening, research, and investigation, and finally the more active exercises: self-mastery, accomplishment of duties, and indifference to indifferent things.”53 This set of activities matches the form of ethical and spiritual formation that Schofer identifies at the core of ARN. “The ideal result is that a rabbi would not have a self-interested orientation centered on worldly desire and fear, but, rather, a God-centered consciousness characterized by humility, spiritual anxiety, reverence, and love.”54 By extension, Schofer’s argument helps us see how teachers in the early rabbinic movement utilized the content of Avot to set students on the path of wisdom in the context of their schools and teaching circles. The Development of Early Rabbinic Judaism and Comparative Theology Understanding early rabbinic Judaism as formed in part by Jewish wisdom traditions and Hellenistic philosophical schools is useful for the purposes of this commentary. In the following pages, I will reflect on the contents of Mishnah Avot and the contributions it might make for Christian theological reflections. This task is complicated by the fact that Christianity itself emerged from both a Jewish and Hellenistic matrix. We would be mistaken to understand either Judaism or Hellenism as 50 Pierre Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault, trans. Arnold I. Davidson (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995). 51 Fisher, “Beyond the Homiletical,” 209. 52 Schofer, “Spiritual Exercises,” 207. 53 Hadot, Philosophy, 84; cited in Schofer “Spiritual Exercises,” 208. 54 Schofer, “Spiritual Exercises,’” 224.

18

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

pure contexts, untouched by other cultures and religions, and to view Christianity as the hybrid mixture of these two. Looking specifically at rabbinic Judaism, we must recognize that it is not simply a direct descendent of Israelite religion. Like Christianity, preceding Jewish traditions and the broader Greco-Roman cultural context shaped rabbinic Judaism. Indeed, it is even difficult to distinguish Christianity as something essentially different from the broader range of Jewish movements in the first and second centuries.55 If at the core of the discipline of comparative theology is an attempt to reflect on other spiritual traditions in order to gain insight into one’s own, then Avot is an apt text to explore. We have discovered that the rabbis recorded in Avot and the editors of it were also deeply invested in making sense of their worldview by both working deeply with their own tradition but also by responding to, and even incorporating, elements of other traditions that surrounded them. Avot is a text committed to the deep and faithful study of the Torah given to Israel at Sinai. But it is not hermetically sealed from the cultural context in which it was composed. Although not a comparative theology text in its own right, its concerns intersect with the concerns of comparative theology. It is important to recognize the complex cultural and religious interactions that were at play in the composition of Avot as part of an introduction to a Christian commentary on it. Historically it had been common for Christians to view Judaism as an ossified religion that had not advanced spiritually since the time of Jesus. All the caricatures of legalism, spiritual aridity, and hypocrisy accrued to Judaism and few Christians understood the spiritual vitality of post-bibical of Judaism. Any sense that it interacted with its surrounding cultural hosts was absent.56 Certainly such a view would hinder any fruitful comparative analysis of Avot. But by seeing Avot as a document representative of the complex interplay between Jewish and Hellenistic contexts in the period of the emergence of early rabbinic Judaism one has a better orientation for studying this text. Indeed, Avot has been recognized recently as a wisdom 55 On these developments in scholarship see Daniel Boyarin, Borderlines; Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001); idem, Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society?: Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010); The Ways that Never Parted, ed. Adam Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2007). 56 On the late antique origins of this view in Christian theology and polemics, see Jeremy Cohen, Living Letters of the Law.

A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON MISHNAH AVOT

19

text that can be profitably studied alongside Buddhist texts, notably the Dhammapada.57 It is a happy coincidence that a partner volume in this series is on the Dhammapada. Writing a Christian Commentary on Avot Earlier Commentaries on Avot by Christian Scholars As the field of comparative theology has developed, it has become useful to take note of forerunners or people who anticipated the development of the field. As Francis Clooney has noted, precursor forms of comparative theology arose out of a desire to make sense of other religious traditions in their own time and place. Although not exactly congruous with the contemporary field of comparative theology, these preceding scholars provide useful points of contrast for reflecting on current projects.58 Prior Christian scholarship in Avot falls into the category of activity by Christian Hebraists, scholars who pursued knowledge of the Hebrew language and its texts. The forefathers of Christian Hebraists are early theologians such as Origen and Jerome who consulted with rabbis about the proper reading and interpretation of the Hebrew text of the Bible. But Christian Hebraism emerged in its own right in the twelfth century in western Europe as theologians and biblical scholars there expressed a renewed interest in the literal meaning of the Bible. As earlier, these scholars sought out learned rabbis in order to better understand the meaning of the Hebrew text. With this study came deeper knowledge of rabbinic literature itself. This was a double-edged sword for Jewish communities. At times, the hospitable act of teaching Christians had a positive effect of creating better relationships. But frequently Christian learning of Hebrew was accompanied by charges of Jewish blindness to

57 J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Mishnāh, 'Avôt 5: 13 in Early Buddhism,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 67:1 (2004): 79-87; DeWitt Clinton, “Sitting at the Buddha with the Tanna’im: Walking Through the Dhammapada and Pirke Avot,” Journal of Interreligious Dialogue 6 (2011). http://irdialogue.org/category/journal/issue06/ Accessed May 4, 2012. Leo D. Lefebure and Peter Feldmeier, The Path of Wisdom: A  Christian Commentary on the Dhammapada (Leuven: Peeters, 2011). For a different example of a popular interfaith commentary on Avot, see Ronald Pies, The Ethics of the Sages: An Interfaith Commentary (New York: Jason Aronson, 2000). 58 Clooney, Comparative Theology, 24-40; idem, “Roberto de Nobili’s Dialogue on Eternal Life and an Early Jesuit Evaluation of Religion in South India,” in The Jesuits: Cultures, the Sciences, and the Arts 1540-1773, ed. John W. O’Malley, S.J. and T. Frank Kennedy, S.J. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), 402-17.

20

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Christian truth and the confiscation of rabbinic texts as slanderous of Jesus and contemptuous of Christian teachings. Christian Hebraists, while generally holding positive views of individual Jews from whom they learned, frequently also sought to use their learning to prove the truth of Christian belief and to support missionary work to convert Jews. The earliest Christian engagement with Avot is from the sixteenth century and is a product of the Christian humanist movement of that period, from which most Christian Hebraists of this era were drawn. Paul Fagius published his Hebrew-Latin edition of Avot in 1541, praising it for its expressions of human wisdom and intending the text to primarily be a useful aid for Hebrew language study. His work was taken up by later generations of Hebraists as a resource in the learning of Hebrew and the general context of the New Testament period.59 Christian interest in Avot remained strong and by the end of the nineteenth century there were seventy-eight translations with even more being produced in the twentieth century.60 Christian Hebraism was a venerable scholarly enterprise but this did not mean that this scholarship excluded any agenda or larger set of interests. In the period between 1877 and 1933, the four most prominent Christian scholars of Judaism produced their own translations of Avot. While all four scholars have been rightly praised for their accomplishments in Jewish studies and their personal and scholarly work against the rampant anti-Semitism of their era, each also had their own complex interaction with Judaism.61 The first of these scholars, Hermann Strack (1848-1922), was a leading German Protestant figure in the field of Jewish studies, which was birthed in Germany as the field of Wissenschaft des Judentums. Scholars in this field, Jewish and Christian alike, sought to establish Judaism as a religion as worthy of rigorous detailed study as Christianity. Such a task was a challenge in the second half of the nineteenth century since anti-Semitic rhetoric was increasingly common in cultural and political discourses. Paradoxically, this was the same era in which many German Jews sought to assimilate into the wider society in order to establish their identity as German citizens. Working in this context, Strack resisted the trend common in liberal German Protestant circles of his era that essentially 59 Peter T. van Rooden, Theology, Biblical Scholarship, and Rabbinical Studies in the Seventeenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 111. 60 Eric Bischoff, Kritische Geschichte der Thalmud-Übersetzungen (Frankfurt, 1899), 45-53 61 For useful background on the anti-Jewish ideological milieu of European Christianity in the modern era, see David Nirenberg, Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition (New York: Norton, 2013).

A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON MISHNAH AVOT

21

de-Judaized Jesus of Nazareth.62 In his scholarly activity, Strack, including his German translation of Avot, titled Die Sprüche der Väter, presented positively the Judaism from the time of Jesus and later.63 This was a significant departure from general trends of Christian literature that emphasized the spiritual aridity and corruption of what was termed Spätjudaismus, or “late Judaism.” But while presenting a positive vision of Judaism, Strack paradoxically continued to assert the superiority of the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament, and hence of Christianity, in comparison to Judaism. While resisting anti-Semitism and fostering positive relations with Jews in general, Strack remained a supersessionist, indicated by his active involvement in German missionary groups that sought the conversion of Jews to Christianity.64 This is seen most explicitly in the massive five-volume Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch begun by Strack and completed by Paul Billerbeck.65 Exhaustively listing parallels from rabbinic literature for the vast majority of the verses in the New Testament, Strack and Billerbeck repeatedly attempt to demonstrate the incompleteness of Jewish religion compared to the Christian one.66 While staggering in its density, Strack and Billerbeck nevertheless frequently adduce parallels that misrepresent rabbinic thought and do not present a critical methodology, engaging in a method aptly described as “parallelomania.”67 If we compare Strack, the most prominent German Christian Hebraist of his era, with Herbert Danby (1889-1953), the most prominent English Christian Hebraist of his time, we find the same set of complex relationships with Jews and Judaism. Danby is most famous for providing an elegant translation of the Mishnah (including Avot) that won praise from contemporary Jewish scholars for its sensitivity and deft rendering into idiomatic English.68 Danby was an outspoken proponent of 62 Alan Levenson, “Missionary Protestants as Defenders and Detractors of Judaism: Franz Delitzsch and Hermann Strack,” Jewish Quarterly Review 92:3/4 (2002), 383-420; Susannah Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998). 63 Hermann Strack, Pirke Avot, Die Sprüche der Väter: Ein Ethischer Mischna-Traktat (Berlin: H. Reuther, 1888). 64 Levenson, “Missionary Protestants,” 403-7. 65 Hermann Strack and Paul Billerback, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vol. (Munich: Beck, 1922-1961). 66 Levenson, “Missionary Protestants,” 399-402 67 Samuel Sandmel, "Parallelomania," Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 1-13. 68 Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933). Avot, including chapter six, appears on pages 446-61.

22

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

the pressing need for Christians to engage with Judaism on its own terms. This meant rather than speaking about Jews and their beliefs based on second-hand information, responsible scholarship by Christians required gaining fluency in Jewish, especially rabbinic, literature. Danby, a priest in the Church of England, spent a significant portion of his career as librarian and canon of the Anglican St. George’s Cathedral in Jerusalem during the period of the British Mandate before taking the position of Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University. While the majority of the Anglican leadership in Jerusalem opposed the Zionist stance of the growing Jewish population, Danby, who was sent to St. George’s to serve as an intermediary between Zionist leaders and the Anglican bishop, was an outspoken supporter of Zionist policies. However, he also supported missionary efforts to convert Jews, a fact he ably concealed from his Jewish allies. Danby understood his roles as Christian scholar of Judaism, supporter of Jewish nationhood, and proponent for Christian missions to Jews as mutually supportive.69 Two other English scholars conclude this brief survey of prior translations of Avot. Charles Taylor, a priest in the Church of England like Danby, was instrumental in helping to conduct, alongside Solomon Schechter, the massive study of ancient Jewish literary fragments known as the Cairo Genizah. Taylor produced Sayings of the Jewish Fathers in 1877.70 This work featured a detailed commentary on Avot and extended essays that went to great lengths to situate the work in the context of the rest of rabbinic literature.71 Like Strack, Taylor also established parallels between Avot and Christian literature, including writings from the subapostolic period. Robert Travers Herford (1860-1950), a Unitarian minister, was a prolific scholar of rabbinic Judaism and especially noted for his neutral treatment of the Pharisees at a time when they served as a trope for the supposed arid legalism of Judaism.72 His translation of Avot, rendered as The Ethics of the Talmud: Sayings of the Fathers aimed

69 Shalom Goldman, “The Rev. Herbert Danby (1889–1953): Hebrew Scholar, Zionist, Christian Missionary,” Modern Judaism 27:2 (2007): 219-45. 70 Charles Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, Comprising Pirqe Aboth in Hebrew and English with Notes and Excurses (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1877). 71 Taylor also published an appendix with even more detailed notes. Charles Taylor, An Appendix to the Sayings of the Jewish Fathers Containing a Catalogue of Manuscripts and Notes on the Text of Aboth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900). 72 Philip Culbertson, “Herford, R(obert) Travers (1860-1950),” A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations, Edward Kessler and Neil Winborn, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 184

A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON MISHNAH AVOT

23

to establish Pharisaism as a spiritually vital religious tradition.73 Like Taylor he was interested in establishing New Testament parallels to Avot. But unlike Strack, both Taylor, and especially Herford, intended to have Judaism stand as a legitimate religious tradition, not one superseded by the rise of Christianity. These four scholars – Strack, Danby, Taylor, and Herford – sought to produce critical studies of Avot that also presented rabbinic Judaism in a favorable light to Christian audiences. However, these scholars did not always take rabbinic texts on their own terms. A frequently stated desire by all four authors was to utilize rabbinic texts like Avot to better situate Christian origins. Jewish studies writ large was for them of interest in part because it could be utilized to attest to Christianity. Strack and his colleague Billerbeck were most explicit in this desire, using rabbinic literature as a way of illustrating the genius of Christianity. Even Herford’s sensitive commentary on Avot has multiple references to New Testament texts that are not always illustrative. The complex attitude towards Jewish texts that possess ambiguous or even contradictory attitudes to Jews and Judaism vis-à-vis Christianity has been described as allosemitic.74 Allosemitism, as defined by Zygmunt Bauman, is an ambivalent attitude towards Jews and Judaism that entails the Christian objectification of Jews and Judaism. As such, allosemitism is the predecessor to either philosemitism or anti-Semitism; either attitude might be an outcome. In the case of Strack, we can see it as the predecessor to his philosemitic writings. By virtue of possessing an allosemitic (i.e., objectifying) stance towards Jews and Judaism, Strack could write against the anti-Semitic spirit of his age while utilizing rabbinic texts like Avot to preserve his supersessionist view that the teachings of Christianity are intrinsically superior to rabbinic teachings, even when fundamentally similar in content.75 The contemporary reader of these texts is left in a quandary. While these four works are classics in the field of study, one is also aware of the ideological issues that surround these texts. As such, while the translations and commentaries offered by these authors will be utilized in the course of this present study, this author will take care to also take into account the agenda that lay beneath the production of these works. 73 Robert Travers Herford, Pirke Aboth. The Ethics of the Talmud: Sayings of the Fathers (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1945). 74 Levenson, ‘Missionary Protestants,” 387-88, 412-20. I have also described this concept in Christian Memories of the Maccabean Martyrs (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009). 75 Levenson, “Missionary Protestants,” 400; Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” 10.

24

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Towards a Comparative Theology Commentary As the review of prior commentaries shows, there are two issues to contend with when writing a Christian commentary on Avot. The first is the temptation to simply list parallel ideas; the second is the peril of allosemitism, or the objectification of the Jewish subject for Christian purposes. While both are serious challenges, a methodology rooted in comparative theology can help successfully navigate both parallelomania and allosemitism. The first issue to discuss is the methodological problem of the constant search for parallels between Jewish and Christian sources. Samuel Sandmel first raised this issue several decades ago. His core assessment bears repeating here. Abstractly, Qumran might have influenced the NT, or abstractly, it might not have, or Talmud the NT, or the Midrash Philo, or Philo Paul. The issue for the student is not the abstraction but the specific. Detailed study is the criterion, and the detailed study ought to respect the context and not be limited to juxtaposing mere excerpts. Two passages may sound the same in splendid isolation from their context, but when seen in context reflect difference rather than similarity. The neophytes and the unwary often rush in… If, accordingly, all these writings are post-Tanach Judaism, then obviously the Tanach has some status and influence in all of them. What could conceivably surprise us would be the absence of Tanach influence from this literature, not its presence. Furthermore, since all this literature is Jewish, it should reasonably reflect Judaism. Paul and the rabbis should overlap, and Paul and Philo and the Qumran writings and the rabbis should overlap. Accordingly, even true parallels may be of no great significance in themselves.76

Subsequent scholars have taken up this assessment of the problem of parallelomania. The religious writings of rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity from the first centuries of the Common Era are best understood when placed within a matrix of other religious movements in the Mediterranean and Near East from that era. In particular, the parallels that exist between Jewish and Christian texts do not solely determine the meaning of either. Similarity between texts does not always mean direct influence of one tradition upon another but rather a shared reliance on a common text, such as the Hebrew Scriptures, or broader cultural movements, such as the influence of Greek philosophical schools.77 76

Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” 3-4. For advances upon Sandmel’s assessment see Jonathan Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparisons of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity (Chicago: 77

A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON MISHNAH AVOT

25

In  the assessment of Alon Goshen-Gottstein, the similarities between early Jewish and Christian texts might best be described as a form of “parallel spiritual activity” indicating a shared space of sacred writings, practices, and worldview, but not speaking necessarily to contact between communities, but rather similarities arising out of interpretation of a shared body of texts, namely the Hebrew Scriptures.78 The comparative theologian looking at Jewish and Christian texts must take the peril of parallelomania seriously. Sandmel’s call to move past the mere observation of superficial similarities to the investigation of context and specificity accord well with the primary goal of comparative theology to attend to texts as practitioners within that tradition understand them. Particularity as expressed within both the Jewish and Christian texts is of paramount importance. Before comparative reflection can happen, a Jewish text must first be understood within the context of its composition. This might include parallels found in Christian texts, but in itself a parallel is not meaningful. Rather, the comparative theologian must discern the deeper meanings at play in the Jewish text before reflecting on them from a Christian context. For the Christian writing about Jewish texts for the purpose of engaging in theological reflection upon, allosemitism is a problematic issue. Allosemitism might lead either to philosemitism or anti-Semitism. The core issue is the problem of Christians using Jews and Judaism, including Jewish texts, for their own internal purposes without attending to the subjectivity of Judaism. An allosemitic stance can be especially problematic when dealing with Jewish texts close to the period of Christian origins. As the examples of Strack and Danby show, even Christians sympathetic to Judaism can be easily tempted to utilize the study of Judaism to advance their own Christian agenda and distort the Jewish sources with which they are engaged. The methodological aims of comparative theology, to understand a different religious tradition on its own terms prior to engaging in theological reflection upon it from one’s home tradition, can help the Christian comparative theologian when engaging with Judaism.

University of Chicago Press, 1990); Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 162-63. 78 Alon Goshen-Gottstein, “Jewish-Christian Relations and Rabbinic Literature – Shifting Scholarly and Relational Paradigms: The Case of Two Powers” in Interaction between Judaism and Christianity in History, Religion, Art and Literature, ed. Marcel Poorthuis, Joshua Schwartz, and Joseph Turner (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 26.

26

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

In this commentary a first reading of Avot will reflect on the text as a Jewish text. The context and range of meanings of individual sayings will be considered prior to any Christian theological analysis. As an aid to reading Avot as a Jewish text, I will incorporate readings from a range of Jewish commentaries on Avot. This is a fitting move as rabbinic literature is a citational genre. That is, a primary mode of expressing meaning and arguments in rabbinic literature is through the citation of other authoritative texts. These commentaries will range from Avot de-Rabbi Natan to medieval commentators, with occasional citations of modern commentators. I have chosen to limit my commentarial sources to ones primarily from the pre-modern period for two reasons. First, this is a means of convenience, as there are scores of commentaries of Avot in existence. Second, there is a shift in the early modern period to more speculative approaches to Avot which would entail a level of complexity in this comparative work that would be difficult to sustain. Occasionally more modern commentators will appear when especially useful. By beginning commentary on any individual saying from the perspective of other Jewish commentaries, my focus will start on the text on its own merits and the received interpretive traditions concerning it. This will help avoid using a saying to reinforce Christian perspectives or establish simple parallels with Christian literature. When I turn the commentary to explicitly Christian reflections, I will place sayings from Avot in conversation with themes that I have derived from Christian literature. In particular, I will work with select New Testament passages from the gospels (especially Matthew), Pauline literature, and the Epistle of James. I will also work with early apostolic literature from the second century, monastic literature from the fourth to sixth centuries, sixteenth century writings related to the Protestant Reformation, and twentieth century Roman Catholic theology. The purpose here is not to find parallels that will somehow establish influence by one community upon another. Nor is it to demonstrate the development of doctrines or establish a history of ideas. Although I approach these texts trained as a historian and a comparative theologian, I am not interested here in direct parallels or evidence of influence between Judaism and Christianity. Rather, I intend to establish how reflecting upon thematically similar texts can sharpen Christian self-understanding. While the reader will encounter many instances where there appear to be surface parallels between sayings from Avot and Christian texts, this commentary will illustrate the important distinctions between these passages. While much work has been done recently on establishing the Jewish

A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON MISHNAH AVOT

27

matrix from which early Christianity emerged, this commentary will also identify those elements that emerged as distinctive in a Christian milieu. The purpose of this commentary is to demonstrate how a close reading of Avot can illuminate Christian theology. But this commentary does not intend to use Avot in an allosemitic way to provide for a Christian selfunderstanding or lend a Jewish veneer to Christian identity. This commentary will allow Avot to remain a Jewish text on its own terms while also exploring how a deep understanding of it might be useful for Christian theological reflection. Despite the perils of parallelomania, this commentary on Avot is for a series situated within the discipline of comparative theology that presumes that I as the author will reflect on Avot from within my stance as a Christian scholar. Rather than looking for explicit parallels, it might be best to say that I am listening for resonances between Avot and the Christian tradition.79 As well as a practitioner of comparative theology, I am also a historian of Christianity, particularly of Jewish-Christian relations in the early and medieval portions of Christian history. Given my training, the resonances my scholarly ear picks up are those primarily from the period of the formation of Christianity in the first century through the sixth century. It is from this literature that I hear resonances from Avot that make me stop and ponder how I might read and hear Christian texts differently. Thus the structure of my commentary will first identify the meaning of the Avot text and Jewish commentaries on it. From there I will explore how these understandings of the text resonate with the Christian tradition. Just as the sound waves of music carry in different spaces, so too when I listen with Christian ears to tunes made by Avot and its commentators I may discern different aspects of the music than the original composers might have imagined. But I will listen and hear with the humble appreciation of a listener for the composer and performers of the work I encounter. I must also state clearly that I do not offer an exhaustive analysis of what the Jewish tradition as a whole has to say about Avot. This would be an impossible task, but especially for one who does not operate within this tradition. But it is not just my status as a learned outsider that prevents this. Jewish interpretation of Avot is to constantly add meaning to it as one comments on it. What I am attempting to show is how some commentators have reflected on this text. I am stepping 79 For the role of musical metaphors in comparative theology, see John Sheveland, “Solidarity Through Polyphony” in The New Comparative Theology, 171-90.

28

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

into this stream of conversation and offering new points of departure on what Avot has meant for Jews and what it might possibly mean for Christians. The Structure of the Commentary and the Translation This commentary will proceed like other volumes in this series. For each section a commentary on the text of Avot itself will be offered. After that will follow a comparative theological reflection from a Christian perspective. The discrete units of commentary will vary from section to section. Often one saying will be considered in turn. But there will be variations. For instance, most of chapter one will consider two sayings at a time to follow the pattern there of offering sayings by a paired group of tannaitic sages (known in Hebrew as zugot or pairs). Other times, several sayings in a row will be linked by a common theme despite being uttered by a group of unrelated rabbis. Chapters five and six with their numerical and thematic groupings also will feature commentaries on a cluster of sayings. The commentary on these sayings will follow traditional patterns of Jewish commentaries on Avot. As stated before, in rabbinic Judaism commentaries are citational. That is, they feature references to prior commentaries, amplifying possible ranges of meaning of a given phrase or saying. By employing and engaging with a full range of Jewish commentaries on Avot, I hope to avoid an allosemitic stance and allow the text of Avot to convey its fullest range of meanings within a Jewish context. In a way, this commentary will resemble the form of a Jewish supercommentary with the addition of a Christian commentary added after I have presented an expansive range of Jewish perspectives on a given passage. As with the other volumes of this commentary series, I only provide an English language translation and do not provide a version of the text as it occurs within its original language. However, this commentary was composed following the widely recognized standard edition of Avot that appears in Hanoch Albeck’s edition of the Mishnah.80 The English translation is my own rendering but produced via consultation of the English translations provided by both Herbert Danby and Pinhas Kehati. Occasionally key Hebrew concepts that convey a range of meanings will not be translated but transliterated with a discussion of their meanings in the 80 Hanoch Albeck, Shishah Sidre Mishnah, 6 vols. (Jerusalem/Tel Aviv: Bialik Institute / Dvir, 1952–58).

A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON MISHNAH AVOT

29

commentary.81 While often the names of rabbis are Anglicized in contemporary commentaries on Avot, I have chosen to transliterate the Hebrew names. Thus, “Shimon” appears instead of “Simon,” and “Yochanan” instead of “Johanan.” When a quote from the commentary is offered, I will provide the relevant page number from the edition I used. For example, “Maimonides on Avot 1:1, 3.” To avoid lengthy footnoting, at times the commentary will only be cited in the body of my own commentary. The reader is to understand that the passage is derived from the relevant commentary on the passage under discussion. Along with English translations of commentaries, I have utilized the two volume collection of commentaries on Avot, Mishnat Reuven, Masekhet Avot 1-2. Many of the relevant citations can be found in this volume if not cited elsewhere.

81 Herbert Danby, The Mishnah, 446-61; Pinhas Kehati, Pirkei Avot: Chapters of the Fathers with a Commentary.

CHAPTER ONE

Avot 1:1 Moses received Torah at Sinai and he transmitted it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets transmitted it to the men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, and raise up many disciples, and make a fence for the Torah. Jewish Interpretations This first saying is among the most famous of all those found in Avot because it contains some of the core concepts of the entire tractate. We can identify three movements to this saying that allows the reader to understand its importance. These are Torah, the chain of transmission, and a tripartite teaching at the end encapsulating the core duties for a teacher of Torah. Avot begins with a reference back to Moses receiving God’s revelation on top of Mount Sinai (Exodus 19-30). This revelation is referred to in Hebrew as Torah, a term which will not be translated in this commentary. Torah has a range of meanings in Judaism. Literally, it means “teaching” or “instruction.” Fundamentally, any sort of teaching is “torah.” It can commonly refer to the five Books of Moses, also known as the Pentateuch, but it also refers to the 613 commandments found in these books that were revealed at Sinai. It often is inadequately rendered as “law” due to the use of the Greek word nomos (law) as an equivalent concept in the Septuagint and the New Testament, especially Pauline, writings. The giving of Torah at Sinai re-affirmed and expanded the covenant between God and Israel that began with God’s covenant with Abraham. The Sinai covenant is at the core of Jewish identity as we find in the book of Deuteronomy when Moses urges Israel to cling to this covenant: Surely, this Instruction which I enjoin upon you this day is not too baffling for you, nor is it beyond reach. It is not in the heavens, that you should say "Who among us can go up to the heavens and get it for us and impart it to us, that we may observe it?" Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who among us can cross to the other side of the sea and get

32

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

it for us and impart it to us, that we may observe it?" No, the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to observe it… Choose life—if you and your offspring would live—by loving the LORD your God, heeding His commands, and holding fast to Him. For thereby you shall have life. (Deut. 30:11-14,19-20)

In this address Moses urges the Israelites to embrace the Instruction, or Torah, God has given to them. It is by following the Torah that Israel will thrive. Although it is an awesome task before them, Israel is assured that God will sustain them. Initially the meaning of Avot’s declaration that Moses received Torah from Sinai was that alongside the content of what God revealed at Sinai found in the Five Books of Moses was a body of interpretation that illuminated the contents of this revelation. In particular, this other element of Torah received by Moses was a guide to interpreting the 613 commandments, or mitzvot, contained in the Torah. This interpretation focused primarily on legal matters, or halakhah. This body of halakhic teaching is essentially a rabbinic product developed over centuries and codified in the work of Rabbi Yehudah the Patriarch’s Mishnah sometime around 220 C.E. For the rabbis, the Torah which Moses received at Sinai was both a written body of revelation and a set of halakhic interpretations. The teaching of this body of interpretation was termed talmud torah, that is, “study of Torah.” The basic meaning of the word Torah in Avot concerns interpretation and instruction about the content of the Mosaic revelation, especially in terms of halakhah.1 The rabbinic project in essence was the effort to synthesize the text of Torah and the interpretation of Torah into an authoritative body of teaching. By claiming their teaching tradition, or Torah, to have originated with Moses’s reception of the Torah at Sinai, the rabbinic movement was linking its own authority to that of the preeminent authority in the Jewish tradition.2 As well, it linked its own teaching tradition with the maintenance of Israel’s covenanted relationship with God. However, the original sense of this statement at the beginning of Avot that Moses received Torah at Sinai came to convey the sense that two forms of Torah were given at Sinai, a written Torah and an oral Torah. 1 Matty Cohen, “La maxime des hommes de la Grande Assemblée: une reconsideration” in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky, ed. Andre Caquot, et al. (Leuven: Edition Peeters, 1986), 291. 2 Martin S. Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE-400 CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 84-85.

CHAPTER ONE

33

This concept emerged between the middle of the third century and the fifth century of the Common Era, beginning a full century after the compilation of the Mishnah. The core idea behind two forms of the Torah was that the body of rabbinic teaching was itself fully disclosed at Sinai orally as an accompaniment to the written Torah Moses received.3 This idea made adherence to rabbinic teachings all the more crucial for maintaining a covenant relationship between God and Israel. In traditional commentaries on Avot, authors locate the giving of the Oral Torah at Sinai by interpretation of scriptural verses. So Rabbi Yonah of Gerona (henceforth identified as Rabbeinu Yonah), a Catalonian teacher from the thirteenth century, comments “The verse states, ‘I have given you the tablets of stone, and the Torah and the Mitzvah [commandment]’ (Ex. 24:12). ‘Torah’ is the Written Torah, and ‘Mitzvah’ is the Oral Torah. We see, then, that all the mizvot [commandments] given to Moses at Sinai were given together with their explanations. These explanations are our Oral Torah.”4 The effect of this interpretation of God’s revelation of Torah to Moses is to establish the authority of rabbinic teaching. The Torah the rabbis teach is authoritative because it was first conceived in the mind of God and revealed to the first and greatest teacher, Moses. Moses’ status as God’s conduit for the revelation of the Written and Oral Torah is further grounded in the earliest commentary on Avot, Avot de-Rabbi Natan (ARN). Version A of the ARN explains that Moses was made God’s messenger to Israel through a purification process. Referring to the cloud of God’s presence that rested on Sinai which Moses entered (Ex. 24:16), it is explained that “Moses was sanctified by the cloud and received the Torah at Sinai.”5 Moses’ sanctification indicated that God glorified him, even though an ordinary mortal, and so was made worthy to receive the Torah directly from God and not from any sort of intermediary such as angels. The first link in the chain of teaching about Torah is Moses who received it directly from God. By this direct revelation of Torah, Moses stature as the authoritative teacher of Israel is made clear.6 In later medieval interpretations, this direct revelation illustrates 3

Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth, 128. Rabbeinu Yonah on Pirkei Avos, trans. David Sedley, rev. 2nd ed. (Brooklyn: Judaica Press, 2008), 1:1, 20. 5 The Fathers According to Nathan, trans. Judah Goldin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955), 1,3. (Afterwards, ARN A). 6 The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (Abot de Rabbi Nathan Version B), 1, 21. (Afterwards ARN B). 4

34

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

that Moses possessed the highest forms of knowledge of God in both its philosophical and practical forms.7 The received understanding of the opening phrase of Avot establishes the authority of rabbinic interpretation as found in the Oral Torah. This Torah, expressed through the Mishnah, of which Avot is a part, and its subsequent commentaries in the Talmud and elsewhere was given at Sinai alongside the Written Torah. By locating the origins of rabbinic teaching with Moses at Sinai, the rabbis establish the authoritative nature of their teaching and make adherence to this teaching necessary to maintain covenantal relationship with God. The second portion of this saying illustrates the chain of transmission that links Moses’ reception of Torah to the rabbis. Joshua was the designated leader of Israel upon the death of Moses and so to him was entrusted the transmission of Torah to the Israelites.8 The great medieval rabbi Solomon Isaac of Troyes (from hence referred to by his acronym Rashi) commented that Moses taught the Torah to all of Israel but he only transmitted the entire of body of knowledge concerning the contents of both the Written and Oral Torah to Joshua. The elders to whom Joshua transmitted the Torah were those who served with Joshua (Josh. 24:31) continuing on with the judges who ruled Israel, ending with Samson. The prophets next were entrusted with the Torah, beginning with either Eli or Samuel and ending with the last grouping of prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.9 The prophets in turn transmitted the Torah to the men of the Great Assembly. Scholars have not been able to precisely identify the men of the Great Assembly. This group is not the same as the Sanhedrin, which served as a judicial court during the Second Temple period. Rather, it appears to have been some type of teaching academy associated with the efforts of Ezra, Nehemiah and others to re-establish observance of the Torah after the Israelites returned from exile in Babylon (Neh. 10). This body has traditionally been identified as the group that also developed the first set of synagogue prayers, established the canon of the prophets, and produced the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible.10 Because relatively little is known about this group, it is hard to establish when 7 Obadiah Sforno, Commentary on Pirkei Avos, trans. Raphael Pelcovitz (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1996), 2-3. 8 ARN A 1, 4. 9 ARN A 1, 4; ARNB, 1, 25-26. 10 Louis Finkelstein, “The Maxim of the Anshe Keneset Ha-Gedolah,” Journal of Biblical Literature 59:4 (1940): 455-57; Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, 111.

CHAPTER ONE

35

precisely it operated, but it appears to have been sometime between the fifth and second centuries BCE, ending around the time of Shimon the Righteous quoted in Avot 1:2. Given that Shimon served as the next link in the chain of transmission to the rabbis, the key point in mentioning the men of the Great Assembly is to show that the teaching of the rabbis is drawn directly from those who re-established the observance of Torah after the Babylonian exile. Since the rabbinic movement emerged as a response to the destruction of the Second Temple and the question of how Judaism was to survive without the Temple sacrificial system, this is an important symbolic connection.11 This chain of transmission emphasizes a type of “academic filiation” where knowledge of Torah is not passed on by a familial descent but rather by groups of learning.12 Strikingly the two major forms of succession found in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Aaronic priesthood and the Davidic kingship, are absent in the chain of transmission. In its place are people associated by their roles in preserving God’s Torah for Israel – elders, judges, prophets, and teachers. Rabbinic Judaism did not understand itself as a familial tradition (despite its own academic dynasties at times) but as a movement that drew in likeminded people committed to preserving Torah. Following the establishment of the chain of tradition, Avot offers a tripartite saying from the men of the Great Assembly: “They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, and raise up many disciples, and make a fence for the Torah.” Tripartite sayings are found throughout chapter one. Generally, these tripartite sayings do not aim to teach three different points. Rather, they are three facets of a single concept. Here the major teaching point concludes this saying about the chain of transmission by setting forth the proper way to transmit the traditions of Torah.13 Together, these three teachings express the core insights of Avot. To better understand them, each phrase will be taken in turn. To be deliberate in judgment has the sense of being willing to deal with any issue or situation with an open mind and a willingness to  explore all dimensions before arriving at a judgment.14 Traditional 11

Taylor, ibid.; Robert Travers Herford, Pirke Aboth, 19-20. Benedict Viviano, Study as Worship: Aboth and the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 5. 13 Isaac B. Gottlieb, “Pirqe Abot and Biblical Wisdom,” 159; Judah Goldin, “Pirkei Avot” in Or Hadash: A Commentary on Siddur Sim Shalom for Shabbat and Festivals ed. Reuven Hammer (New York: The Rabbinical Assembly, 2005), 256. 14 Herford, 21. 12

36

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

commentators argued that teachers of Torah had to be especially careful prior to rendering judgments because the public perception of Torah depended on it. If rash or ill informed judgments were given, Torah itself would be publicly devalued. Rabbeinu Yonah went so far as to argue that an accidental ruling given in haste was actually an act of negligence because the judge deliberately acted in a way that detracted from Torah. The twinned concern for the public esteem of Torah and regard for the authority of teachers of Torah fits into the overarching goal of this first saying in Avot to establish the authority of rabbinic teaching through Torah as established via the rabbinic chain of transmission. If the first step in the teaching of the Great Assembly is to ensure that Torah is properly interpreted and ruled upon, a logical consequence is to guarantee continued teaching and learning about it. The study of Torah, though central to rabbinic identity, is a voluntary activity. It is the responsibility of teachers of Torah to draw disciples to it. And who should be a disciple? The character and quality of Torah students is a theme throughout Avot. In ARN there is a bias towards including as many types of people as possible in the study of Torah. This teaching unfolds in a classically rabbinic mode in the form of a debate between the schools of the rabbis Shammai and Hillel. These two great rabbis were contemporaries in the first century BCE and they famously offered diverging opinions on a whole range of topics. Regarding who ought to be admitted to study, the school of Shammai argued that only the wellborn and wealthy should be students. But the school of Hillel argued “One ought to teach every man, for there were many sinners in Israel who were drawn to the study of Torah, and from them descended righteous, pious, and worthy folk.”15 The rest of ARN sets forth Akiva, the leading rabbi during the period immediately after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE, as the ideal example of Hillel’s injunction. Legend has it that Akiva only came to the study of Torah at age 40, yet his learning and piety surpassed that of all his contemporaries. Himself being poor, he nonetheless advanced rapidly in learning and he demonstrated his piety by offering charity to others. The example of Akiva provides a balance between learning and practice that is to be a hallmark of all students of Torah.16

15

ARN A 3, 26. Saldarini, Scholastic Rabbinism, 45; Judah Goldin, “The Third Chapter of Abot De-Rabbi Natan,” Harvard Theological Review 58:4 (1965): 370, 377. 16

CHAPTER ONE

37

Hillel’s position to welcome all to Torah study became the accepted norm in rabbinic circles. This standard led to an expectation that teachers would take care in their roles as teachers. Rabbeinu Yonah illustrates Hillel’s concern for all of his students through a story found in the Palestinian Talmud. One day he gathered all his students and asked if they were all here. One replied that all were here except for the “the least of us.” Hillel commanded that this one also be brought in to the study session. This student was Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, one of the greatest of the rabbis in the generation after Hillel. Rabbeinu Yonah explains by this story that “weaker students should never be pushed aside for the sake of the stronger ones.”17 A teacher of Torah possesses a lifelong vocation. Thus Rashi expanded upon the exhortation to raise up many disciples through an interpretation of Qohelet 11:6, “In the morning sow your seed, and at evening do not let your hands be idle; for you do not know which will prosper, this or that, or whether both alike will be good.” The sense of this teaching is that a Torah teacher is entrusted with a lifetime of work. But there is also the sense here that the fruit of one’s teaching are unpredictable. Indeed, a passage from the rabbinic midrash on Ecclesiastes amplifies the need to educate as many as possible: “A thousand men may enter to study Scriptures and only one hundred will emerge from them; to study Mishnah, only ten will emerge, to study Talmud, only one will emerge.”18 The path of Torah study is arduous. To produce someone truly wise and worthy to succeed as a teacher to the next generation of students might take a lifetime. And the most obvious candidates to succeed might fail; and the least likely, like Akiva, might emerge unexpectedly to take the place at the head of the next generation of Torah teachers. The final statement by the men of the Great Assembly, to make a fence for the Torah, is a significant aspect of the rabbinic ethos.19 One interpretation is that this fence (also rendered as “hedge”) refers to the preservation of the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible established by the men of the Great Assembly. A concern to preserve the text of Torah from variant, and hence erroneous readings, paralleled similar concerns in Hellenistic culture in this era to preserve the correct readings of foundational texts, like the works of Homer.20 A second interpretation is that 17 18 19 20

Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 1:1, 25; YT Sanhedrin 5:6. Qohelet Rabbah 7; Kehati, 9. Viviano, 6-7. Goldin, “End of Ecclesiastes,” 9-10.

38

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

the fence refers to the care with which rabbis must choose their words. Carefully rendered judgments on matters of halakhah and interpretations of Torah serve as a fence that guards the integrity of Torah itself and protects it from disparagement or ridicule.21 The final interpretation is that a fence around Torah refers to the rabbinic understanding that additional commandments are needed to ensure that Jews do not infringe upon the 613 commandments found in Torah. A similar idea can be found in Avot 3:13 where Akiva says that “tradition is a fence to the Torah.”22 Although the first interpretation of the meaning of the exhortation to make a fence around Torah might be persuasive, it is the second and, especially, the third interpretation that have been dominant in Jewish commentaries. ARN explains this injunction in terms of the need to make a fence about one’s words concerning Torah and one’s interpretation of it. ARN A explains that before the rabbis, God, Adam, the Torah, Moses, Job, the Prophets, the Writings, and the sages made fences.23 The fences that they made center around teachings warning against sins traditionally associated with Gentile culture – idolatry, murder, and improper sexual activity.24 The presence of Job, sometimes considered a Gentile by rabbis, in these examples illustrates that the wisdom found in Torah is accessible to all. Building such fences is not just for Jews, but an activity all can participate in.25 In the story of how Moses made a fence around Torah, we discover in ARN A the development of the third point of interpretation. The discussion turns to why Moses broke the first set of tablets of the commandments that God had given on Sinai. This occurred after Moses descended from Sinai with the tablets and discovered the Israelites worshipping a statue of a golden calf they had made in his absence (Ex.  34). Moses apparently acts on his own accord in smashing what God has commanded him to give to Israel. What could justify this? Citing Exodus 32:16 that the writing of God on the tablet was graven (charut), it is explained that this should rather read as “free” (cherut) because “whoever studies Torah is free.” This freedom means that Moses was allowed to

21 Louis Finkelstein, “Introductory Study to Pirke Abot,” Journal of Biblical Literature 57:1 (1938): 30-33; Goldin, “End of Ecclesiastes,” 21. 22 Taylor, 11; Herford, 21. 23 ARN A 1, 8. 24 Schoffer, Making of a Sage, 75. 25 Saldarini, Scholastic Rabbinism, 37-38.

CHAPTER ONE

39

independently infer about the consequences of giving Israel the divine commandments. He said, "How shall I give these tablets to Israel? I shall be obligating them to major commandments and make them liable to the penalty of death, for thus it is written in the tablets, Whoever sacrifices to a god other than the LORD shall be destroyed (Exodus 22:19). Rather I shall take hold of them and break them, and bring Israel back to good conduct.”26

Thus Moses makes his own fence around the Torah. By smashing the tablets Moses accomplishes two things. First, he protects Israel from the consequence of violating the prohibition against idolatry contained in the Ten Commandments. Second, he upholds the integrity of the Torah and the absolute fidelity required to it on the part of Israel. Rather than present to Israel the Ten Commandments, which they have failed to live up to prior to the fact, Moses engages in making a fence around the Torah by forestalling the instruction about this commandment in order to bring Israel back to good conduct. The phrase "bring Israel back to good conduct" implies some sort of further instruction beyond the basic commands found in the Ten Commandments.27 This deed of Moses illustrates the rabbinic conviction that “humans may and must play an active part in discerning the meanings and implications of God’s commandments.”28 Finding freedom within Torah to interpret Torah provides the rabbis with authority. Making a fence for the Torah means the development of further laws conceived by rabbis to ensure that commandments found in Torah are not violated. An example of making a fence can be found in Exodus 12:15 where it is prohibited to eat leaven from the first day of Passover. Since in the rabbinic period a day was understood to begin at evening, it was feared that some might flout the spirit of the command by eating leavened products right up to the moment of nightfall, and the prohibition was moved to mid-afternoon, as the Mishnah attests. The Babylonian Talmud moved the prohibition on eating leaven up to ten in the morning in order to further protect the original command in the Torah.29 Commentaries on Avot 1:1 locate the rationale of this practice 26

ARN A 2, 20. In this same passage of ARN, some rabbis argue that Moses broke these tablets because God commanded him to. This interpretation does not explain how such an act would be an example of making a fence around Torah. 28 Saldarini, Scholastic Rabbinism, 42. 29 Pirke Avot: A Modern Commentary on Jewish Ethics, ed. and trans. Leonard Kravitz and Kerry M. Olitzky (New York: UAHC Press, 1993), 12-13. See M. Pesachim 10:1; BT Pesachim 1:4. 27

40

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

in Leviticus 18:30 which reads “you shall guard my charge.” This is understood to mean that teachers of Torah should develop rulings that safeguard the commandments given by God to Israel.30 The practice of making this sort of fence for Torah is twofold. First, it protects the integrity of Torah itself. Thus ARN B imagines a fence that surrounds a vineyard. While the fence is important because it guards the vineyard, it should never be forgotten that it is the contents of the vineyard itself that is more precious.31 While serving an important role in daily life, rabbinic expansions upon the commandments of Torah never surpass the value of the Torah itself. Second, developing a fence around Torah prevents humans from committing sins by violating precepts found in the Torah. Maimonides explains that legalistic stringency is not the goal of additional rabbinic precepts. Such fences are “decrees and ordinances that will separate a person from sin.”32 The ethical impetus behind the development of rabbinic ordinances here links to the concern in ARN for clear teaching regarding ethical behavior. Rabbinic literature demonstrates that the concept of additional ordinances for the Jewish community to aid in keeping the commandments and preserving morality did not develop until late in the period known as the Geonic era (late 6th to 11th century).33 This is the period after the end of the editing of the Babylonian Talmud that featured the expansion and development of Jewish intellectual life and halakhic practice. In this context we can understand the amplification of the meaning of making a fence around Torah to reflect the increasing claims to communal authority by rabbinic teachers. Rabbeinu Yonah, writing in thirteenthcentury Spain, reflects the crystallization of this understanding of rabbinic authority when he says: “The words of the Sages are the root and tree of fear of Heaven, which is the main purpose of the universe and the foundation of all good attributes; all the mitzvot are its ancillaries. As our Sages teach in the Midrash, “Your beloved ones are better than wine” (Song of Songs 1:2). The words of the Sages are more precious than the ‘wine’ of Torah (Midrash to Song of Songs 1:18).”34 In ARN, Torah had been compared to the grapes of the vineyard which the fence of additional precepts guarded. But in a burst of hyperbole, Rabbeinu

30 31 32 33 34

Maimonides on Avot 1:1. ARN B 1, 29. Maimonides on Avot 1:1, 62; cf. Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 1:1. Goldin, “End of Ecclesiastes,” 22. Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 1:1, 26.

CHAPTER ONE

41

Yonah lauds the teachings of the rabbinic sages as even better than the wine of Torah. The sages he references are those who set out the contents of the Mishnah, Talmud, and those additional precepts that allow one to fulfill Torah and avoid sin. Only by the words of Torah teachers can Jews fulfill the commandments of Torah and develop into the holy nation that God called them to be (Lev 11:44). To make a fence around the Torah and to guide others into observing it is to lead Israel into a spiritually vibrant covenant with God, rooted in the teachings of the rabbis, branching out to the fulfillment of the commandments and ascending to a righteous life. In the understanding of the rabbis, the contents of their teaching on Torah ensured that Israel’s covenant made with God at Sinai would continue. Christian Resonances The first saying of Avot presents three themes that resonate within a Christian theological perspective: the transmission of tradition, the status of the Torah, and the relationship between Jesus and Torah. Just as the chain of transmission of Torah in Avot works to establish the authority of rabbis from the early third century onward, so in early Christian texts the transmission of the teachings of Jesus Christ undergirds the authority of bishops in the second and third centuries. Specifically, early Christian leaders developed the notion of apostolic authority, the concept that the apostles commissioned by Jesus to continue his ministry and teaching had invested their successors, bishops (overseers of local communities) with authority to lead and teach local Christian bodies. In both Jewish and Christian traditions of this era, the certainty of revelation and expression of authority intersect. In Paul’s first letter to the community in Corinth, he uses language of receiving and transmitting similar to Avot 1:1. Concerning the practice of the Lord’s Supper he writes, “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you” (I Cor. 11:23). This language of receiving a tradition from a divine source and transmitting it faithfully to followers is found in both Avot and Paul. There are multiple passages, especially in this letter to the Corinthians, in which Paul explicitly sets forth traditions in the name of Jesus.35 Paul’s concern here is to establish himself as an 35 Raymond F.  Collins, First Corinthians. Sacra Pagina Series, vol. 7 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), 425-26; Joseph Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Yale Bible, vol. 32 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 435-36. For other Pauline uses of this language, see

42

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

apostle of Jesus, despite never having met him in his earthly ministry but being commissioned as an apostle by a divine revelation of Jesus only after having initially persecuted the followers of Jesus (Gal. 1:13-24; Acts 9:1-30). Paul frequently references pre-existing teaching traditions traced to Jesus which he reiterates in his capacity as an apostolic teacher. His authority and that of the other apostles is derived from the transmission of teachings received from the person of Jesus himself. The teachings of the apostles crystallize into a clearly defined body termed the apostolic teaching or apostolic tradition through the course of the second century. The classic summation of the concept of a teaching tradition rooted in the succession of bishops was written by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, in his treatise Against Heresies. In this text, Irenaeus seeks to discredit rival Christian teachings, mostly associated with socalled Christian Gnostics like Valentinus of Rome. These Gnostics appealed to secret teachings which only the spiritually elite could access. Irenaeus sought to counteract this form of spiritual elitism by appealing to the clear public preaching of the bishops who succeeded the apostles commissioned by Jesus himself. To accomplish his goals, Irenaeus set forth a succession list for the bishops of Rome as evidence for their teaching authority. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes… To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.36

Peter  J.  Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1999), 144-46. 36 Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies III.3.3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Edinburgh and Grand Rapids: T&T Clark / Eerdmans, 1989), vol.1, 416.

CHAPTER ONE

43

For Irenaeus, the task of bishops is to preserve the certain and true teachings of Jesus Christ. Irenaeus envisions this teaching in its original forms as an unwritten tradition, one that can effectively convert unlettered barbarians as much as learned Greeks. While the content of this teaching has now been set to writing, it is the teaching tradition of the bishops themselves that preserve the apostolic teachings.37 In both rabbinic and early Christian texts we find the use of the Hellenistic concept of a chain of transmission to reinforce the core teachings that define each community. 38 For the rabbis this was the centrality of their interpretation of both the written and oral Torah as transmitted by prior generations of rabbis. For Christians leaders, this was their interpretation of the meaning of the life and death of Jesus Christ as transmitted by apostolic teachings. While each community has a different focus concerning what grounds their teaching tradition (Torah or Jesus), each used a chain of transmission to ground the respective authority of either rabbis or bishops for a larger, and potentially fractious, community.39 Noticing this shared genre of succession lists gives rise to the question of particularity and similarity. What can be learned profitably from this similarity? Is it merely a surface level similarity due to a shared cultural context? Does a shared concern for establishing authority undermine each community’s respective claims to authority through rabbis or apostles? In more specifically Christian terms, what grounds the particular form of an ecclesiology rooted in apostolic tradition? To work through these issues it is worthwhile to reflect on the status of Torah in early Christian literature, especially the relationship between the revelation of Torah and revelation of Jesus Christ. The theme of Torah as expressed in Avot resonates with early Christian debates about how to follow Torah and the degree of fidelity to it required by Gentiles. One of the most significant debates among the first generation of the followers of Jesus was whether to admit Gentiles into their movement. Ultimately, the earliest leaders, among them Peter, Paul, and James, agreed that Gentiles could enter into the movement so long as they maintained a minimal standard of sexual and dietary purity codes (Acts 15). These Gentile members were understood to have entered into God’s covenantal relationship with Israel through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Crucially, male Gentiles were not 37 38 39

Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies III.4.2, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, 417. Tropper, 213-18; Boyarin, Borderlines, 74-86. Tropper, 235.

44

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

required to be circumcised in order to gain this full stature. While the first generation of Jewish believers in Jesus seem to have continued to seek to fulfill the commandments found in Torah, only a minimal set of commandments found in Torah were deemed incumbent upon Gentile believers in Jesus. This divergence in application of Torah to Jews and Gentiles in the mid-first century laid the foundation for a markedly different conceptualization of the significance of Torah in comparison to rabbinic Judaism. As Gentiles dominated church communities in the second century, the Torah came to have ambivalent significance. On the one hand, early Christian writers argued that the Law of Moses was a necessary prelude for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The very shift in Christian language from Torah to Law (or nomos) signals this. While Torah has the sense of instruction, Law has the sense of limitation. The subordination of the Law to the person of Jesus Christ is a constant theme in early Christian literature. This theological move led to a supersessionist position that emphasized the punitive aspects of the Law and the abrogation of God’s covenant with Israel. A significant thread of the Christian tradition has predominantly interpreted the giving of the Torah at Sinai as a disciplinary measure. Paul’s words in Galatians became a basis for this view: "Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith" (Gal. 3:23-24). These words are the climax of a rhetorical contrast between the covenant with Abraham and the giving of the Law at Sinai. Although Paul’s language about the Law might seem unduly harsh, he thought the Law functioned positively as a protective custodian watching over Israel’s spiritual development. Nonetheless, Paul regarded the Law as temporary in nature until the coming of Jesus Christ.40 When considering the period from the giving of the Law at Sinai to the coming of Christ, Paul repeatedly associated it with punishment for a wayward Israel and a sign of Israel’s disobedience (2 Cor. 3:4-18; Gal. 4:21-31; Rom. 5:12-14). Although Paul affirmed that the Law was good insofar as it was given to regulate the life of Israel (Rom. 7:10,10:5), this is a secondary feature of God’s covenant relationship with Israel that demands the response of faith.41 40 James D.  G.  Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 138-42. 41 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 149-55.

CHAPTER ONE

45

Beginning in the second century, supersessionist interpretations of such Pauline passages developed. One of the earliest post-apostolic witnesses to a supersessionist theology of the law is the Epistle of Barnabas. Composed in Alexandria sometime between the end of the first century and 130 CE, this work indicates rivalry between emerging Christian communities with well-established local Jewish communities in the region of Alexandria.42 This text understood that the church was a new, spiritual Israel which had replaced the carnal Israel of the Jews. The author of the Epistle of Barnabas argues that based on disobedience at Sinai, the Jewish people quickly lost their covenant. I also ask you this, as one of you and who in a special way loves all of you more than my own soul: be on your guard now, and do not be like certain people; that is, do not continue to pile up your sins while claiming that your covenant is irrevocably yours, because in fact these people lost it completely in the following way, when Moses had just received it. For the Scripture says: “And Moses was on the mountain fasting for forty days and forty nights, and he received the covenant from the Lord, stone tablets inscribed by the fingers of the hand of the Lord.” But by turning to idols they lost it. For thus says the Lord: “Moses, Moses, go down quickly, because your people, whom you led out of Egypt, have broken the Law.” And Moses understood and hurled the two tablets from his hands, and their covenant was broken in pieces, in order that the covenant of the beloved Jesus might be sealed in our heart, in hope inspired by faith in him.43

In this interpretation of Exodus 34, Moses smashes the tablets of the law after discovering the Israelites worshipping the Golden Calf. This interpretation is markedly different from that found in ARN A, a text that is roughly contemporaneous. The author of Barnabas claims that this episode signalled the necessity of the covenant established in Jesus in light of the disobedience of Israel. Here in the Epistle of Barnabas is the core supersessionist concept that the followers of Jesus Christ have replaced the Jews as the people in covenant with God. This claim presents the problem of the continuing relevance of the Hebrew Scriptures, and particularly the Law, for Christians. 42 See William Horbury, "Jewish-Christian Relations in Barnabas and Justin Martyr," in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, ed. Jame D.  G.  Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 327-32. 43 Epistle of Barnabas, ed. Pierre Prigent, SC 172 (Paris: Cerf, 1971), 4.6-8. The translation is from The Apostolic Fathers, ed. J.  B.  Lightfoot and J.  R.  Harmer; second edition by Michael W.  Holmes (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker House Books, 1992), 165-66.

46

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Christians generally have had a dualistic conception of the Law. On the one hand, Christians have tended to embrace the moral dimensions of the Law, specifically as contained in the Ten Commandments. Traditionally, Christians have understood that Jesus upheld these teachings and as such they were positively regarded. But Christians claimed that the ritual or ceremonial portions of the Law were dispensed with by the death of Jesus Christ. Christians conceived of the ritual law specifically as a punishment for the sinfulness of the Jews, especially in relation to the episode of the Golden Calf, as referenced in this passage from the Epistle of Barnabas. The Pauline rhetoric of the Law as a disciplinarian and custodian found in passages such as Galatians 3:23-24 was transformed in the Epistle of Barnabas through the lens of the episode of the Golden Calf to illuminate the inadequacy of continued Jewish observance of the Law. Another text, the Didascalia Apostolorum, a Syriac text probably dating from the late third century, holds that on Sinai it was in fact Jesus Christ who spoke through Moses to the Church, not Israel. “Even as in the Gospel He renews and confirms and perfects the ten sayings of the Law concerning that which is written in the Law: ‘You shall not commit adultery: but I say unto you’ – this one who in the Law spoke through Moses – ‘but now myself say unto you.’”44According to the Didascalia Apostolorum, Christ is not merely the fulfiller of the Law, but is indeed the Lawgiver himself. Placing Christ on Sinai is an interpretive move similar to Paul’s identification of Christ with the rock that gave water to the Israelites in the desert (1 Cor. 10:4). Expanding the Pauline hermeneutical practice of placing the pre-existent Christ with the people of Israel, the author of the Didascalia Apostolorum argues for Christ's role as the agent of revelation at Sinai. But the Israel to whom Christ is present is not the physical descendants of Abraham, but rather the Church. Due to the disobedience of the Israelites, they have lost the covenant. The experience of the Exodus and reception of the Ten Commandments was one that condemned the Israelites but held spiritual benefit for the Church. Other texts have also conceptualized the transmission of the Law given at Sinai as essentially corrupted at a certain point in the history of Israel. Thus, the third Clementine Homily argues that Moses himself did not 44 Didascalia Apostolorum. Translation from The Didascalia Apostolorum in English, vol. 1, trans. Arthur Vööbus, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 402 (Louvain: Secrétariat du Corpus SCO, 1979), 10.

CHAPTER ONE

47

write all of the Five Books of Moses. Indeed, erroneous teaching crept into the Law of Moses, such as the command to sacrifice. A crucial aspect of the earthly teaching of Jesus was to correct contemporary Jewish teaching and to signal what aspects of the Law of Moses, like sacrifice, ought to pass away.45 Early Christian rhetoric transformed the Sinai event into an episode with a limited meaning for salvation history in which the value of the Law faded after the advent of Christ. This led to a distorted understanding of the importance of the giving of the Law itself. As a result, Christian reflections on the giving of the Law at Sinai generally viewed it as a transactional, legalistic, or temporal event, but missed how Sinai was a place where a covenant was made and Israel formally created as a people gathered out of Egypt and eternally dedicated to God. These texts reveal an allosemitic stance towards Torah in early Christian literature. The Torah’s status as an eternal covenant between God and the people of Israel as attested in the Hebrew Scriptures is undermined by the repeated assertion that Christ has replaced this covenant. Moreover, continued observation of the Torah by Jews serves as a sign of their bondage to sin, their recalcitrant nature, and their complicity in the death of Jesus Christ. This profound ambivalence on the one hand allows some positive views of Torah in terms of its dispensation for the pre-Christian era and its moral teachings. But all sense of its continued relevance for Israel or its abiding value in toto for the world is savagely attacked. The Christian view of Torah in early Christianity held that Christ replaced Torah as the central point of connection with God. Yet, we must return to the fact that Jesus lived, taught, and died as a Jew in the Second Temple period and engaged in observance of the Torah. We have evidence of him teaching on contentious issues concerning specific commandments in his era. He attended Temple services. He was circumcised. In short, he was actively involved in the Judaism of his era. Given that all of the gospels present particular interpretations of the teachings of Jesus and the meaning of his life, death, and resurrection, it is not possible to reach a definitive statement that shows us the totality of Jesus the Jew. Nonetheless, if we examine specific passages in detail, we gain useful insights. In particular, scholars argue that the Gospel of Matthew captures significant aspects of the Jewish dimensions of Jesus. This gospel is thought to express the views of a Jewish community that believed Jesus 45

Clementine Homily III, 45-51 ANF 12, 77-79.

48

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

to be the crucified and risen Messiah. This community had attracted the hostility of other Jewish groups, accounting for the strong polemical edge in it. At the same time, given that the gospel was not written to a Gentile community but one that remained rooted in its identity as part of Israel, the Gospel of Matthew offers a view of Jesus and his followers as committed followers of God’s Torah.46 The most revealing passage of Matthew regarding the attitude of Jesus towards Torah is the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:1-7:29). Matthew situates the life of Jesus within the Exodus and Sinai narratives.47 The Sermon on the Mount echoes the ascent of Moses to Sinai and his teaching this way: “When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him. Then he began to speak, and taught them…” (Matt. 5:1-2). The position of Jesus seated to teach his disciples mirrors Jewish tradition that Moses sat when he taught. This was a posture adopted by rabbinic teachers as well.48 While Jesus teaches like Moses, the purpose of this passage is not to show that Jesus has replaced Moses as the authoritative teacher of Israel. Although this was a common argument in later Christian literature, the author of Matthew does not reject the authority of Moses or Torah. Rather, the intention is to echo Moses’s teaching at Sinai in order to ground the teaching authority of Jesus within the broader context of the preceding tradition. In this way, Jesus’s authority in part stems from his teaching authority modeled on Moses at Sinai, much as in Avot.49 As a teacher of Torah, Jesus engages in interpretation that is similar to the exhortation of building a fence around Torah. But while functionally similar, the emphasis of the respective teachings of Jesus and the sages in Avot concerning Torah differ. The second half of the fifth chapter of Matthew contains six teachings regarding commandments in Torah. These teachings concerned Torah commandments on murder, adultery, divorce, taking oaths, the principle of an eye for an eye, and love of neighbor (Matt 5: 21-48). For each of these, Jesus offers his teaching by 46 Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 125; Han Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49) (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 1-2. 47 Dale C. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993), 11-96. 48 Allison, New Moses, 175-76. 49 Allison, New Moses, 91-93; Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary, trans. James E. Crouch (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 182.

CHAPTER ONE

49

beginning with a variant of the formulation, “You have heard that it was said…but I say to you…” In the history of Christian interpretation of these six teaching, it has often been taken that Jesus set forth principles that overthrew the Mosaic Law in favour of a higher ethics of love and internal spiritual purity. This idea was so ingrained that this section was quickly termed the “six antitheses” to suggest that these teachings were the replacement of the Mosaic Law.50 However, if we read Matthew through the lens of Avot, we discover a resonance with the chain of transmission. Jesus links his teachings with a broader teaching tradition to which he adds and expands upon. The view that Jesus sought to overthrow the entire system of Judaism in his era could not be further from the evidence found in Matthew. Indeed, the verses immediately preceding the so-called antitheses suggest that Jesus was aware of the possible misinterpretation of his teaching. In four verses he set forth his approach to Torah in anticipation of objections or misunderstandings of it.51 Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:17-20)

Keeping in mind that the word “law” (nomos) here stands for Torah, we find in the opening of this quote Jesus’ claim that the purpose of his ministry is to fulfil the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures. Implicitly Jesus recognizes the authority of Torah by living out its fulness. The second sentence of this quote indicates that while Jesus understands the Torah to be the definitive text for Israel, it has a temporal limitation. One aspect of Jesus’ identity was an eschatological prophet. An impending eschatological age was coming, what he called the kingdom of heaven. Yet Jesus does not name when this time will come. In the interim, his disciples are enjoined to observe Torah.52 50

Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 200. Betz, 167. 52 That Jesus envisioned a time when the Torah would pass is not entirely out of step in the Judaism of his era. Other Jewish texts envisioned the age to come as one where 51

50

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Jesus’ exhortation to keep the entirety of the Torah continues in the third sentence. There are two possible interpretations of this verse. The first option is that to not keep Torah will lead to judgment in the impending eschatological age of the kingdom of heaven. The ideal teacher is one who enjoins his disciples to keep the entirety of the Torah. Although other portions of Matthew indicate that Jesus and his followers saw some commandments, like the tithing of herbs (23:23-34) or purity regulations (23:26-27) as secondary in comparison to the love commandment (5:43-44; cf. Lev 19:18), it was still incumbent on his disciples to keep all of Torah.53 The second option is that this verse emphasizes the eschatological reward that awaits disciples who keep even the least of Jesus’ interpretations of Torah. Thus, Jesus’ own interpretations of Torah come to have binding force as the definitive interpretation.54 Here we see the wisdom motif of the righteous teacher of Torah who exhorts his students to obedience. The final sentence of this passage indicates the ethical dimensions of Torah obedience in Jesus’ interpretation and its connection to the eschatological orientation of his teaching. In Jewish thought of this era, righteousness was rooted in following God’s will as found in Torah. Jesus provides a negative polemical example here, indicating that the pursuit of righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, two Jewish groups that the community of the Gospel of Matthew were in conflict with. While both the scribes and Pharisees indeed pursue righteousness, they do not meet the ethical demands that Jesus considers essential. Jesus’ critique of these two groups is that their observance is not rigorous enough.55 It is only through following his interpretation of Torah that disciples can be certain that they will attain the righteousness that will allow them to pass God’s judgment. Their righteousness is located in Jesus’ authoritative and definitive interpretation of Torah. This interpretation establishes a level of observance and stringency that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees.56 This overview of Matthew 5:17-20 belies traditional supersessionist views that Jesus’ teaching comprised an explicit overturning of the Torah might either not be observed in its entirety or cease altogether. This did not take away from its force or revelatory nature. Betz, 182-84. 53 Luz, 219-21. 54 Betz, 185-88. 55 Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of the Misunderstood Apostle (New York: HarperCollins, 2009), 120-21. 56 Betz, 189-93; Allison, New Moses, 183.

CHAPTER ONE

51

Mosaic Law. The contrary is the case. Jesus’ interpretation of Torah is necessary for attaining righteousness, that is, “the tension between Jesus’ teachings and the Mosaic law is not that those who accept the former will transgress the latter; rather it is that they will achieve far more than they would if the Torah was their only guide.”57 Jesus’ claim to interpretive authority has a clear resonance with the claim for teaching authority in Avot 1:1. Both texts assume the authority of Torah as the basis for asserting the definitive nature of their own interpretative stance regarding Torah. The importance of Jesus’ interpretation of Torah for attaining righteousness resonates with the teaching to make a fence for Torah. The phenomenon of issuing clarifying teaching on how to fulfil Torah commandments in rabbinic literature can also be found in the six so-called antitheses in Matthew 5:21-48. Characteristic of all six of these teachings is the idea that the best way of fulfilling God’s will as found in Torah is to add a greater degree of moral stringency to the observation of the commandments.58 Given that the very term antithesis suggests an overturning of Torah, which is the opposite of these instructions, it is advisable not to frame Jesus’ teaching by this term. Instead, we are better off to consider these six teachings as a form of halakhic instruction.59 In other words, the concern here is with properly explicating an approach to fulfilling Torah. Hence, these teachings fall into the wider genre of halakhah. While Jesus declares the importance of keeping Torah and is aware of a wider teaching tradition, it is clear that his teachings also represent his own particular understandings of Torah and how to fulfil it. Jesus’ six halakhic instructions encourage the hearer to go beyond the relevant commandment in Torah in order to meet God’s demand of righteousness. In the first instruction, Jesus declares that in order to fulfil the injunction against murder (Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17), one should not possess anger (Matt. 5:21-26). To avoid the prohibition against adultery (Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:18), Jesus forbids adulterous thoughts (Matt. 5:27-30). While Torah provides for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4); Jesus sharply limits when it is permissible (Matt. 5:31-32). Torah provides guidelines for taking oaths (Lev. 19:12) but Jesus instructs that the disciples should avoid taking any oaths at all (Matt. 5:33-37). Torah presents the common 57 Dale Allison, The Sermon on the Mount: Inspiring the Moral Imagination (New York: Crossroads, 1999), 32. 58 Alison, New Moses, 183. 59 Saldarini, Matthew, 162; Alison, New Moses, 182; Betz, 204.

52

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

ancient teaching of an eye for an eye, the lex talionis (Ex. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut 19:21) but Jesus argues this rule should not apply to daily interactions (Matt 5:38-42). Finally, Torah explicitly commands love of neighbour (Lev. 19:18) but Jesus expands this to include the love of one’s enemy as well (Matt. 5:41-48).60 Jesus does not set aside the commandments of Torah or suggest that any commandments ought to be abrogated. Rather, he is placing himself within a broader halakhic tradition and teaching how to best fulfil the commandments. In general, his answer is to heighten the requirements concerning any particular commandment. Thus to not murder, one should not indulge in anger. To avoid breaking an oath (which is sworn to God), one should not even make oaths. Jesus even hearkens to some sort of known teaching tradition concerning the commandments in question. Each instruction begins with a variant of “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times” (Matt. 5:21).61 Here we hear a resonance with the concept of a chain of transmission in Avot 1:1. Jesus is providing a interpretation of Torah that differs from other current interpretations, yet it is also a participation in a teaching tradition that features a chain of transmission. His primary concern in these six halakhic instructions is how his disciples should engage in interpersonal relationships. The sixth and final instruction on love provides a key for understanding the rest of the instructions.62 Reviewing this sixth instruction in full will help us perceive more deeply how he presents an authoritative interpretation of Torah. You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt. 5:43-48)

Here Jesus cites what is known as the love commandment found in Leviticus 19:18: “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against 60 61 62

Alison, New Moses, 183-84. Betz, 215 Betz, 204-5.

CHAPTER ONE

53

any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.” The commandment as Jesus offers it has taken on a different sense from Leviticus. A tradition (“it has been said”) exists that teaches to love the neighbor and hate the enemy. It is hard to account for how the commandment had changed. There is no specific school that one can identify having added the command to hate one’s enemies. But this was a received understanding of Leviticus 19:18 in Jesus’ era that he seeks to counter in his own teaching. This is not to say that Judaism in this era did not have guidance on treating enemies well. Torah taught one should aid one’s enemy if they or their livestock is in trouble. But the specific command to love one’s enemy is only added by Jesus.63 And it is added by Jesus as part of his engagement with a halakhic teaching tradition. Jesus has made a fence for Torah by expanding on the love commandment in Leviticus. This expanded definition of who should be the object of the disciples’ love enables one to understand the prior five halakhic instructions as other examples of how to live in relationship with this expanded command to love. The motivation for focusing on this love commandment as the controlling interpretive mode for fulfilling Torah is found at the end of this final instruction: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). This call to perfection echoes that of Leviticus 19:2, “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.” To perfectly fulfill the commandments of God via the principle of love also rooted in Leviticus ensures that Jesus’ Jewish disciples will attain the holiness to which God has called all of Israel.64 As one who proclaims the imminent kingdom of heaven, the eschatological age in which Israel will be judged by God, Jesus possesses a particular concern to show that following his interpretation of Torah, including his expanded definition of how to follow certain commandments, is the only guarantee for appearing righteous before God.65 This observation of Torah motivated by a sense of the impending eschatological transformation of Israel originates from prophetic literature, such as Jeremiah 31:31-34. Matthew “represents Jesus as the new lawgiver, the eschatological revealer and interpreter of Torah, the Messiah who brought the definitive, end-time revelation.” 66 Matthew’s understanding of Jesus as the Messiah and agent who will usher in the eschatological age accounts for the difference between the 63 64 65 66

Ibid., 301-2; 309-10. Cf. Ex. 23:4-5; Prov. 25:21-22. Luz, 289. Betz, 210-11; 321. Alison, New Moses, 190.

54

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

view of Torah in rabbinic literature like Avot and the one found in the Sermon on the Mount. Avot seeks to establish that the rabbis around Yehudah the Patriarch possess the definitive interpretation of Torah. They anticipate an on-going life for Israel that does not include an explicit orientation to an impending eschatological era. Although rabbinic Judaism had much to say about the world to come, the eschatological urgency of Jesus is muted. This of course is rooted in Jesus’ status as the Messiah in Christian tradition and the understanding that as Messiah he inaugurates the eschatological age. These contrasting orientations lend different concerns for how Torah is important and what principles ought to be followed in interpreting it. For the rabbinic movement, the concern is to make the observance of Torah an allencompassing part of daily life that will sanctify Israel and thus create conditions for the Messiah’s coming. For Jesus, the observance of Torah exists to prepare his followers to be as righteous as possible before the imminent judgment of God. Jesus’ interpretation of Torah calls his disciples to a supererogatory observation of Torah, much as the rabbinic fence around Torah and the development of the Oral Torah did. Yet Christianity lost this strand of Jesus’ teaching as it became an overwhelmingly Gentile movement by the end of the second century C.E.  The eschatological judgment for which Jesus sought to prepare his disciples was deferred. And with the deferral of the eschaton, the application of the Pauline teaching that Gentiles did not need to keep the requirements of Torah contributed to the supersessionist denigration of many aspects of Torah. Similarly, the image of Jesus as the Messiah and eschatological agent developed into an understanding of Jesus as the incarnate Son of God, the Second Person of the divine Trinity. In the formulations of the definitions of the nature of Jesus Christ and his relationship to the other Persons of the Trinity in documents like the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian Definition, Jesus was effectively de-Judaized. He was fully human and fully divine, but the full Jewishness of his humanity was obscured. Moving away from a depiction of Jesus as one who overturns the Law to seeing him as a keeper of the Torah would require Christians to understand the Torah as the ground and inspiration of Jesus' own life and ministry. In turn, harmonizing an understanding of Jesus of Nazareth as an observant Jew with a Chalcedonian definition of Jesus Christ as one person with a fully human nature and a fully divine nature is challenging. That is, if Jesus of Nazareth is entirely unique in his identity as the Christ, the Son of God, and the Second Person of the Trinity, how

CHAPTER ONE

55

is he also a Torah-observant teacher?67 If we do accept that in his full humanity Jesus of Nazareth was a teacher of Torah who instructed his disciples to aspire to the highest form of Torah observance, this must be reconciled with an entire body of Christian teaching, rooted in a reading of Paul’s letters, that has repeatedly emphasized that only the moral commands of Torah are binding on Gentile Christians. Observing these conflicting teachings about the nature of Torah in early Christian thought illustrates that a great deal of diversity regarding the relationship between Jesus and Torah existed. Reading texts like the Sermon of the Mount in light of Avot 1:1 enables the reader to hear the multiple voices in the Christian tradition on this topic, voices that often have been drowned out by a dominant strain of supersessionist interpretation. This early multiplicity also resonates with the multiple rabbinic interpretations one finds about Torah and their own claims to authoritative claims of Torah interpretation against competing ones, possibly including early Christian ones. To argue that rabbinic Judaism and Christianity divided over whether Torah or Jesus was more important need not be the only approach to take. At least from a Christian perspective, it could be possible to argue from sources like the Sermon on the Mount that the entirety of Torah ought to be just as vital for the disciples of Jesus as for the students of the rabbis. The question then becomes for Gentile Christians, if they seek to serve Jesus Christ, who is both the teacher of Torah and the fully incarnate Son of God, how they should fulfil Torah. Avot 1:2 Shimon the Righteous was of the remnants of the Great Assembly. He used to say: “On three things the world stands: on the Torah, on the Temple service, and on performing deeds of loving-kindness.” While several figures named Shimon are known in the Second Temple period, it is likely this saying is from the high priest Shimon II who lived at the end of the third century B.C.E. during the period when Jews confronted the crisis of Hellenism. After the region had been conquered by Alexander the Great and ruled by the successor dynasty of the 67 On this issue, see Clark M. Williamson, A Guest in the House of Israel (Louisville: Westminster / John Knox Press, 1993), 167-201; Paul Van Buren, A Theology of the Jewish-Christian Reality, 3 vol. (New York: Harper & Row, 1980-88), 2.230-66, 3.23383; and John Pawlikowski, Christ in the Light of the Christian-Jewish Dialogue (New York: Paulist Press, 1982).

56

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Seleucids, Jewish leaders grappled with the question of to what degree Jews ought to adapt to Hellenistic thought and practice. We can see this struggle play out in texts from this era such as 2 Maccabees and 3 Maccabees (where Shimon is named specifically). Shimon was believed to have been one of the last members of the Great Assembly, hence the reference to him as a remnant of it.68 Jewish Interpretations Shimon’s saying expands upon the saying of the men of the Great Assembly. If their words lay out a vision for the primary activities of Torah teachers, then Shimon’s express the three fundamental aspects of Jewish life as understood from his position. Judah Goldin has described the Torah, the Temple service, and deeds of loving-kindness as “fundamental to the architecture of classical Judaism.”69 Given that Israel was chosen to be a nation that would represent God to all the other nations of the world, these three pillars are the foundation for Judaism. If the world is to know anything of God, it is to be via the avenues of Torah, Temple service, and deeds of loving-kindness. Shimon’s image of these three pillars supporting the world borrows from the book of Proverbs, where it says, “Wisdom has built her house, she has hewn her seven pillars” (Prov. 9:1). The heightened attention to these three pillars is an expression of the pursuit of wisdom that Avot teaches. There is both a temporal and a cosmic sense to the use of the word “world.” One option is to translate the Hebrew word ’olam as “age.” According to this sense, as Judaism faced the challenge of Hellenism and its ability to subsume Jewish practice into assimilation within other norms and practice, Shimon reasserted the core elements of Jewish identity. Thus, for his age, everything depended upon Torah, Temple service, and acts of loving-kindness.70 There is also a cosmic sense to the notion that the world (’olam) depends on these three pillars. The Hebrew Scriptures understood the cosmos to rest on the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai and found in the Torah. “Only if I had not established my covenant with day and night and the ordinances of heaven and earth, would I reject the offspring of Jacob and of my servant David and 68 Taylor, 12; Judah Goldin, “The Three Pillars of Simeon the Righteous,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 27 (1958): 54. A story, likely apocryphal, tells of Shimon meeting Alexander the Great wearing his full priestly regalia after Alexander’s conquest of Jerusalem. See BT Yoma 39b. 69 Goldin, “Three Pillars,” 43. 70 Ibid., 54.

CHAPTER ONE

57

not choose any of his descendants as rulers over the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Jer. 33:25-26). God will never abrogate his covenant with Israel because the existence of the very order of the cosmos depends upon it. Reality as humanity knows it relies on Torah, Temple service, and acts of loving kindness.71 From a cosmic perspective, Torah is essential. There is a view that Torah itself only continues to exist in the world because Israel received it and continues to study it. In the medieval period, the Machzor Vitry (an 11th century compendium of halakhic and liturgical material by Rabbi Simcha ben Samuel of Vitry in France) commented on Shimon’s saying by arguing that if Israel has not accepted the Torah at Sinai, then the entire world would have reverted to being formless and void as it was prior to God’s creation of the world (Gen. 1:2). God’s creative activity is manifested and in some way depends upon the upholding of Torah by Israel. The Torah is upheld by obedience to it by God’s creation. It is the task of Israel to show the nations how to do this. Thus Torah and Israel are bonded together as exemplars of God’s will for creation. The Temple service refers to the sacrifices performed by priests in Jerusalem. These actions by the priests were on behalf of Israel as a response to the ritual and ceremonial commandments found in Torah. These sacrifices were central for expressing the ongoing covenantal relationship between God and Israel. The proper fulfillment of the Temple service guaranteed the continued flourishing of the land of Israel so it would yield good harvests and plentiful crops (Deut. 11:13-15).72 The attention to the Temple service as a pillar for the foundation of the world further specifies the important role that fulfilling the commandments found in Torah holds for Israel. Without Torah, creation would be undone. Without properly fulfilling commandments regarding sacrifice in Torah, Israel would not flourish. According to Goldin, the original sense of the phrase “performing deeds of loving-kindness” is not charity but an act of piety. The phrase conjures a sense of an action done out of loyalty, obedience or devotion. Understood in the context of the Hellenizing crisis of Shimon’s era, we can read this last phrase of this triadic saying as the logical progression of Shimon’s main point. If Israel is to be loyal to God, this is expressed in terms of assenting to Torah at Sinai, offering sacrifices in the Temple as a means of maintaining covenant, and performing any other acts that 71 72

Kehati, 10. Herford, 22; Kehati, 10-11.

58

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

express loyalty, obedience, and devotion to God. These actions could be associated with the Temple cult or be any other action related to the fulfillment of any particular commandments in Torah.73 Shimon the Righteous, high priest of the Temple in Jerusalem, lays out his vision of a way of life for Jews firmly rooted in Torah, ceremonies in the Temple, and a life patterned after actions expressing an abiding covenantal relationship with God. Shimon could not envision that in 70 C.E. the Roman empire would destroy the Temple and that after several failed revolts against Rome, Jews would be decisively banished from even living in Jerusalem in 135 C.E. The Temple was never rebuilt. This crisis was worse than the Hellenizing crisis to which Shimon sought to respond. It was in part because of the absence of the Temple services that the rabbinic movement developed its alternative vision of Jewish life while continuing to affirm Shimon’s three pillars. Chapter four of ARN A, commenting on Shimon’s saying, offers a re-interpretation of how to understand these three pillars in light of the destruction of the Temple. This happens in four moves. First, commenting on the Torah as a pillar, ARN begins by citing Hosea 6:6, “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt-offerings.” In the wake of the destruction of the Temple, the rabbis introduce the idea that Torah and knowledge of it is the central pillar. Knowing Torah is the primary responsibility of all Israel. The second move is to argue that in the absence of the Temple, certain actions, including learning Torah act as substitutes to performing the Temple sacrifices. ““Hence when a sage sits and expounds to the congregation, Scripture accounts it to him as though he had offered up fat and blood on the altar.”74 Here the sage (or rabbi) has replaced the priest as the figure who ensures the abiding covenantal relationship between God and Israel, not by offering sacrifices but by teaching about the commandments found in Torah, including those on sacrifices and other ritual actions. The third move is to similarly use Hosea 6:6 to argue that deeds of loving-kindness also replace the Temple sacrifices. Speaking to his student Rabbi Joshua who is weeping over the ruins of the Temple, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, the leader in the era of the destruction of the Temple, teaches “My son… be not grieved; we have another atonement as effective as this. And what is it? It is acts of loving-kindness, as it is said, For I desire mercy and not sacrifice

73 74

Goldin, “Three Pillars,” 44-47. ARN A 4, 32.

CHAPTER ONE

59

(Hos. 6:6).”75 The final shift is found in the story of Yochanan ben Zakkai and his encounter with the emperor Vespasian as he lays siege to Jerusalem. Seeing that destruction is imminent, Yochanan ben Zakkai receives permission from the emperor personally to go up the coast to Jamnia and there to teach his disciples, establish a house of study, and “perform all the commandments.”76 In these three actions, Yochanan envisions a new way of holding to Shimon’s three pillars. Yochanan ben Zakkai will teach Torah, encourage his students to study the laws of sacrifice in place of doing them, and continue to perform deeds of loving-kindness by pursuing fulfillment of the commandments.77 In the wake of the destruction of the Temple, the three pillars became Torah, the study of the laws of the Temple cult as a means of fulfilling them, and the continued performance of the other commandments in Torah. The flexibility in this development gives lie to the notion of Christian supersessionist theology that Judaism is a legalistic religion only focused on rigidly performing what is commanded. Rather, it proves to be pragmatic and adaptive. To replace the burnt offerings of the Temple with the study of the commandments on sacrifice reflects a flexible approach that focuses on the intention to fulfill commandments rather than a rigid insistence on performance alone.78 This gets to the heart of God’s decree in Hosea that the disposition of the worshipper matters more than the simple offering of sacrifices. An insistence on the importance of intention and disposition is expressed in the evolution of the notion of what performing deeds of loving-kindness means. The rabbis taught in the Mishnah and Talmud that deeds of loving-kindness did not extend simply to the literal fulfillment of commandments. Rather, it included an ethic of concern for the welfare of one’s neighbor. This disposition merited reward in the world to come. Indeed, loving-kindness extended to a neighbor was more worthy than Torah study itself. For the rabbis, this is evidenced by the fact that Torah begins in Genesis with God clothing Adam and Eve and ends in Deuteronomy with God burying Moses. God’s deeds of loving-kindness form an enclosure around Torah and signal to people that they should imitate God in this regard. Deeds of loving-kindness are not limited simply to acts of charity to the poor. Rather, it is a willingness 75 76 77 78

Ibid., 34. Ibid., 36. Goldin, “Three Pillars,” 51. Saldarini, Scholastic Rabbinism, 46.

60

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

to aid any and all, whether rich or poor, that is a form of offering of one’s self.79 These three pillars took on cosmic significance that extended beyond Israel’s covenanted community. The entire world, not just the realm of Jewish life, is of concern. A similar view is found in the words of Rabbi Simon Duran. “This round world is suspended in space and has nothing to rest on except the breath of Torah study from the mouths of students – just as a man may keep something up in the air by the blowing of his breath.”80 In rabbinic thought, Shimon’s three pillars calls Jews to both attend to their covenantal relationship with God to not only honor God but to ensure the well-being of all people. Christian Resonances Turning again to the Gospel of Matthew, we encounter a strong resonance of the words of Jesus with the teachings of Shimon the Righteous and their interpretation by Yochanan ben Zakkai. The Gospel of Matthew makes a similar use of Hosea 6:6 to clarify the role of cultic and ritual observance in Jewish life. Twice, Pharisees confront Jesus about eating with people deemed impure (Matt. 9:10-13) or picking grain (i.e., work) by his disciples to relieve their hunger on the Sabbath (Matt. 12: 1-8). In both cases, Jesus responds to this criticism by citing Hosea 6:6, “I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice.” From a supersessionist perspective, these two passages have traditionally been read to argue that Jesus deliberately sought to invalidate Torah commandments dealing with ritual and ceremonial laws. However, reading Matthew alongside Avot and its commentaries show us that this text need not be read in this way. Rather, seeing that Yochanan ben Zakkai also used Hosea 6:6 to re-orient what fidelity to Torah meant after the destruction of the Temple, we can place the teachings of Jesus in a similar light. According to Matthew, Jesus, like Yochanan ben Zakkai, does not seek to overthrow Torah but to illustrate to his disciples the ideal way of applying it.81 Both Jesus and Yochanan ben Zakkai offer a hermeneutic by which the principle of concern for neighbor serves as a hinge for interpreting the commandments of Torah. Yochanan ben Zakkai does this by emphasizing that performing deeds of loving-kindness is an effective form of 79

Taylor, 13; Herford, 22; M. Peah 1:1; PT Peah 1:1; BT Sukkah 49b; BT Sotah 14a. The Living Talmud: The Wisdom of the Fathers, trans. Judah Goldin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955), 48. 81 Saldarini, Matthew, 128-31. 80

CHAPTER ONE

61

atonement in the absence of the priestly sacrifices in the Temple. In a manner of speaking, all Jews can become priests by performing deeds of loving-kindness. In Matthew 22:34-40 (with parallels in Mark 12:28-34 and Luke 10:25-28), Jesus is faced with the question of what the core of Torah observance requires. Jesus responds with two injunctions from Torah: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Deut. 6:5) and “Love your neighbor as yourself ” (Lev. 19:18). On these two commandments, Jesus declares, all of the Law and prophets (Scripture itself ) depends.82 Jesus does not teach that the command to love undoes the requirement to do all that is required in Torah. Rather, the orientation towards love of God and neighbor serves as the basis for doing all else found in Torah. One of the most enduring aspects of Christian understandings of Jesus is that he proclaimed a gospel of love for all. Focusing on the centrality of this command to love God and neighbor, and indeed even one’s enemies, has been take to be the sine qua non of the gospel message. Christian thinkers have heightened the particularity and significance of Jesus’ teachings on love by contrasting it with the Judaism of the first century. Jews, especially the Pharisees, have been portrayed as legalistic, lacking concern for the interior matters of spirituality, preferring instead the rigors of outward observance. But by examining Shimon’s saying on the three pillars and the interpretation of it by Yochanan and others, it is not possible to maintain this dualism between Jesus and other Jewish teachers. It is fair to say that many other Jews were equally concerned with matters of the heart and spirit and that they also perceived the spiritual dimensions of fulfilling the Torah that Jesus also proclaimed. From the perspective of comparative theology, this analysis raises the issue of how to maintain the particular claims of a religious tradition while acknowledging the universality of teachings found within it. If the teachings of Jesus on love and the necessity of mercy as foundational for all other aspects of following God can also be found in Jewish sources that are roughly contemporaneous with the composition of the gospels, then where does the uniqueness of Jesus lie? Christians have been able to see the teachings of Jesus as essentially unique because for centuries they have been unaware of or unwilling to account for the Jewish matrix out of which they emerged. Moreover, the priority of Torah observance in the teachings of Jesus have been obscured by the adoption of a Gentile 82 Eugene E. Lemcio, “Pirke ‘Abot 1:2(3) and the Synoptic Redactions of the Commands to Love God and Neighbour,” Asbury Theological Journal 43.1 (1988): 43-53.

62

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Christian perspective that holds that observance of the majority of the Torah is not incumbent upon them. Reading Avot compels a Christian comparative theologian to ponder what it would mean to “re-Judaize” Jesus. In particular, if the goal of Jesus, according to Matthew, was to have his disciples follow him as teacher and Messiah, that discipleship included a fidelity to Torah. Fidelity to Torah did not mean a dry legalism either for Jesus or for other rabbis. It meant entering into a dynamic covenantal relationship with God that included concern for one’s fellow members of the covenant, but also for the whole world. What one did, either as a disciple of Jesus or a student of Yochanan ben Zakkai, inevitably led one to realize that keeping Torah, engaging in worship, or performing deeds of kindness, mattered for the welfare of the world. If contemporary Christians were to capture a sense of the teachings of Jesus rooted in fidelity to Torah, this would require a rethinking of their relationship to the 613 commandments as found in Torah and the requirements incumbent on them. This is a topic that will be developed later in the commentary. Avot 1:3 Antigonus of Sokho received it from Shimon the Righteous. He used to say: “Do not be like the slaves who serve the master for the sake of receiving a reward, but rather be like the slaves who serve the master not for the sake of receiving a reward, and let the fear of Heaven be upon you.” Little is known about Antigonus of Sokho (a town in the region of Judea). He lived in the generation after Shimon, having been taught by him. As his name indicates, Antigonus lived in a time during which Hellenism had made significant inroads among the Jewish population in the land of Israel. It is likely that he lived during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Seleucid ruler who, according to 2 Maccabees, introduced a concerted effort to thoroughly eliminate Jewish life and worship by an aggressive Hellenization campaign.83 This saying attributed to Antigonus shifts the reader away from a deliberate focus on Torah as the center of Jewish life towards the question of how one should regard God. Israel had been selected out 83 Taylor, Appendix, 134; Herford, 23; Elias J. Bickerman, “The Maxim of Antigonus of Socho,” Harvard Theological Review 44.4 (1951): 163-64.

CHAPTER ONE

63

from  among the nations of the world to share in a special covenantal relationship with God. This saying raises the question of the disposition a Jew should have in relation with God. Antigonus taught that one should not serve God out of self-interest, but out of a positive relationship with God. However, the commentaries of later Jewish thinkers return the attention of the reader back to the centrality of Torah, both written and oral, for every aspect of life. Jewish Interpretations Antigonos speaks of the proper way of relating with God by using the analogy of the relationship between a slave and a master familiar to those living in the Greco-Roman culture of the ancient Mediterranean world. The key to understanding this saying is to grasp the meaning of the word peras, rendered in this translation as “reward.” This word refers not so much to the notion of a monetary reward or wage. Rather, the term derives from the rations of food meted out to slaves in a household. However, it was possible to be a slave who was required to serve a master to work in one’s spare time for food rations. Slaves sometimes had to provide for their food from sources other than their master, but they were still expected to serve their master faithfully and obediently.84 Through the contrast of these types of slaves, Antigonus emphasizes the importance of absolute obedience to God. God is not required to provide anything to the believer, regardless of the obedience or good deeds of that person. We can read this teaching as an emphasis on resignation to divine will. Antigonus trains the focus of the student of Torah upon the need to follow and obey Torah not for the reward that might be received but for the virtue of performing Torah in its own right. God may act and respond to those who fulfill Torah, but this should not be the reason for obeying Torah, and thus God, in the first place.85 Implicit in serving God out of fidelity and loyalty is the notion that all service rendered to God is rooted in the covenant Israel made with God at Sinai. Being bound in a covenant, every member of Israel is expected to live a life of obedience to God as a basic aspect of daily affairs. As Rabbeinu Yonah teaches, “one should serve God not for the reward, but because of the manifold kindness He has already bestowed upon him, and because His greatness makes Him worthy of our

84 85

Bickerman, “Antigonus of Socho,” 154-57. Schoffer, Making of a Sage, 219.

64

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

service.”86 The kindness that God bestows is rooted in the Sinai covenant and God’s promise to eternally care for Israel. The interpretation offered by Rabbeinu Yonah signals a softening of this stark saying. While in its original phrasing Antigonus suggests that in a manner Jews are on their own and cannot expect tangible support from God, commentators on this saying seek to affirm God’s continued care for Israel while also emphasizing the absolute majesty and power of God to transcend mundane concerns. In both editions of ARN, appended to the end of the final clause of this saying (“and let the fear of Heaven be upon you”) is a phrase that reads either as “so that your reward may be doubled in the age to come” or “and you will receive a reward both in this world and in the world to come, as if you had done (it yourself ).”87 The early addition of this phrase in the ARN to Antigonus’ saying suggests a strong current of dis-ease with the saying. In part this is because Torah itself clearly teaches a system of reward if Israel maintains its fidelity to the covenant (Deut. 7:12-13). Thus the focus in commentaries on this saying shifts to how one should regard these promised rewards. Obedience to God is required regardless of reward, but the reader is encouraged that rewards will come from God, either in this world or most certainly in the future world to come. The desire for reward can certainly be an impediment in living a righteous life. For this reason students of Torah are warned against pursuing rewards in this life for their work. The medieval French rabbi Menachem Meiri taught in light of this saying: neither let your service be motivated by ambition for glory or profit. Such service is not service for its own sake. It is against such conduct that the Sages warned: Do not make the words of Torah a crown for self-glorification. One must study for the sake of wisdom and Torah. And so too we are urged in the service of the Creator, that when we carry out His commandments we do so for the sake of the commandment, solely out of love of the commandments – as is the case when a person loves someone and strives always to please his beloved. The reward will indeed come of itself.88

If Antigonus teaches one is not to study or perform Torah for rewards, why then does Torah itself promise rewards? Two strands of interpretation prevail. The first is that, following on the addition in ARN, that one 86

Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 1:3, 32-33. ARN A 5, 39; ARN B 10, 85. 88 Menachem Meiri on Avot 1:3, Mishnat Reuven, 126-27, quoted in Goldin, Living Talmud, 48-49. 87

CHAPTER ONE

65

ought not to expect rewards in this world. Scripture shows that God frequently tests people in this world and withholds reward. If one engages in doing the commandments of Torah without thought for reward, then one will not be discouraged or, even worse, give up on doing Torah when one encounters hardships or does not reap material benefits. The second strand of interpretation cautions that Avot sets forth an ideal in this saying. It is acceptable to serve for the purpose of receiving a reward; this is what the righteous (tzadik) do. But if one desires to truly become a pious person (chasid) then one will serve God by following the higher way of not expecting a reward at all.89 The final portion of this saying concerns the need to constantly have an awareness of God in all actions. The word “Heaven” was a circumlocution in ancient Judaism to avoid saying the name of God. In this context, “fear” expresses a sense of awe or reverence for God. This awe can be nurtured by observing the created order and all God has made in it. Such contemplation puts one in awe of God’s power and might while also making one aware of God’s ultimate provision and care for all. At the same time, a sense of God’s power to judge and punish, as well as to reward and bless, exists as a secondary sense of the word.90 Commentators on this phrase draw out the distinction between serving God out of fear and out of love. Commenting on this phrase, Maimonides cites from the Talmud the instruction to “Serve him with love and serve him with fear.” He explains that if one loves God then one will not neglect performing commandments. And if one fears God, then one will not forget to do what God commands, especially the negative commandments which often require an attitude of obedience. Love helps one fulfill the positive commandments while fear motivates one to observe the negative commandments.91 The attitude one has towards God, whether fear or love, determines what kind of subject one is in relation to God. Rabbi Obadiah Sforno offers two ways of looking at this issue. First, he argues that serving God out of fear or love creates two classes of people. One who serves God out of fear is indeed a slave because one acts out of a desire to avoid punishment. One who serves God out of love is a son as evidenced by Deuteronomy 14:1 – “You are sons of the Lord your God.” This scriptural statement occurs in the context of instructions about the commandments 89 90 91

Abarvanel on Avot 1:1 in Goldin, 49. Schoffer, 219-20. Maimonides on Avot 1:3, 64-65; cf. PT Berachot 9:7.

66

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

of Torah. To serve God out of love is preferable as it better reflects the familial relationship at the heart of the covenant found in Torah between God and Israel. Alternately, Sforno compares the two types of fear a servant might have. The first is the fear of losing a reward or payment. This sort of servant strives for self-gain. The second type of fear is a type of subservience that expresses the servant’s awe of the master’s superiority. It is a fundamental awareness of the proper relationship between God and the children of Israel. Sforno declares, “Recognize the extent of the Holy King’s greatness! In this manner, you shall experience the awe of heaven that he commanded to you in the holy Torah (Deut. 10:12).” He explains that this is the type of fear exemplified in Abraham, the father of Israel, when in obedience to God’s command to sacrifice Isaac, he shows himself to be one who fears God (Gen. 22:12).92 Whether acting out of the proper form of fear or love of God, the effect is the same. This interior disposition in the fulfillment of external commandments signals the place of a student of Torah within the covenanted family of Israel. Christian Resonances The theme of humility in approaching God and the necessity of maintaining a proper perspective on human-divine relations appears also in New Testament passages. The Gospel of Luke portrays Jesus using the familiar slave-master language that Antigonus employed.   Who among you would say to your slave who has just come in from ploughing or tending sheep in the field, “Come here at once and take your place at the table”? Would you not rather say to him, “Prepare supper for me, put on your apron and serve me while I eat and drink; later you may eat and drink”? Do you thank the slave for doing what was commanded? So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, “We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!” (Luke 17:7-10)

Jesus and Antigonus both emphasize that service is owed to God alone for the sake of serving God without any expectation of reward. We can see then that Jesus is the heir of a tradition that pre-existed him. In fact, the motif of service to God without expecting reward can also be found in Epicetus, a Stoic philosopher.93

92

Sforno on Avot 1:3, 6-7. Bickerman, 163-64; cf. Lawrence M.  Wills, “Scribal Methods in Matthew and Mishnah Abot,” 252. 93

CHAPTER ONE

67

Some Christian commentators on this passage see in it a deliberate rebuke of the teaching of reward for fulfilling commandments held by Pharisees. But given that rabbis were willing to enshrine Antigonus’ very similar teaching in Avot, we need not read the teaching found in Luke in this light. A more compelling interpretation, and one that resonates with the rabbinic take on Antigonus, is that these words of Jesus are designed to represent the proper attitude that apostles are to assume. Luke was composed after the circulation of other Christian writings like Paul’s that emphasized the servanthood dimensions of apostolic leadership (cf. I Cor. 7:22). Images such as plowing, tending sheep, and serving others were common when discussing apostolic leadership (I Cor. 9:7, 10; Rom. 15:25). This passage from Luke might have functioned as instructions to communal leaders. Thus, any sort of leadership or labor done on behalf of God or for others should not bring with it an expectation of reward. God will dispense any reward in God’s time.94 The author of the Gospel of Luke made a similar move with Jesus’ saying as the rabbinic commentators did with the one by Antigonus – they oriented the saying to the wider issue that all, but especially communal leaders, must engage in service for a wider purpose than one’s own gratification. The notion of the fear of God was also strong in early Christian monastic literature. Monks, known as abbas (fathers), gave several instructions on the fear of God. Abba Anthony the Great advised, “Always have the fear of God before your eyes. Remember him who gives death and life. Hate the world and all that is in it… Renounce this life that you may be alive to God. Remember what you have promised God, for it will be required of you on the day of judgment.”95 Anthony illustrates the rabbinic advice that the fear of God is necessary for spiritual advancement but he strikes a more ascetic tone. For the rabbis, this fear of God must be maintained while living in the word while Anthony advises that its pursuit can only happen when one has renounced the world. Abba James taught that the possessing the fear of God is necessary for the acquisition of virtues. “Just as a lamp lights up a dark room, so the fear of God, when it penetrates the heart of a man illumines him, teaching him all the virtues and commandments of God.”96 The fear of God orients one to the

94 Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV. The Anchor Yale Bible, Vol. 32A (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), 1145-46. 95 The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection, trans. Benedicta Ward (Oxford: Mowbray, 1975), Anthony the Great, 33 96 Sayings of the Desert Fathers, James, 3.

68

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

primacy of God above all else, developing in one the requisite obedience to do the commandments of God. Gaining the fear of God is not about cowering in anticipation of God’s wrathful judgment. Abba Poemen illustrates how a monk acquires the fear of God. “The nature of water is soft, that of stone is hard; but if a bottle is hung above the stone, allowing the water to fall drop by drop, it wears away the stone. So it is with the word of God; it is soft and our heart is hard, but the man who hears the word of God often, opens his heart to the fear of God.”97 The teachings of Abba James and Poemen resonate with the teaching on performing commandments out of fear and love proposed by Maimonides. As with Maimonides, Abba James links the fear of God to obedience to all God has revealed and commanded. This sets one on the path of spiritual growth. Abba Poemen illustrates that a repeated attentiveness to the Scriptures exposes one to the true meaning of the fear of God as a softening of one’s heart and a turning to God alone. Examining the attitudes towards the expectation of reward and the fear of God, one finds a resonance between the Jewish and Christian approaches. Both maintain an orientation to God as the one who deserves absolute obedience and service. While there exists a strong teaching that reward should not be an explicit expectation in service to God, we find an emergence of a common thread that absolute service to God yields a richness in this life that exists on a communal rather than individual plane. All are enriched when teachers and disciples alike orient themselves toward the service of God alone. In a different setting, Jesus taught that “those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it” (Matt. 16:25). Approaching God with no expectation of reward brings one to a deeper life, spiritually and communally, in this world. This position prepares us for re-examing Christian assumptions about Jewish legalism as it relates to soteriology in later parts of this commentary. Avot 1:4 Yose ben Yoezer of Zeredah and Yose ben Yochanan of Jerusalem received it from them. Yose ben Yoezer said: “Let your house be a meeting place for the Sages, and be covered in the dust of their feet, and drink their words with thirst.”

97

Sayings of the Desert Fathers, Poemen, 183.

CHAPTER ONE

69

Avot 1:5 Yose ben Yochanan of Jerusalem said, “Let your house be opened wide, and let the poor be members of your household and do not talk much with a woman.” They said this concerning a man’s own wife, how much more so the wife of his neighbor. Hence the Sages said, “Each time one talks too much with a woman he brings evil upon himself and neglects the words of Torah, and in the end he will inherit Gehinnom.” From Avot 1:4 to 1:13 the reader encounters a series of sayings attributed to five pairs (in Hebrew, zugot) of tannaitic teachers. They begin with Yose ben Yoezer of Zeredah and Yose ben Yochanan of Jerusalem and conclude with Hillel and Shammai. In other sections of the Mishnah, these pairs hold differing opinions on matters like interpreting laws of sacrifice. Thus, in Avot these paired sayings should be read as presenting differing approaches to a shared theme. Traditionally it has been understood that the first person in each pair was the nasi or head of the Sanhedrin, the governing religious body of the Jewish community, and the second person was the av bet din, or head of the court, who served as the second-in-charge of the Sanhedrin. While it is difficult to ascertain precise dates, this first pair was active sometime in the late to middle period of the second century B.C.E.98 Jewish Interpretations This saying portrays a shift in the transmission of the Torah. By emphasis on teaching and reception of Torah through a pair of sages, we begin to encounter the possibility for plural interpretations, a hallmark of Jewish thought. The phrase “received it from them” can refer either to teachings that both Yoses received from Shimon and Antigonus or it can refer to other anonymous teachers between Shimon and Antigonus and them. One also detects a shift in focus in the teaching between the first three sayings of Avot and those by the zugot. While the first three sayings lay out general principles for Jewish life, with Avot 1:4 there is a shift in focus to virtues and practices a student of Torah ought to cultivate.99 The tripartite saying by Yose ben Yoezer moves in stages to illustrate how a disciple should strive to learn from teachers of Torah. The first point is that one should make one’s house a place where the teaching of 98

Taylor 14; Herford, 25. Herford, 25; Judah Goldin, “The First Pair (Yose ben Yoezer and Yose Ben Yohanan) or the Home of a Pharisee,” AJS Review 5 (1980): 43-44. 99

70

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

wisdom is cultivated by learning from sages. In other words, the domestic sphere is made into a school, “Ordinary life becomes academicized.”100 This saying reflects the educational landscape of this era where learning was not conducted in a separate building but usually in the room of a private home. The force of this saying is that a true student of Torah will strive to make his home the place where scholars and their disciples will desire to gather.101 To have teachers and disciples of Torah gather in one’s house yields merit to that household. A good host does not merely welcome guests or accrue merit from the presence of sages. One must also seek to learn from them, according to ARN. And, one should also seek to teach also, if at all possible. Here one sees the sensibility that all knowledge is a blessing and the full exchange of learning benefits all gathered.102 Having welcomed a sage to one’s house, one should adopt the customary position of sitting at his feet. That one should even be covered in the dust of the feet of sages indicates a posture that reflects an interior disposition of humility that should be in evidence whenever one is learning from one more knowledgeable than oneself. To sit at the feet of a Torah teacher means having a close relationship with him. Sitting at the feet of a sage has a transformative effect and should be pursued at all costs. ARN A narrates the story of Akiva, who did not come to the study of Torah until the age of forty. Yet when exposed to it, he pursued learning until he became the greatest of sages of his era. All obstacles, even decades of ignorance, ought to be overcome in the pursuit of learning Torah from sages.103 Speaking to teachers, ARN A instructs, “And every single word which comes forth from your mouth let him take in with awe, fear, dread, and trembling – the way our fathers received (the Torah) from Mount Sinai.” Moses also received the Torah at Sinai with awe, fear, dread, and trembling. As Schofer illustrates, this shows that students are to conceive of their education as part of a chain of teaching that began with God and Moses and has been successively handed on ever since.104 The study room in one’s house can be transformed through the process of studying 100

Viviano, 9. Taylor, 14; Goldin, “First Pair,” 46-47; Hezser, The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement, 202-6. 102 On merit, see ARN B 11, 89. For reciprocity of teaching and learning, see ARN A 6, 40. 103 ARN A 6, 40-42; Saldarini, Scholastic Rabbinism, 48. 104 ARN A 6, 40; ARN A 1, 3; Schofer, Making of Sage, 32. 101

CHAPTER ONE

71

Torah into an instantiation of Sinai. The household becomes an academy, the academy becomes the site where Sinai is repeated, again and again. And the Torah teacher standing in the line of the transmission beginning with Moses stands in the center of this process. Just as Joshua succeeded Moses, even the student who begins late in life like Akiva can be trained to succeed his teacher. This final part of Yose ben Yoezer’s saying echoes the exhortation from Isaiah 55:1, “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters.” Combined with sitting in the dust of a teacher’s feet, we have a taste here of the arid environs of the land of Israel. According to Maimonides, Torah slakes one’s thirst, but one should never be content with Torah, but ought to always approach it again and again. To be sated by Torah is to have stopped learning.105 To drink the waters of Torah is to go undergo spiritual transformation. Again, Akiva is paradigmatic for the ideal student of Torah. In ARN A, a story is offered of Akiva, when at age 40 he comes upon a well and wonders who hollowed out the stone to get to the water. He was told: ‘It is the water which falls upon it every day, continually.’ It was said to him: “Akiva, hast thou not heard, ‘The waters wear away the stones?’” (Job 14.19). Thereupon, Rabbi Akiva drew the inference with regard to himself: If what is soft wears down the hard, all the more shall the words of the Torah, which are as hard as iron, hollow out my heart, which is flesh and blood! Forthwith he turned to the study of Torah.106

The study of Torah is like water that transforms the stone of the heart and can turn a forty-year old ignoramus into a master teacher. The learning of Torah involves not only the attainments of academic skills but also the inner transformation of the person. Another teaching from ARN B combines the image of the Torah engraved on the heart from Jeremiah 31:33 with the image of the waters of Torah. “This means that whenever the words of Torah enter and find the chambers of the heart empty, they enter and dwell within and the evil impulse does not have authority over them and no one can expel them from inside himself.”107 In rabbinic thought, all humans have both a good impulse and an evil impulse. Studying Torah with a sage ensures that Torah enters the caverns of the heart, flushing out the evil impulse and replenishing the good.

105 106 107

Maimonides on Avot 1:4, 35. ARN A 6, 41. ARN B 13, 98.

72

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

The image of the water of Torah opening the heart resonates with Abba Poemen’s teaching that the fear of God is like water working on the stone of the heart. This illustrates the importance of personal transformation as part of the discipleship process in both traditions. This saying by Yose ben Yoezer illustrates that a path of conversion or transformation also exists in Jewish traditions. It is a path illuminated by the study of Torah at the foot of one’s teacher, receiving teaching transmitted by God to Moses at Sinai. Yose ben Yochanan develops the teaching of Yose ben Yoezer by expanding the focus to concern not only the relationship between teacher and student. Alongside the concern with learning, Yose ben Yochanan also considers how one should offer hospitality to all people, including the poor. If the first part of these paired sayings is about Torah, the second is about good deeds. The dialectic between these two is at the heart of rabbinic Judaism. One always informs the other.108 At the end of this saying we encounter a trope in wisdom literature in which women are cast as dangerous obstacles for the pursuit of wisdom in the patriarchal culture of the ancient world. Such views did not emerge from the tannaitic period alone but can be found in earlier versions of wisdom literature. In Ecclesiastes it is written, “I found more bitter than death the woman who is a trap, whose heart is snares and nets, whose hands are fetters; one who pleases God escapes her, but the sinner is taken by her” (Eccl. 7:26). Wisdom literature focuses on the danger of being drawn to lust and improper sexual relations with women. By doing so, one is not only distracted from Torah but violates Torah and causes unnecessary disruptions in relationships with others. So Ben Sirach warns, “Never dine with another man’s wife, or revel with her at wine; or your heart may turn aside to her, and in blood you may be plunged into destruction” (Sir. 9:9).109 The patriarchal perspective on women included not only the scapegoating but also the idealization of women. Wisdom literature praises the righteous woman who attends to her household and her business affairs, while ensuring that her own behavior gives honor to her husband and sons as they pursue the path of wisdom. “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue. She looks well to the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children rise up and call her happy; her husband too, and he praises her: 108 109

Viviano, 9-10; Saldarini, Scholastic Rabbinism, 49. Gottlieb, 160-61; Taylor, 15.

CHAPTER ONE

73

‘Many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all.’” (Prov. 31:26-29). Indeed, Wisdom is sometimes personified as a female figure. It is she who both calls out to men to follow her ways and who was the first creation of God’s, cooperating with the Creator in the very process of creation (Prov. 8). Women are not only a source of temptation but participants in following Torah. Yet as rabbinic literature reflects the context of the patriarchal culture of the Mediterranean world, there are limits to how women can follow the way of Torah. According to the Mishnah, women were not required to follow all the commandments of Torah, specifically commandments that should be fulfilled at specific times (M.  Kiddushin 1:7). But women were enjoined to follow all other commandments and to send their children to synagogue, attend to the household, and enable husbands to be as free as possible to study Torah (BT Berakhot 17a). Ideally, men and women cooperate to forge a righteous, Torah observant household. Akiva’s wife Rachel is portrayed in ARN as possessing merit and righteousness that enabled her husband to complete his worthy feat of mastering Torah at such a late stage in life (ARN A 6). Without such a relationship grounded in Torah, it is assumed that discord is sure to set in. As Akiva said, “man and wife if they are deserving have the Shekhinah [the presence of God] between them, if not fire devours them” (Sotah 17a).110 Rabbinic literature sets forth an idealized vision of the household where the wife has a crucial, but clearly subservient, role in ensuring the godliness of the domestic sphere that has become academized. This vision is what lies at the root of Yose’s exhortation “do not talk much with a woman.” Goldin has argued that this exhortation must be read in light of the entire saying, which emphasizes hospitality and service towards poor guests. The presumed model is Abraham, who spoke only briefly to his wife Sarah about how to care for the three angelic visitors who came to his tent (Gen. 18:6). The point is that one should be a model host who says only what is absolutely necessary to one’s wife while attending to guests. There is not time for conversation that detracts from hospitality to others. In this sense then, the focus of this final part of the saying rests in the good deeds one ought to perform, rather than the Torah study that also occurs in the rabbinic household.111 110

Taylor, 15, 137; Hezser, Social Structure, 311. Goldin, “First Pair,” 54-56; Viviano, 9. Cf. Machzor Vitry on Avot 1:5; Meiri on Avot 1:5. 111

74

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Following this is a lengthier statement about the perils of speaking idly with one’s own wife. Commentators have long recognized that this teaching, introduced by the words “they said” and continued by “the Sages said,” was not from Yose. Some viewed it as words that Yose passed on from his teachers, but not in his own name. Alternately, perhaps Yehudah the Patriarch added these words during the final redaction process of Avot.112 Regardless of its origins, this addition to Yose’s saying garnered attention by commentators. One trajectory saw this as relating to domestic harmony. Another viewed it as an issue of sexual propriety. ARN follows this first trajectory. The point is that husbands ought not to share with their wives the disputes they had while studying Torah with other men. It might be that one’s wife will lose respect for him because of his disputes, or that she will gossip about it with the wife of the one he has argued with, leading to a loss of respect and fractured relationships all around.113 This interpretation focuses on the continued theme of establishing a household in which Torah study leads to righteous behavior. To speak needlessly about disagreements with fellow students and teachers detracts from this aspect of the rabbinic program. Christian Resonances In monastic literature there is a dynamic between master and disciple similar to that found in Avot. Speaking about the great monastic teacher Pachomius, a group of monks said, “We thought that sinners could not live devoutly, because they had been so created. But now we see the goodness of God manifested in our father, for see, he is of pagan origin and he has become devout; he has put on all the commandments of God. Thus even we also can follow him and become equal to the saints whom he himself has followed.”114 This saying resonates with the exemplary story of Akiva. All can embark on the path of wisdom and righteousness. This path is open to all, regardless of their previous position in life. Even those from the most unlikely of backgrounds can become the great teachers of their generation. This resonance points to the mystery of the human person and the great potential every individual possesses to become the person God desires.

112 113 114

For the first option see Machzor Vitry on Avot 1:5. ARN A 7, ARN B 15. Sayings of the Desert Fathers, Psenthaisius 1, 245.

CHAPTER ONE

75

The compiler of ARN expressed the sense that the learning process between a student and teacher ought to carry the same reverence and awe as that which Moses felt when receiving the Torah from God and what Israel felt when receiving that Torah. A similar sensibility is evident in the Rule of Benedict. At the very beginning of its prologue, the monk is exhorted, “Listen, O my son to the precepts of the master, and incline the ear of your heart: willingly receive and faithfully fulfill the admonition of your loving father; that you may return by the labor of obedience to him from whom you had departed through the laziness of disobedience.”115 Here the disciple is called to obedience to his master. And by doing so, he will be drawn back to his true Master. In this monastic community, the abbot holds absolute authority. “For it is Christ’s place that he is believed to hold in the monastery, since he is addressed by his title, as the Apostle said, ‘You have received the spirit of adoption of sons by which we cry, Abba, Father’ (Rom. 8:15). Therefore, the abbot should never teach or enact or command anything contrary to the precepts of the Lord; rather his commands and his teaching, like the leaven of divine justice, are to suffuse the minds of his disciples.”116 The abbot’s teaching is to fully possess the mind of the monks. This passage is rich with imagery from the writings of the apostle Paul, with a three-fold Pauline theme of adoption as children of God, the transforming power of God like leaven in dough, and the Christian goal of possessing the mind of Christ. The abbot’s purpose is to effect a complete transformation of his disciples so that they become ever more Christ-like. Learning emerges as not only intellectually but spiritually transformative for both the Jewish and Christian disciple. One is transported to stand with Israel at Sinai, the other to journey further into becoming part of the body of Christ. The language of drinking thirstily from the words of a teacher is another resonance between the Jewish and Christian texts under consideration. In the Gospel of John, Jesus converses with a Samaritan woman as she draws water from a well. “Jesus said to her, ‘Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.’ The woman said to him, ‘Sir, give me this water, so that I may 115 The Rule of Saint Benedict: Latin & English, trans. Luke Dysinger, OSB (Trabuco Canyon, CA: Source Books, 1996), Prologue, 3. 116 Rule of Benedict, 2.2-5.

76

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

never be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water’” (John 4:13-15). The disciples of Jesus are shocked to discover him conversing with a woman, a Samaritan, no less, one considered outside of Israel. Yet her reaction to Jesus as the one who bears words that quench thirst is used elsewhere in John. Later in the Gospel of John, Jesus appears in Jerusalem at the festival of Sukkot (in John, the festival of Booths). There he declares, “‘Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, “Out of the believer’s heart shall flow rivers of living water’” (John 7: 37-38). Here Jesus cites the same exhortation used by Yose ben Yoezer from Isaiah 55:1. But the crucial difference is that the author of John understands that this exhortation does not apply to the Torah taught by a sage but rather something else Jesus offered. “Now he said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive; for as yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:39). Those who drink deeply will receive not the words of Torah but the very presence of God. But this will only occur after the death and resurrection of Jesus, according to the Gospel of John. The resonances between Avot and its commentaries and early Christian literature allow us to attend to the distinctive points of emphases in these traditions. The fundamental orientations differ. The rabbis point their disciples towards Torah as the way to righteousness and spiritual development. In Christian literature, Jesus is the path through which disciples must journey. In John, one drinks thirstily of Jesus’ words not only as a source of wisdom but as the conduit for receiving the Spirit of God. In monastic literature, the teacher or abbot stands in the place of Christ, but only for purpose of ensuring that all souls are eventually shepherded into the sheepfold of Christ. This vision of Jesus as a path to illumination and transformation akin to Torah differs from the image of Jesus as a teacher of Torah elsewhere, especially in the Gospel of Matthew. The question is whether Jesus offers Christians a better way of fulfilling Torah or if he is a replacement for Torah. In theological terms, is it possible to hold to Jesus as both the path of transformation and a teacher of obedience to Torah? The first option implies that Jesus’ role as the mediator between God and humanity obviates the need for relationship with God through Torah. The second option implies that a Christian path ought to include a primarily theocentric (as opposed to Christocentric) orientation that operates within the contours of the God’s covenantal relationship with Israel.

CHAPTER ONE

77

Avot 1:6 Yehoshua ben Perachyah and Nitai the Arbelite received [the Torah] from them. Yehoshua ben Perachyah said: “Provide for yourself a teacher, and get for yourself a companion, and judge every person in the scale of merit.” Avot 1:7 Nitai the Arbelite said: “Keep away from a bad neighbor, and do not associate with a wicked person, and do not lose hope in retribution.” Jewish Interpretations Yehoshua ben Perachyah and Nitai the Arbelite are reckoned to have been active sometime between 140 and 110 B.C.E., during the reign of the high priest and ethnarch John Hyrcanus of the Hasmonean dynasty. As with the two Yoses, according to tradition Yehoshua and Nitai served as nasi and av bet din, respectively. Yehoshua is remembered as a magician of some power. Through this connection, later rabbinic tradition regarded him as the teacher of Jesus of Nazareth and a source for the latter’s miraculous abilities. A story about Yehoshua and a rebellious student led to a version in the Babylonian Talmud that identified this student with Jesus. Although the motivations for the identification of Yehoshua as the teacher of Jesus are unknown, it is a connection that figured prominently in later rabbinic narratives about Jesus.117 As with many sayings in the first chapter, those of Yehoshua and Nitai are tripartite in structure but with a single theme which all three parts cumulatively define. As Goldin observes, the saying from the first pair describes the type of household a Torah student ought to have and this second pair describes the type of people one ought to associate with or avoid in this household context.118 I would describe this as a type of associative ethics. Taking the cue of Yehoshua, one’s understanding of Torah and moral stature depends on fostering relations with ethical teachers and friends. Following Nitai, association with immoral people, even tangentially, dishonors a great teacher. 117 Taylor, 14; Herford 27. For the stories of Yehoshua, see BT Sanhedrin 107b; BT Sotah 47a; PT Haggigah II.2; PT Sanhedrin 6.9. See also Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), 34-40; Daniel Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), 23-26. 118 Judah Goldin, “The Second Pair,” American Academy for Jewish Research 58 (1992): 43-44; cf. Saldarini, Scholastic Rabbinism, 50.

78

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

In Avot 1:4, Yose ben Yoezer encourages one to make one’s household a gathering place for all, so that many teachers and students might gather there. Yehoshua builds upon Yose by clarifying the difference between acquiring the foundations of learning versus cultivating one’s house as an academy. To really learn Torah properly, one needs the instruction of a teacher of Torah. This is not a course of study that can succeed by independent learning. According to ARN, one ought to have only a single teacher for the four fields of Torah study (the Mishnah, midrash, halakhah, and aggadah). Employing a single teacher will ensure that any gaps of knowledge that occur when studying in one area will be attended to by the same teacher in another area. The purpose of having only one teacher is not primarily to ensure loyalty to a single teacher but to gain a comprehensive and careful grounding in all aspects of Torah study. Later rabbis affirm the importance of acquiring a teacher. There are two common themes in later rabbinic commentaries on this passage. The first is that studying in isolation is insufficient for any serious student. According to Rashi, one’s own intelligence is not sufficient; the authentic tradition of Torah can only be derived from a trained teacher. Second, the verb “make” or “provide” in this saying shows the humility required in acquiring a teacher. Rabbeinu Yonah, for example states that this verb means that one should even make for oneself a teacher who knows less since one will learn from him simply by the act of studying together. And if one takes a teacher who is an intellectual equal, one will still learn because the teacher might understand some topics better. Building on the need for a teacher, Yehoshua also calls for one to gain a companion in study. The benefit of having such a companion is a theme found in earlier wisdom literature (cf. Prov. 27:17; Eccl. 4:9). The word for companion in Avot refers to a colleague or associate affiliated with others seeking knowledge. Such a person, a chaver in Hebrew, is assumed to be a member of the same sort of academized household idealized in Avot. In the tannaitic period, such a chaver was part of a learned society who followed clearly defined practices of purity as defined in Torah and halakhic interpretation. In later periods, when a small group or pair of Torah students studied together it was known as a chavrutah.119 Just as one gains more from having a teacher than learning by oneself, so one gains more by sharing studies with another student of Torah. Having a companion means that one constantly engages in a dynamic 119

Taylor 16; Herford, 26; Schofer, 33.

CHAPTER ONE

79

process of learning, even after formal education in Torah has ended.120 ARN A envisions the companion as somebody one eats, drinks, and bunks with while studying Scripture and Mishnah together. One’s method of studying and interpreting will be deepened by the challenges and corrections of a companion. And a reward in heaven awaits those who study together. ARN B imagines the Shekhinah, the presence of God, at work among them. “The Shekinah goes around from one to another of the scholars who sit studying and blesses them, as Scripture says: ‘And I will walk among you.’ (Lev. 26:12).”121 Maimonides interprets the need for a companion in part via Aristotle. Citing the Nicomachean Ethics, he argues “Your other friend is really yourself.”122 He contends that one should follow the needs and wants of the companion instead of one’s own so that both come to share the same goal. Maimonides proposes that there are three kinds of friendship. The first is friendship for mutual benefit. The second is friendship for the sake of satisfaction, like a friend that one can confide in or a friend who gives pleasure, like a husband or wife. Then there is friendship for a higher purpose. Maimonides describes this as “a situation where both desire and focus on a single objective: doing good. Each will desire to draw strength from his colleague, and to attain this good for them both.”123 It is this last type of friendship, one that contributes to the moral development of each friend, that is commanded here in Avot. It exists naturally among students or between students and teachers. The phrase, “and judge every person in the scale of merit,” is best understood to mean “and judge everyone favorably.” In the context of the study house, one should give people the benefit of the doubt and be predisposed to assess them favorably. Stories from ARN A illustrate this. Several different stories are given of rabbinic teachers who go to brothels in order to ransom kidnapped Jewish women. After either having spent the night or a long time inside, the rabbi asks his companions what they thought he did in there. Always the response relates to a righteous action. Never do they assume the rabbi engaged in prostitution or other improper activities. The lesson is that students are always to put the deeds of their teachers in 120 Günter Stemberger, “"Schaff dir einen Lehrer, erwirb dir einen Kollegen" (mAv 1,6): Lernen als Tradition und Gemeinschaft” in Religiöses Lernen in der biblischen, frühjüdischen und frühchristlichen Überlieferung, ed. Beate Ego and Helmut Merkel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 141-55. 121 ARN A, 8, 50; ARN B, 16, 122. 122 Maimonides on Avot 1:6, 66; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Discourse 9, chapter 4. 123 Maimonides, 66-67.

80

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

the best light possible.124 However, later rabbinic interpretation limits this expansive attitude only to those known to err on the side of righteousness. It is taught that if one sees a wicked person commit a good deed, one should be suspicious. It is far more likely that the deed is only done for external appearances; the wicked person has not changed morally.125 Yehoshua’s saying shows how to create relationships necessary to become a student of Torah and the wisdom contained in it. Elsewhere in the Talmud Rabbi Hanina declared, “I learned much Torah with my teachers, and with my friends even more than with my teachers, and with my students, the most of all.”126 This ethos can also be found in Yehoshua’s saying and the interpretations of it. All who pursue the wisdom of God found in Torah are potential teachers – those who are greater, those who are equal, those whose knowledge is still developing. There is as much to learn from Torah as there are teachers and students of it. The first two clauses of Nitai’s saying offer the inverse of Yehoshua’s. Just as Yehoshua enjoined one to create a circle that would enable one to advance in the wisdom of Torah, Nitai warns of associating with those who would harm this endeavor. The combined focus of these two sayings further illuminates the associative ethics that are an important theme in Avot. The character and behavior of a person depends a great deal upon the company that they keep. The exhortation to pursue wisdom by avoiding the wicked is a common trope in wisdom literature (Ps. 1:1; Prov. 4:14; Sir 13:1). Combined, Nitai and Yehoshua also teach that human society is a perilous place where wickedness is more common than righteousness. Companionship needs to be developed selectively in order to maintain a moral character.127 In this way, the study house represents an ideal society. Here we can see the confluence of Jewish wisdom teachings with an understanding of the nature of the community, which in Christian thought would be termed ecclesiology. Christian Resonances As this chapter shows, Avot promotes the pursuit of Torah study as the surest means of attaining righteousness. Rabbis serve as the surest guides for effectively learning Torah. Early Christian texts though 124 125 126 127

ARN A 8, 51-52; Taylor 16, Herford 26-27. Maimonides on Avot 1:6; Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 1:6. BT Ta’anit 7a. Herford, 27; Saldarini, Scholastic Rabbinism, 51; Viviano, 14.

CHAPTER ONE

81

represent Jesus Christ as the best means of attaining right relationship with God. While Christianity also views human teachers as necessary guides (Eph. 4:11), early Christians viewed Jesus Christ as the ultimate teacher. Clement of Alexandria described the Word of God (that is, Jesus Christ), as a pedagogue or teacher. Clement derives this title from Galatians 3:25 where Paul describes the Word as a pedagogue who instructed humanity according to the Mosaic Law prior to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Clement views Jesus as a universal Teacher for all people. “But our Educator being practical, first exhorts to the attainment of right disposition and character, and then persuades us to the energetic practice of our duties, enjoining on us pure commandments.”128 Clement declares that the mission of the Teacher is to make his disciples as sinless as him, possessing a pure soul and thus avoiding any taint of sin.129 Christian monastic leaders reflected on the Clementine notion of spiritual formation accomplished by Christ the Teacher and applied it in their own teachings and instruction. As in Avot, the disciple is guided further into learning and righteousness by coming under the guidance of a teacher and having the company of fellow disciples. In monastic literature, a teacher focused primarily on the internal actions of the disciple’s soul while ignoring the rigorous academic learning typical of a Torah student. This is not to say that either the Jewish texts lack a concern with spiritual matters or that the Christian sources reflect an unlearned quality, but rather that the spheres of concern that lead to the formation of disciples in these respective traditions differs. Monastic literature also counsels that a person find a teacher. A series of teachings by Abba Poemen illustrates the role of the teacher in aiding a monk seeking spiritual growth. He said that someone asked Abba Paësius, “What should I do about my soul, because it is insensitive and does not fear God?” He said to him, “Go, and join a man who fears God, and live hear him; he will teach you, too, to fear God.” Abba Poemen said, “Do not judge yourself, but live with someone who knows how to behave himself properly.” A brother asked Abba Poemen, “What ought I to do?” The old man said to him, “When God is watching over us, what have we got to worry 128 Clement, The Instructor I.1. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Edinburgh and Grand Rapids: T&T Clark / Eerdmans, 1989), 209. 129 Ibid., I.2.

82

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

about?” The brother said to him, “Our sins.” Then the old man said, “Let us enter into our cell, and sitting there, remember our sins, and the Lord will come and help us in everything.”130

This series of instructions show the important role of the abba. A person seeks out an abba in order to develop the qualities necessary to advance in the spiritual life. If a disciple is willing to submit to the teachings of the abba, advancement is possible. The abba’s teaching while concerned with the deep things of the human spirit is also meant to be eminently practical. Each disciple receives advice tailored to his needs. The abba knows when to push a monk to greater exertion and humility and when to soothe the conscience of one stricken by awareness of sin or needing the encouragement to continue on his path. By submitting to the teaching of the abba, the disciple also learns how to submit to the will of God.131 Choosing a single teacher inducts the monks into a process of formation by which the best characteristics and practices attained by the abba accrue to the disciple. In other words, the monastic practice of stability is a necessary prerequisite for moral and spiritual advancement. The Rule of Benedict expands on the qualities of the teacher in its discussion of the role of the abbot. The Rule describes the abbot as the teacher of the monastery which functions as a type of school. The role of the abbot is to set forth the teachings of Jesus Christ so that the monks under his charge might develop further in the pursuit of spiritual perfection. To be worthy of the task of governing the monastery, the abbot must always remember what his title signifies and act as a superior should. He is believed to hold the place of Christ in the monastery, since he is addressed by a title of Christ, as the Apostle indicates: You have received the spirit of adoption of sons by which we exclaim, abba, father (Rom. 8:15). Therefore, the abbot must never teach or decree or command anything that would deviate from the Lord’s instructions. On the contrary, everything he teaches and commands should, like the leaven of divine justice, permeate the minds of his disciples.132

The abbot serves as a conduit by which the instructions of Christ are repeated and reinforced for the development of monks in that community. 130

Sayings of the Desert Fathers, 176-77, 189. Graham Gould, The Desert Fathers on Monastic Community (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 33. 132 The Rule of St. Benedict 2.2-5, trans. and ed. Timothy Fry (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1981), 171-73. 131

CHAPTER ONE

83

The monastery does not so much function like a rabbinic academy where Torah is studied in detail but as a place of spiritual training. The abbot is to teach the monk through word and example how to practically imitate Christ through the attainment of virtues.133 The attainment of wisdom is a goal for both contexts, but the paths differ. The role of the abbot as a transmitter of the teachings of Christ and standing as a representative of (not for) Christ is markedly different from the role of the rabbinic teacher. The rabbi does not represent Torah or God to others. His teachings are authoritative but do not have the same sense of direct authority. Rabbinic literature holds out that a student may even someday surpass his teacher. In other words, a rabbi does not have the sort of teaching authority accorded to an abbot because each community understands the authority of their leaders differently. Despite differing functions of the teaching office in rabbinic and Christian circles, resonances remain. Specifically, we can return to the rabbinic concept noted previously in this commentary that the explication of Oral Torah in rabbinic circles is accorded authority approaching that of the Written Torah. This concept can serve as a parallel concept to the teaching authority of the abbot. Given that the Oral Torah is generated through human explications of the Written Torah, then we can also understand rabbinic teachers not as dispensers of divine teaching but as a group whose collective activity becomes manifested in Oral Torah. Christianity has clear offices for the role of teacher in its community. But the practice of acquiring a study partner or companion in the pursuit of Torah does not have a precise analogue in Christian practice or thought. However, the discussion of the value of a study partner, including the dimensions of friendship and moral development that a chaver offers allows us to explore their resonances in Christian monastic literature. The English Cistercian monk, Aelred of Rievaulx, in the twelfth century wrote the treatise Spiritual Friendship as an exploration of dimensions of monastic friendship that mirrors divine friendship. Just as Maimonides utilized the thought of Aristotle to clarify the nature of friendship among study partners, so Aelred used Cicero’s treatise on friendship to establish the moral and spiritual foundations for friendship. In this way, he wass like Maimonides, who sought to establish the different kinds of friendship as he encouraged Torah students to strive for its highest form. Reaffirming Cicero’s definition of perfect friendship. Aelred states “those who have the same opinion, the same will, in matters human and divine, along with 133

Rule of Benedict, 350-65.

84

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

mutual benevolence and charity, have, we shall admit, reached the perfection of friendship.”134 This vision of friendship resonates with Maimonides’ description of the third and highest form of friendship as when friends (study partners) strive together to attain the highest good. For Aelred, spiritual friendship among monks impels both friends on a spiritual path to God. Paraphrasing I John 4:16, Aelred declares “God is friendship… he that abides in friendship, abides in God and God in him.”135 In this teaching, Aelred incorporates a classical Augustinian Trinitarian theology in which God is conceptualized as a Trinity of Lover, Beloved, and Love. The one who engages in friendship replicates the inner Trinitarian life of God within an earthly, albeit monastic, context. Friendship then becomes “a stage bordering upon that perfection which consists in the love and knowledge of God, so that man from being a friend of his fellow-man becomes the friend of God, according to the words of the Savior in the Gospel: ‘I will not now call you servants, but my friends.’”136 By pursuing this sort of true friendship, one is drawn deeper into spiritual formation. Complementing this process, one also begins to lose false friends, those who do not bring one to virtue but sins. Cultivating close spiritual friendship draws one into Christ, the source and perfect of virtues. Echoing Bernard of Clairvaux’s Commentary on the Song of Songs, Aelred invokes the verse “Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth” (Song of Songs 1:1) to illustrate how friendship brings one to intimacy with Christ. Aelred explicates the link between the kiss of Christ and spiritual friendship as a path of spiritual growth. In the next place, the spiritual kiss is characteristically the kiss of friends who are bound by one law of friendship; for it is not made by contact of the mouth but by the affection of the heart; not by a meeting of lips but by a mingling of spirits, by the purification of all things in the Spirit of God, and through his own participation, it emits a celestial savor. I would call this the kiss of Christ, yet he himself does not offer it from his own mouth, but from the mouth of another, breathing upon his lovers that most sacred affection so that there seems to them to be, as it were, one spirit in many bodies.137

Friends mutually dedicated to the pursuit of the highest good are brought into a bond of unity in the Spirit of God. Aelred describes this 134 Aelred of Rievaulx, Spiritual Friendship, trans. Mary Eugenia Laker (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1977), 1:13. 135 Aelred, 1:69, 70. 136 Ibid., 2:14; John 15:15. 137 Ibid., 2:26.

CHAPTER ONE

85

unity as the kiss of Christ. It is not so much that Christ bestows this spiritual bond on friends but that the bond between them is like the bond that Christ has with the entire Church. A movement into the realm of the transcendent by companions mutually committed to the good resonates with the image from ARN B of the presence of the Shekinah in the study house mentioned previously: “The Shekinah goes around from one to another of the scholars who sit studying and blesses them, as Scripture says: ‘And I will walk among you…’ (Lev. 26:12).”138 In these two passages we see both the resonances and the divergences of these two traditions. The divine presence of God is palpable in both contexts – as a kiss or a felt movement. The impact of the divine presence differs. For Aelred, the kiss of Christ implies a heightened state of spiritual disposition between the monastic friends. The passage from ARN gives the sense of a sustaining presence of God, perhaps one that enables the gathered scholars to continue in their endeavors, but not the same sense of transformation articulated by Aelred. This difference of degree in articulating the nature of divine presence among companions might be related to the context of this presence. In ARN, it is the study house where study partners deepen their friendship in the shared endeavor of learning Torah more deeply. Righteousness and the acquisition of virtues follows from this path. Aelred operates in a monastic context where the daily rounds of liturgical offices and private meditative prayer served the goal of elevating the monk to the fullest communion with the Triune God possible. This path was attainable by a deep relationship with Jesus Christ, understood to be the perfect God-Man, both fully human and fully divine. In contrast, the goal for the student of Torah is an intimate knowledge of Torah as revealed to Israel so that the student might attain righteousness, that is, to be in right relationship with God and others. Companionship was a vital means for attaining this goal. By examining the sayings of Yehoshua and Nittai and their resonances in early Christian literature, we can see the coalescing of wisdom themes and communal concerns. Rabbis and monks alike envisioned ideal communities in which the virtue practiced by its members testified to the righteousness of the community. Guided by teachers and aided by companions, members of each community persevered to attain deeper and higher forms of knowledge and insight. Implicit is a sense of wider responsibility for those beyond an immediate inner circle of disciples and teachers. The members of the ideal community in both rabbinic and monastic contexts are 138

ARN B, 16, 122.

86

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

required to keep in mind their connections to a wider community within which they might potentially exercise authority within. Avot 1:8 Yehudah ben Tabbai and Shimon ben Shattach received it from them. And Yehudah ben Tabbai said: “Do not make yourself like those who advise others what to say before the judges; and when the litigants stand before you, consider them as guilty; and when they depart from you, consider them as innocent when they have accepted the verdict.” Avot 1:9 Shimon ben Shattach said: “Investigate thoroughly the witnesses, and be careful of your words lest because of them they should learn to lie.” Jewish Interpretations Yehudah ben Tabbai and Shimon ben Shattach were active from the period around 90-80 B.C.E. Shimon ben Shattach was perhaps the more prominent of the pair, despite being named second, since he was the brother-in-law of the king Alexander Jannaeus (and the brother of Queen Salome).139 We find in these sayings a continuation of the notion of righteous judgment articulated in Avot 1:6 by Yehoshua ben Perachyah. The historical or social significance of this saying suggests that by this time period, leaders associated with the nascent rabbinic movement were operating as judges, perhaps even as leaders of the Sanhedrin, the administrative body that had oversight of many every day dimensions of Jewish life. This suggests some sort of social status in which these proto-rabbinic sages were recognized as experts in Torah whose judgments would be considered binding.140 Because of this status, the sages should take special care to render fair and just judgments that respect the persons testifying before them. Christian Resonances The exhortation to avoid the hypocrisy of judging others was a significant theme within early monastic literature. Monks entered the deserts of Egypt and Syria in order to find the surest path to God and to enter the Kingdom of God that Jesus proclaimed. The struggle against sin, especially the temptation to judge unfairly the other monks making the same pursuit was intense. A story about Isaac the Theban illustrates this. 139 140

Taylor, 14; Herford, 29. Goldin, “Second Pair,” 45; Kehati, 20.

CHAPTER ONE

87

One day Abba Isaac went to a monastery. He saw a brother committing a sin and he condemned him. When he returned to the desert, an angel of the Lord came and stood in front of the door of his cell, and said, “I will not let you enter.” But he persisted saying, “What is the matter?” and the angel replied, “God has sent me to ask you where you want to throw the guilty brother whom you have condemned.” Immediately he repented and said, “I have sinned, forgive me.” Then the angel said, “Get up, God has forgiven you. But from now on, be careful not to judge someone before God has done so.”141

This saying illustrates the eschatological worldview that the monks inhabited. Rendering judgment on others was extremely dangerous in spiritual terms because of the strong sense of the imminence of God’s own judgment upon the monks. Awareness of one’s sins and amendment of life for them was a life’s work. To worry about the sins of others and stand in judgment of them was to fall into the hypocrisy about which Jesus warned (cf. Matt. 7:3-5). In the early church it was recognized that while individual disciples of Jesus ought not to engage in the judgment of others, discipline within the life of the church was necessary. Bishops took on a significant role in late antiquity for dealing with ecclesiastical discipline within the life of the church, especially in the area of dealing with the reconciliation of sinners to the church. Tertullian (himself not a bishop) grappled with the exhortations about judgment and reconciliation in the New Testament passages cited above. He affirmed the practices of the church of North Africa to distinguish between sins that may be remitted through chastisement and those sins which can only result in condemnation, among which he counts adultery and fornication.142 John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, interpreted Matthew 7:2 to mean not to upbraid or embarrass the sinner but rather to show the appropriate pastoral concern in order to encourage amendment of life. “Correct him, but not as a foe, nor as an adversary exacting a penalty, but as a physician providing medicine. For neither did Christ say, ‘stay not him that is sinning,’ but ‘judge not;’ that is, be not bitter in pronouncing sentence.”143

141

Sayings of the Desert Fathers, Isaac the Theban 1, 109-10. Tertullian, On Modesty, 2. 143 John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew, XXIII.2, Nicene and  Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 10, ed. Philip Schaf (Edinburgh and Grand Rapids: T&T Clark / Eerdmans, 1989), 158 142

88

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

As the above quotes illustrate, Christians saw the need to deal with sinners and issues of discipline as it came to effect the church. The issue became finding the right avenue to render this discipline; typically this came through the exercise of designated ecclesiastical leadership such as a bishop of a diocese or the abbot of a monastic community. The question of the role of exercising judgment in Christianity is narrower than one finds in the passage from Avot and its commentaries. Yehudah and Shimon speak as those who exercise the role of judges on matters that touch all of Jewish society, from property disputes and arguments over contracts to issues touch on morality. All of these items came before the Sanhedrin and later rabbinic courts. Christian ethics developed to consider issues requiring adjudication to fall almost exclusively within the realm of morality, leaving all else to civil authorities. Whereas rabbinic halakhah sets out an idealized vision of how all of Jewish society, whether in commercial, civic, or domestic realms, would conform to Torah, Christian leaders largely grappled with the more limited question of how to oversee life in the church. While in the post-Constantinian era bishops did aspire to influence wider society through public teaching and the exercise of their office, their vision of what comprised the spheres of concern for their followers differed significantly in contrast to that set out in Avot 1:8-9.144 Avot 1:10 Shemayah and Avtalyon received it from them. Shemayah said, “Love work, and hate authority, and do not make yourself known to the ruling authority.” Avot 1:11 Avtalyon said, “Sages, be careful with your words, lest you incur the penalty of exile and you are exiled to a place of bad waters, and the disciples who come after you drink from them and die, and the Name of Heaven is found to be profaned.” Jewish Interpretations Shemayah and Avtalyon were active from roughly 65 to 35 B.C.E., serving as the heads of the Sanhedrin during the reign of King Herod 144 On the public role of late antique bishops, see Peter Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982); Claudia Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005).

CHAPTER ONE

89

the Great. According to tradition, they were the sons of converts who descended from Sennacherib, the king of Assyria who invaded the Kingdom of Judah during the reign of King Hezekiah in 701 B.C.E. (cf. 1 Kings 18-19). The name Avtalyon might function more as a title since it literally means “father of the young,” suggesting that he served in some sort of role that ensured the welfare of orphans.145 Shemayah teaches devotion to one’s work but not seek to gain positions in order to control or manipulate others. This teaching is a continuation of the discussion of the appropriate uses of authority by judges discussed in 1:8-9. All sages and their followers should have legitimate trades, both as a recognition that everyone needs to labor to earn their livelihood but also to avoid want or idleness that could lead to deceit or crime. The sage is to hate authority (also translated as “office” or “lordship”) in the sense that one should not seek positions for the sake of the status that is might convey. Citing Proverbs 27:2, ARN A interprets this to mean “no man should put a crown on his head of his own accord; instead let others put it on him.” Indeed, all who seek to exalt themselves, especially at the expense of Torah, will eventually be brought down. In the words of Rabbi Yose, “Get down to come up and up to come down: Whoever exalts himself about the words of Torah is in the end degraded; and whoever degrades himself for the sake of the words of the Torah is in the end exalted.”146 The proper attitude of the sage is humility for the sake of avoiding shame or corruption, even when their own teaching office carries high social regard.147 Shemayah’s warning about the ruling authority confronts the realities of navigating public life in the ancient Mediterranean world. It is an echo of the Epicurean saying, “Do not attract notice.” Epicureans were often criticized because of the seemingly hypocritical nature of this saying, since their teacher Epicurus himself became famous by teaching others not to attract attention. But Shemayah reframes this saying in terms of how one ought to approach the government. In particular, this saying reflects the social context of Judean society in the wake of the loss of Jewish national independence after the conquest of Judea by Pompey in 63 B.C.E. and the installation of client kings like Herod. The ruling authorities could be capricious and sages who exercised public leadership needed to exercise 145 Taylor, 14, 19; Kehati, 22. On Shemayah and Avtalyon as descendants of Sennacherib, see BT Gittin 57b. 146 ARN A, 11, 61-62. 147 Taylor, 19; Herford, 30.

90

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

caution. This can in particular refer to a vow of fidelity Jews were required to make to Herod, whose rule as a client king to the Roman Empire represented the domination of Israel by Rome. This admonition can also have the sense that one ought not to become the partisan of a foreign government.148 Rabbinic commentators on this passage certainly understood the dangers of coming to the attention of ruling authorities. Rashi observes that the powerful will only seek friendship to advance their own ends. Maimonides warns that close relationships with rulers are dangerous to one’s own faith because “the person seeks only those things that will endear him to the ruler.”149 This attitude reflects well the long historical experience of Jews as a stateless people who were required to carefully negotiate their relationship with non-Jewish rulers who had the power to make their lives difficult through discriminatory legislation, unfair taxation, seizure of property, compulsory exile, and even sanctioned violence. Avtalyon cautions sages to teach carefully “lest you incur the penalty of exile and you are exiled to a place of bad waters.” This warning resonates with wisdom literature themes that emphasize the proper time and place for words and deeds (Prov. 10:13-21). Teachers must attend carefully to their teaching of Torah. False or misleading teachings will lead to exile, the same punishment that the prophets warned Israel of when it engaged in idolatry. The language here is symbolic, referencing the exile that Israel suffered because of its idolatry. The phrase “evil waters” stands for unsound teachings in contrast to 1:4 where Yose ben Yoezer encourages students to drink in the good teachings of the sages. Exile in this sense represents a situation in which the sound teaching of Torah is unavailable. In rabbinic literature, “bad water” carries the sense of heretical teachings contrary to the Torah entrusted to Israel whose correct interpretation the rabbis expound.150 The peril of symbolically drinking “bad waters” is that one’s students will internalize erroneous teachings and thus dishonor God (profane the Name of Heaven). In the context of exile outside the Land of Israel where Torah teachers might be scarce, the need to avoid erroneous teaching is especially great. Maimonides, himself active in Muslim majority contexts, warns of the pernicious effect of misunderstood teaching in the context of exile. “Non-believers may be present and they will interpret 148 Daniel E.  Gershenson, “Greek Proverbs in the Ethics of the Fathers [Aboth],” Grazer Beiträge 19 (1993): 216-17; Herford, 30. 149 ARN A, 11, 62; Rashi, 1:10; Maimonides, 1:10, 69. 150 Gottlieb, 160-61; Taylor, 20, Herford, 30; M.B. Lerner, “The Tractate Avot” in The Literature of the Sages, ed. Shmuel Safrai and Peter J. Tomson (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1987), I.271. On “bad waters” as heresy, see Sifre Deuteronomy 48.

CHAPTER ONE

91

it according to their dogma. Since the students will have heard this teaching from you, they may turn to heresy thinking that this was your intent.”151 For Jews who lived in either Christian or Islamic lands, countries where the Jewish interpretation of Torah might matter a great deal to non-Jews, the potential for teachings to be used for ulterior motives by others always lurked. Such misinterpretation could lead to a profaning of the name of God, that is, an instance where the contents of Torah were misrepresented and thus discredited in the eyes of others. Maimonides provides the example of the erroneous interpretations of Antigonus of Sokho’s words that one should not labor for the sake of a reward (cf. 1:3). According to tradition, his students Tzadok and Boetheus misinterpreted these words to mean that there was no reward or punishment in the world to come and went on to establish what were deemed the heretical sects of the Sadducees and Boetheans, who denied the resurrection and the traditions of Oral Torah. Ultimately, for the rabbis the way of Torah is narrow and the proper interpretation of it must be guarded. Christian Resonances These two sayings resonate with Christian concepts of authority, especially as connected with the role of bishops. In late antiquity, a bishop served a similar role to the rabbi – to preserve the proper teaching of the community. In the case of bishops, they transmitted the teachings of Jesus Christ received from apostles. Each local bishop had the core duty of teaching the apostolic tradition to his community. In addition, the bishop was the primary pastoral caregiver and spiritual authority of his community. Serving as the leader of a local Christian community presented great opportunities and great dangers since it could lead to abuse of office and spiritual pride. The importance of avoiding these dangers is evident in one of the earliest documents regarding bishops: The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way— for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil. (I Tim. 3:1-7) 151

Maimonides on Avot 1:11, 69.

92

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

This text, attributed to Paul but likely written around the end of the first century C.E., focuses on the good work that the bishop is to take on. While early Christian leaders were depicted as fishermen (Peter, John, James) or tentmakers (Paul), the notion of a separate occupation for bishops by which they earn their livelihood quickly receded. The bishop is one who is diligent in all his affairs and so brings a good reputation to the followers of Jesus and is able by his own example to ensure the good order and morality of the community. Augustine of Hippo speaks clearly to the dangers of bishops who do not set a good example when he writes in a sermon preached to his own congregation: “What kind of bishop is called one but isn’t one really? The one who enjoys his status more than the welfare and salvation of God’s flock – who at this pinnacle of ministry “seeks his own advantage, not that of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 2:21). He is called a bishop, but he isn’t a bishop… Yes, I will be so bold as to say that there are no bad bishops, because if they are bad, they aren’t bishops!”152 For Augustine and other theologians of this era (most of whom were also bishops), the key to the righteous exercise of episcopal authority that resulted in honor for both the bishop and the community was an unwavering focus on leadership for the sake of Jesus Christ. “We bishops are not your teachers because we speak to you from a higher place, but it is the one who dwells in all of us who is the teacher of us all.”153 In this framing we find once again the return of the comparison between the rabbinic commitment to Torah and the Christian commitment to Christ. The faithful leaders of both communities structure the proper exercise of their authority around these referent points. Proper teaching of Torah and proper teaching about Jesus Christ stands as the norm by which rabbis and bishops construct the standard by which their own behavior is to be judged, evaluated, and criticized. While Christian anxiety about the proper exercise of leadership and authority has a long history, the rabbinic interpretations of Avot 1:10-11 also allow us to examine the problems of Christian exercise of authority from a different light. We have seen with Shemayah’s warning to “not make yourself known to the ruling authority” that rabbinic commentators use this as an opportunity to discuss the peril of accommodating 152 Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 306-340A, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P. (Brooklyn, NY: New City Press, 1994), Sermon 340A.4, 6. 153 Augustine of Hippo, Sermons 94A-147A, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P. (Brooklyn, NY: New City Press, 1992), Sermon 134.1.

CHAPTER ONE

93

non-Jewish rulers. With the emergence of Christendom by the fifth century, Jews living in the Mediterranean and Europe often navigated Christian authority. While Christian bishops and theologians did not directly rule, they played a significant role in determining policies towards Jews both within the church and for broader society. As mentioned above, often these policies led towards significant discrimination against Jews. Official church teachings never condoned physical violence towards Jews but they did severely restrict patterns of Jewish life, including the public celebration of rituals, the censoring of Jewish books, and propaganda campaigns that sought the conversion of Jews through attendance at compulsory sermons.154 Yet, other bishops instituted a tradition of bishops ensuring the physical safety of Jews. Yet they also taught that the conversion of Jews was a fundamental good.155 Christian “ruling authorities” ultimately made life worse for the Jewish brethren of Jesus. To truly serve their Jewish Teacher, a higher regard for the Jewish people would have been necessary. Avtalyon’s warning about bad teachings and the harmful effects they might have on ones disciples compounds this issue. There are a variety of stories from within rabbinic Judaism about Jesus and his role as someone who misleads Jews. One such story narrates a dispute between the rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachia and Jesus (here called Yeshu). One day Yehoshua was reciting the Shema. Yeshu came before him. He intended to take him [Yeshu] back. He gestured with his hand to wait until he could finish the prayer. Yeshu thought that he was rejecting him. He set up a brick and worshipped it. Yehoshua said to him, “Repent.” Yeshu said to him, “Thus I have received a tradition from you: ‘He who sins and leads others to sin is not given the opportunity to repent.” And there is a tradition: “Yeshu the Notsri [Christian] engaged in sorcery and enticed Israel to turn to idolatry.156

Not only is Jesus cast aside by his teacher but he is the one who turns Israel to idolatry, the ultimate sin that leads to heresy. Although many of the Jewish rabbinic stories about Jesus are obscure, they often identify 154 For an overview of this history, see Robert Chazan, Medieval Stereotypes and Modern Antisemitism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997). 155 See Jeremy Cohen, Living Letters of the Law; Paula Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism (New York: Doubleday, 2008). 156 BT, Sanhedrin 107b. This translation is from Rabbinic Stories, trans. Jeffrey L. Rubenstein (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2002), 174-75. I have slightly emended the text for clarity.

94

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

a conflict with a rabbinic teacher as a catalyst for Jesus’ own teachings. While the Gospels also depict Jesus in conflict with teachers, this Talmudic story offers the inverse message to the Gospels. The Gospels present these conflicts as part of the salvific message of Jesus, while for the rabbinic tradition, these conflicts with other Jewish teachers result in disaster for Israel, the Jewish people. Or, in the language of our saying from Avot, the misunderstanding between Yehoshua and Yeshu yields bad water for Israel. That Jesus Christ is regarded as a source of idolatry and a source of Israel’s hardship ought to give Christians pause. Although the New Testament refers to Jesus as a stumbling block for unbelievers (I Cor. 1:23; Rom. 9:31-33), there is also the understanding that God’s promises and covenant with Israel still abide (Rom. 11). While the delay in full reconciliation between Jews and Christians is a mystery that only God can resolve (Rom. 11:25-27), the reason for negative Jewish perspectives on Jesus is not a mystery. The fault for it lies with Christian leaders who contributed negatively to Jewish life. Christian leaders must take on the responsibility for truthfully representing both their own tradition and that of others. Those concerned with following the true words of their Teacher must also take heed that their own teachings not only do not harm their own community, but that they do not result in “bad waters” that harm other communities. Avot 1:12 Hillel and Shammai received it from them. Hillel said: “Be like the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving humanity, and bringing them near to the Torah.” Avot 1:13 He used to say: “The one who makes his name great loses his name, and one who does not add ends, and one who does not learn deserves death, and the one who makes use of the crown perishes.” Avot 1:14 He used to say: “If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am for myself only, what am I? And if not now, when?” Avot 1:15 Shammai used to say, “Make your Torah regular, say little and do much, and receive everyone with a friendly countenance.”

CHAPTER ONE

95

Jewish Interpretations With these sayings we encounter our fifth and final pair of rabbinic teachers in the first chapter of Avot. Hillel and Shammai are also the most famous of these pairs, generating the famous schools, or houses, of “Bet Hillel” and “Bet Shammai.” Hillel was originally from the Jewish community in Babylon and went to the Land of Israel at the age of forty to learn from Shemayah and Avtalyon, the prior pair of sage discussed above. Around 30 B.C.E. he was appointed the nasi of the Sanhedrin, where he served until his death around 7 C.E.  Shammai lived from between roughly 50 B.C.E. and 30 C.E. He was also a student of Shemayah and Avtalyon and served as the av bet din of the Sanhedrin. While collaborating as leaders of the Sanhedrin, Hillel and Shammai often took differing stances on contested questions. In general, Hillel was known for taking a more lenient approach in matters of interpretation while Shammai tended towards a stance favoring clarity of interpretation. Their differences also appeared in their respective attitudes towards those who came to them for advice. Whereas Shammai was eager to quickly respond, Hillel was inclined to hear others out and take into account opposing opinions. A saying in the Talmud summarizes this – “One should be gentle like Hillel and not irritable like Shammai” (BT Shabbat 30a-b). Famously, in this same Talmudic passage the difference between Hillel and Shammai is summarized by the story of a non-Jew who sought to convert to Judaism on the condition that he could be taught the entirety of Torah while he stood on one foot. While Shammai rebuffed him, Hillel said to him, “What is hateful to yourself do not do to others. This is the entire Torah, and the rest is commentary; go and study.” This answer has come to be seen as the essence of the rabbinic ethos – a concern for the welfare of all at the core of Torah but the necessity of study to unlock the depths of Torah for an even more virtuous life. While the houses of Hillel and Shammai engaged in many debates, rabbinic opinion follows Hillel in the vast majority of instances. This view is summarized thus from the Jerusalem Talmud – “the words of both are the words of the living God; but the halakhah is according to Bet Hillel” (PT Berakhot 3b). However, this did not reduce Shammai to a mere foil. His teachings remain important, considered also the words of the living God. This reflects the ability of rabbinic thought to work in the context of dynamic tension and interpretive flexibility, a stance often lacking in Christian thought.157 157

Taylor, 14, 21, 23; Herford, 32.

96

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Hillel’s exhortation to be like the disciples of Aaron derives from the book of the prophet Malachi – “Proper rulings were in his mouth, and nothing perverse was on his lips; he served me with complete loyalty and held the many back from iniquity” (Mal. 2:6). While the original passage speaks of the priest Levi, the rabbis took it to also refer to Aaron, the brother of Moses and the first high priest of Israel. Referencing this biblical passage, ARN A states that Aaron would befriend people particularly prone to sin so that when they felt the urge to sin, they would refrain from it out of worry over how they would be able to face Aaron the next time they met him. Aaron’s friendship with sinners, in other words, led to a change in their behavior towards righteousness. The esteem by which the people of Israel held Aaron as a peacemaker was so great that they wept for thirty days after his death (Num. 20:29). In contrast, people did not weep as greatly for Moses when he died because he was required to serve as a judge, not a peacemaker like his brother.158 This discussion links Hillel back to Moses through Aaron. This serves as a fitting recapitulation of the structure of Avot up to this point. From the giving of Torah on Sinai to Moses down the chain of transmission to the last of the pairs of teachers, the wisdom and authority of the rabbis is manifest.159 Aaron’s exemplary commitment to bringing sinners to repentance and peacemaking is an expression of love for all people that brings them to Torah. Hence Hillel teaches to be like Aaron, loving all and bringing them near to the Torah. Pursuing humanity to bring them to Torah applies to both Jews and non-Jews. This interpretation is rooted in the story of Abraham (the father of all Israel) in Genesis 12 who takes Lot, his nephew, on his journey to the promised land of Canaan. For ARN A, drawing men to Torah means “one should bend men to and lead them under the wings of the Shekinah the way Abraham our father used to bend men to and lead then under the wings of the Shekinah.”160 That is, just as Abraham invited Lot to participate in God’s promises to him, so should all who seek to follow Aaron invite both Jews and non-Jews into the presence of God (the Shekinah) through the study of Torah. Such a deed is deeply significant. “Everyone who brings one person under the wings of heaven, God accounts it as though he created him and formed him, as Scripture says: ‘If you bring forth what is precious from the vile, you shall be as my mouth (Jer. 15:19).’ Like my mouth 158 159 160

ARN A, 12, 63-65; ARN B 25, 148. Saldarini, 53. ARN A 12, 68.

CHAPTER ONE

97

which breathed a soul into Adam.”161 To draw others in is to act in a way as a co-creator and a co-redeemer with God – new life and new possibilities are manifest for all who come to God, whether Jewish or not. Desiring to turn others to Torah like Hillel is a way of showing love for all. This extends to non-Jews, especially when they express a desire to convert.162 Because of the great value of bringing people to Torah, it is especially important to embrace all like Hillel and not to dismiss others too quickly like Shammai. The saying in Avot 1:13 about making and losing one’s name is delivered in Aramaic, whereas Hillel delivers the other sayings in Hebrew. In all of Avot, the only other sayings in Aramaic are by Hillel in Avot 2:7 and Ben He He in Avot 5:26. Aramaic was the common language of Jews in Palestine and Babylon at this time while Hebrew was the literary form of expression for the rabbis. Some suggest that this saying either comes from Hillel’s time in Babylon or that he offered it as a saying meant even for the ordinary people to learn.163 The sense that one who is overly ambitious will come to an inevitable fall reflects prior biblical teaching, especially in Isaiah 2:17 and Proverbs 29:23 (as well as Matthew 23:5-12 about which more will be said later). Important here is the role of humility as articulated by Hillel. Humility along the path of Torah study is essential. Paradoxically, one can only aspire to the virtue and learning of Hillel by resolutely putting aside one’s own desire for fame and glory. Learning Torah and growing in the virtues that emerge from that practice is enough to put one on this path.164 The exhortation to not seek one’s own fame also builds upon the advice of Hillel’s teacher Shemayah to not “make yourself known to the ruling authority” (1:10). The danger of attracting fame to oneself is that those who come to the attention of the (non-Jewish) government tend to meet untimely fates.165 As the Talmud teaches, “Authority buries its owner” (BT Pesachim 87b). Hillel’s best known saying is from Avot 1:16: “If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am for myself only, what am I? And if not now, when?” This saying has the classic form of a tripartite wisdom proverb offering instruction on how to attain mastery of one’s life through

161 162 163 164 165

ARN B 26, 126. Machzor Vitry on Avot 1:12. Herford 33; Taylor 22; Tosafot Yom Tov on Avot 1:13. Taylor 22, Herford 33. ARNA 12, 71; Rashi on Avot 1:13.

98

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

self-reliance and personal responsibility. The overall message is to perform righteous deeds in this world because one will have no means of doing so in the world to come.166 ARN A understands Hillel’s first question to mean, “If I do not lay up merit in my lifetime, who will lay up merit for me?” Merit here refers to the concept of zekhut, righteous deeds that are pleasing to God and thus invoke divine favor. The idea is not the avoidance of sin but the positive performance of deeds. While rabbinic Judaism has a notion of the transferability of merit from generation to generation (zekhut avot or merits of the fathers), this saying has the sense that one is responsible for one’s own deeds alone.167 Later commentators also note the importance of self-motivation in this saying. Maimonides observes, “there are no external motivators to divine service. Rather, it is the person himself who must turn himself to either side, as he desires.”168 One can only rely so much on others to serve as an impetus to righteousness. Even surrounded by others striving to fulfill the Torah, one must locate the desire, ability, and actions necessary to fulfill God’s will within oneself. Others can be an aid, but the final responsibility comes down to the individual. The second part of this saying continues the theme of self-reliance for one’s merits. Concerning this part, Rabbeinu Yonah grapples with the question of how to adequately fulfill the commandments of Torah given the human inclination to evil. Rabbeinu Yonah offers a parable of a king who gives a field to servants expecting a yield of 30 tons of produce. Despite all of their work, the workers only produced five tons. When the king asked why they did not produce more, the workers said they could have produced more if the field had not been of such poor quality. Similarly, humans could fulfill more of the commandments if not for their evil inclination. Despite all their striving, humans will only produce a fraction of what they ought. But if people do not try at all, they will not fulfill any commandments. Hence it is better to do what one can than to give in because of the difficulty of the task. Hillel’s final question reiterates what came before. Now is the time to study Torah. This question is a reminder of mortality. There is only so much time to study Torah and to begin acquiring merit before one arrives at the world to come.169 Moreover, this question is a reminder of 166 167 168 169

Gottlieb, 160-61; Herford, 34; Saldarini, 54. ARN A 12, 69; Schofer, 129, 141. Maimonides on Avot 1:14, 70-71. ARN A, 12, 69; Sforno on Avot 1:14.

CHAPTER ONE

99

Hillel’s prior teaching that to not study Torah is to perish and condemn oneself (1:13). This study of Torah will not only benefit oneself, but if done properly will also make one like a disciple of Aaron, bringing others to the righteousness that God desires for them. This is because to study Torah is also to be inspired to teach others the way of Torah. The injunction by Shammai to “make your Torah regular” has been interpreted in several ways. The first, found in ARN A, is the sense that one ought to be diligent in study – one ought to attend to what is taught in the study house and to internalize it. This requires having a fixed time of study. But what comprises a fixed time of study? This yields to a second interpretation. Some commentators, like Maimonides, argue that this means to always designate a time to study and to ensure that business does not get in the way of this. Others, like Rashi, hold that this means one should have regular times throughout the day for study, even as one earns a livelihood. This is a matter of consequence, as the Talmud teaches that one of the first questions one will receive in the world to come is whether one regularly studied Torah (BT Shabbat 31a). Making one’s Torah fixed means to have a consistent form of interpretation of the contents of Torah. Thus one will always be fair with applying rulings to all people, not being overly lenient with some and overly harsh with others. Instead, the principles of justice and equality found in Torah will also be contained in one’s teachings.170 ARN A teaches that saying little and doing much is the behavior of the righteous, while the wicked say much but do little. This is illustrated by an example of saying little and doing much that relates how God promised to deliver Abraham’s descendants after their bondage in Egypt. So too the Holy One, blessed be He, said little and did much, as it is said, ‘And the Lord said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years, and the nation that they will serve I will judge, and afterward they shall come out with great substance’ (Gen. 15.13f.). He promised him no more than punishment by means of His D and N name, but in the end, when the Holy One, blessed be He, requited Israel’s enemies, He did so in fact by means of his seventy-two letter name, as it is said, ‘Or hath God assayed to go and take him a nation from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs, and by wonders… and by great terrors’ (Deut. 4:34).171 170 171

ARN A 13; Maimonides on Avot 1:14; Rashi on Avot 1:14; ARN B 23. ARN A 13, 73. Quotation emended for clarity.

100

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

The interpretation of this passage depends on an understanding of the multiple names of God. Since God is only knowable by revelation, many names of God are possible that describe attributes of God or ways in which humanity relates to God. These names are known, of course, through the revelatory language of Hebrew. Hebrew itself then has a great sort of power in that recombination of its various letters reveals the many names of God. In this passage in Genesis 15 God proclaims a twoletter version of his name, “Judge” (or DN). The verse following what was quoted above declares, “I will execute judgment on the nation they will serve” (Gen. 15:14). The word judge in Hebrew is dan, thus God as Judge only acted according to his “D and N names,” that is, by his twolettered name. But according to ARN A, when God finally acted against Egypt, he not only acted as judge but also did many other things, according to Deuteronomy 4:34. This verse in Hebrews contains 32 words and 72 characters. Thus here God does much more than he promises. Since God is righteous, this is a quality of God that Israel can rely upon. Rabbeinu Yonah, citing the teacher Saadiah Gaon, states that since just the promise of two letter of God’s name accomplished so much in the Exodus of Israel of Egypt, then Israel should place great hope in the many promises for the final redemption of Israel witnessed to in the many words of the prophets. He writes, “One should reflect on this and take it to heart, because his faith will be richly rewarded.”172 Here we have a fuller sense of how it is the wise who study Torah become righteous. By saying little and doing much, they are not only like their righteous forbearer Abraham but they also take on qualities of God’s own dealings with humanity. To act in this way, reflecting on the great promise contained in but a few words, one can also cultivate the qualities of the faithful who hope and trust in all that God has covenanted with Israel, including the final redemption. Shammai ends with an encouragement to be open to all. At its core, this saying teaches that a warm welcome should not be only for fellow students and their sages, but indeed for all. This sort of openness is not just a kind of social pleasantness but conveys a willingness to engage in the process of learning and teaching that others might be willing to engage in. Theoretically, this disposition is not limited to fellow Jews but may be extended even to Gentiles.173 Even if Shammai is perhaps best known for his rebuke of the would be proselyte whom Hillel famously 172 173

Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 1.15, 64. Schofer, Making of A Sage, 137; Judah Goldin, “Pirkei Avot” in Or Hadash, 159.

CHAPTER ONE

101

instructed, the words of Shammai still might be the means for inviting even Gentiles into the world of the wisdom of Torah. As noted earlier, Shammai too teaches the words of the living God, words that even Gentiles might hear. Christian Resonances Reflecting on the sayings attributed to Hillel and Shammai and the commentaries upon them, I will consider three principle themes. The first is the figure of Hillel and implications for Christian understandings of the uniqueness of Jesus, especially the content of his teaching. The second is the relationship of Israel to the nations in light of Hillel’s sayings. And finally, I will consider the notion of merit in relationship to righteousness. Hillel and the Uniqueness of Jesus A number of scholars have inquired into the relationship between the teachings of Jesus and Hillel.174 The desire to compare Hillel and Jesus is tempting given their close chronological proximity and the influence of each on the development of their respective traditions. There ought to be caution in this effort, however, in that comparative analysis of Jesus with other religious founders often is not a purely objective historical effort but often has a theological component. In some cases, scholars have used Hillel as a negative foil to establish the superiority of the teachings of Jesus.175 This is not to state that a theological component of this analysis is flawed but that the commitments undergirding such an effort ought to be obvious. For the purpose of this commentary, the theological commitment has already been made clear – to inquire how a comparative theological approach can open new understandings of Christian theology that can be voiced in a non-supersessionist mode. In light of this comparative theological approach, a primary question to grapple with is the uniqueness of Jesus in light of the teachings of Hillel.

174 Among many books and articles, see in particular James H.  Charlesworth and Loren L. Johns, eds., Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997) and David Flusser, “Hillel’s Self-Awareness and Jesus” in Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), 509-14. 175 Alon Goshen Gottstein, “Hillel and Jesus: Are Comparisons Possible?” in Charlesworth and Johns, Hillel and Jesus, 31-32; Peter S. Alexander, “Jesus and the Golden Rule” in Charlesworth and Johns, Hillel and Jesus, 377.

102

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Hillel and Jesus were renowned teachers who gathered students around them in the first century of the Common Era. Significantly, both are credited with formulating a version of the “Golden Rule.” We have already seen the saying attributed to Hillel: “What is hateful to yourself do not do to others. This is the entire Torah, and the rest is commentary; go and study.” Jesus’ articulation of the Golden Rule is found in Matthew and Luke: “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and prophets” (Matt. 7:12) and “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31). The teachings of both Hillel and Jesus ultimately draw from Torah in Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your fellow as yourself.” Neither Hillel nor Jesus are independent in this formulation, whether in its positive or negative formulation as it is already attested around 200 B.C.E. in the Book of Tobit: “And what you hate, do not do to anyone” (Tobit 4:15). The Golden Rule was a common element of Jewish teaching in the Second Temple period that served as a reiteration of Leviticus 19:18.176 In this light, Hillel and Jesus are active participants in the common streams of Jewish life and thought of their era. A closer analysis indicates that there is much that makes them distinctive from each other. This can be summarized with the claim that Hillel is a paradigmatic, but not unique, representative of rabbinic Judaism, while the uniqueness of Jesus serves as the foundation for the early Christian movement. Alon Goshen Gottstein helpfully draws out the implications of this core distinction. In Avot, Hillel appears as a link, albeit an influential one, in a chain of teaching tradition. Hillel’s status as a sage derives from his firm location within a wider wisdom tradition that constitutes a collective rabbinic culture. Even the differences between the schools of Hillel and Shammai over points of interpretation only have significance because of the shared assumptions of these rabbinic schools. Hillel is a peak in a range of Torah learning. In contrast, while Jesus is knowledgeable about issues of Torah interpretation, his voice and authority rests not in a participation in a common culture of learning and teaching but in his eschatological and prophetic orientations. Jesus casts himself as a prophet speaking out against what he views as deficiencies in religious life. He speaks as an eschatological agent (Son of Man / Son of God) sent to usher in the kingdom of God. His acts of healing and teaching bolster his authority. While the rabbis gain their teaching authority through what they have learned from their teachers, Jesus derives his teaching authority from his own personal conviction of his 176

Alexander, 372-75.

CHAPTER ONE

103

special relationship with God. He teaches in no name but his own as the one sent by God. A significant portion of scholarship on the historical Jesus over the past several decades has emphasized the Jewish context of Jesus’ ministry and teaching. This has been a necessary corrective to prior iterations of scholarship in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that often attended to Jesus’ Jewish context in a spirit of rivalry to establish the superiority of Jesus over perceived deficiencies in Second Temple Judaism. While this corrective has been useful in many ways, not the least in the ways in which it helps dismantle anti-Jewish and supersessionist patterns in Christianity, it is also important to not let the Jewish context of Jesus be overly determinative. This brief comparison of Hillel and Jesus shows that while Jesus did share much in common with his wider Jewish context and that his message is coherent within it, he is also irreducibly distinct. The means by which Jesus claimed his prophetic and eschatological authority by differentiation from a wider teaching tradition made him a unique figure. A theologian seeking to create a non-supersessionist Christology is challenged to both positively account for Jesus’ Jewishness while acknowledging his distinctiveness in comparison to contemporary Jews. Gentiles and mission Hillel’s saying in Avot 1:12 that Torah students should aspire to be like disciples of Aaron includes the idea that the pursuit of knowledge of Torah should include an attitude of love towards all of humanity so that others might be drawn to Torah. Shammai teaches an attitude of openness towards all. This indicates that not just Israel but also Gentiles ought to be a subject of concern for those who study Torah. Robert Travers Herford understands this saying to mean that there is no national or religious barrier to the exercise of love. To bring even Gentiles closer to Torah means “to make them sharers in the fuller knowledge of God and more conscious of his blessings.”177 Although mission to the Gentiles was not a normative aspect of Jewish life, there is none the less the sense throughout rabbinic literature that the life of Israel ideally has positive ramifications for the nations of the world. Mission to Gentiles has been a primary aspect of Christianity. Both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke end with Jesus’ instructions to his disciples to go out from Jerusalem to preach the gospel to all the 177

Herford, 32.

104

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

nations of the earth (Matt. 28:19; Luke 24:27). Some contemporary Jewish theologians have begun to consider the Christian mission to the nations as the means by which the Gentiles have been drawn to the God of Israel. Michael Kogan writes, “Jesus was… the one sent by Israel’s God to bring gentiles into the covenant that until then had connected the Holy One exclusively with the people Israel… [T]hrough Jesus… membership in the people Israel was opened to the nations. Henceforth, Israel, Jewish root and Christian branch, entered a new stage of its life under an expanded covenant open to all peoples.”178 Here Kogan alludes to the famous Pauline metaphor of the Church engrafted into the root of Israel (Rom. 11:17-21). From this Jewish theological perspective, the Church does not exist to convert Jews but rather to serve as a vehicle to open God’s covenant to all, thus fulfilling God’s promise to Abraham that all the nations will be blessed by him (Gen. 12:3). This vision articulated by Kogan requires yet again a reconsideration of the nature of the role of Jesus Christ in relationship to Israel. Jesus declares his ministry as one to the “lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). New Testament literature conveys a strong sense of conflict over the ministry of Jesus among the people Israel. Paul writes of the mystery that most of Israel did not recognize Jesus’ messiahship and defers the resolution of this issue to an eschatological horizon (Rom. 11:25). To accept Kogan’s vision of the role of Christianity in relation to Israel requires a doctrinal rethinking of the person of Jesus Christ so that his status as messiah or redeemer matters for Gentiles but not Israel. He becomes a Jewish savior but not for Jews. This understanding leaves unresolved Hillel’s insight that one learned in Torah, as a Jew, ought to draw even Gentiles to observance of the Torah. Christianity as it currently stands does not encourage a great deal of observance of the 613 commandments of Torah nor even a high degree of devotion to Torah in comparison to New Testament texts. The status of Torah remains an issue for Christians to address in this theological context. To move towards Kogan’s vision would require increased theological and spiritual humility on the part of Christians and reversing supersessionist patterns of thinking. Christians would be well served to remember Paul’s warning that in light of God’s mercy shown to the Gentiles, they should do away with boasting and any claim of special privilege. In light of this, Torah should not be overthrown but upheld so that all might be drawn to the God of Israel (Rom. 3:27-31). 178 Michael S.  Kogan, Opening the Covenant: A Jewish Theology of Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 149.

CHAPTER ONE

105

Merit and Righteousness Hillel’s final saying in Avot 1:13 offers a perspective on earning merit and attaining righteousness for oneself and others that contrasts with aspects of the Christian tradition. While the Jewish tradition generally tends to be optimistic about the human ability to attain righteousness, the Christian tradition tends towards pessimism on this question. Some of this difference is rooted in the nature of Jewish and Christian communities. Hillel’s saying speaks to how to pursue righteousness in the context of sages who collectively are pursuing wisdom grounded in Torah. As a group, they encourage and teach one another how to go about fulfilling what God has revealed in Torah in order to attain merit, grow in wisdom, and act in a righteous way. In contrast, Christianity has tended to emphasize reliance on the figure and teaching of Jesus Christ as the primary mediator of God’s revelation and as the one who guarantees the merit and righteousness of the Christian believer. Humans cannot gain righteousness without the intercession of Jesus. So while Hillel offers a valuable teaching about how to pursue wisdom and righteousness, Jesus is the uniquely redemptive figure who by virtue of his merit and righteousness attains these qualities in turn for others. The commentary tradition on Hillel’s first question, “If I am not for myself, who is for me?” speaks to the importance of individual motivation to earn merit, as reflected in ARN A and Maimonides. This optimistic self-reliance contrasts with early Christian views. The Letter to the Ephesians emphasizes that merit (being “saved”) is awarded by God, not earned by the individual. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life” (Eph. 2:8-10).179 People are expected to do good works, but these are works that are achieved by virtue of being “in Christ,” and so dependent on the work of Christ prior to any human activity. In particular, the grace of God is necessary to animate followers of Christ to do good works. Hillel is not only concerned with attaining individual righteousness, as revealed in his second question – “And if I am for myself only, what am I?” Commentators build upon this question by recognizing, as Rabbeinu Yonah did, that one may not be able to attain all forms of 179

Viviano, 26.

106

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

righteousness and do all that is commanded perfectly, but it is still one’s duty to do what one can. This realism is accompanied by the recognition that one cannot attain merit by attending only to one’s own needs. Rather, as Sforno teaches, because this work is hard, one must always seek to aid others in their own striving. Paradoxically, in aiding others, one also finds further merit for oneself. But it is not only deeds that earn righteousness, but also the inner disposition that accompanies them. This sense is richly conveyed in the commentaries on Shammai’s teaching to “say little and do much.” This is a disposition not only towards practice but also a faithful hope to invest in the God who promises the redemption of Israel. The one who says little and does much is reckoned as righteous not only because of his own deeds but also because of the abiding faith in God that this way of life requires. This sense that the pursuit of righteousness is not located in oneself alone is also found in Christian writings. For example, Paul writes, “We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord, so then, whether we live or we die, we are the Lord’s” (Rom. 14:7-8).180 The rabbinic tradition moves away from complete self-reliance to a form of mutual support and encouragement focused on Torah study. In the Christian tradition, there is a sense that all in the community of believers mutually rely not on one another but on the intercessory figure of Jesus Christ. The debate over the degree to which an individual could attain righteousness by one’s work alone occurred in sixteenth-century European Christianity in the context of developments in the doctrine of justification. Roman Catholicism and Protestantism divided over whether one could be justified with the aid of good works. Protestantism argued that until one had been justified by divine grace, no work could be good in the sense of earning merit or leading to righteousness. Thus the Lutheran Augsburg Confession of 1530 states, Our works cannot reconcile us with God or obtain grace for us, for this only happens through faith, that is, when we believe that our sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who alone is the Mediator who reconciles the Father. Whoever imagines that he can accomplish this by works, or that he can merit grace, despises Christ and seeks his own way to God, contrary to the Gospel.181

180

Ibid. “Augsburg Confession” in Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation, ed. Mark A. Noll (Grand Rapids, MI Baker Books, 1991), 94. 181

CHAPTER ONE

107

This position stands in stark contrast to Hillel’s optimistic stance that one can earn merit that will find favor with God. Only Jesus Christ by his death provides any merit that the believer can access and this is received in a passive way often described as “imputed righteousness” that makes clear there is no work one can do to merit right relationship with God. During the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church offered a response to Protestant views on justification. The council taught in condemnation of the Protestant position that, If anyone says that man’s free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God’s call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.182

From the Roman Catholic perspective, one does need the aid of divine grace in order to obtain justification. However, the Council of Trent affirmed that this grace allows the human person to participate in justification as active agents. Nonetheless, righteousness cannot be realized without the salvific work of Jesus Christ.183 While Protestant and Roman Catholic Christianity came to differing understanding about how to attain righteousness and merit, it is clear that both located the primary source for this state in the intercessory power of Christ. While these traditions disagree over whether or not people may obtain righteousness on their own, neither has as optimistic a view as that of Hillel and the subsequent rabbinic tradition. These differences in anthropology and soteriology ultimately rest in the pivotal role of Jesus Christ as redemptive savior for humanity in the Christian tradition. Although individual scholars might inquire about how the sayings of Hillel and the historical Jesus might be fruitfully compared, it is clear that even in the first century, Jesus held a significance for his followers that was radically different than Hillel and his school. These initial differences led to even clearer trajectories of difference in teaching in subsequent generations. Although Christianity undeniably emerges out of a Jewish matrix, it is clear that compared to the rabbinic movement, the Jewishness of Jesus and his followers operated on an axis that gave rise to a distinct religious tradition. 182 Council of Trent, “Canons Concerning Justification,” Canon 4 in Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation, 184. 183 “Canons Concerning Justification,” Canon 10 in Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation, 185.

108

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Avot 1:16 Rabban Gamliel used to say, “Make a teacher for yourself and remove yourself from doubt, and do not tithe by guesswork.” Avot 1:17 Shimon his son said, “All my life I have grown up among the sages, and I have found nothing better for a person but silence, and it is not the study but the practice that is the most important thing. And all who talk excessively bring occasion for sin.” Avot 1:18 Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, “On three things the world stands – on justice and on truth and on peace, as it is said, ‘Render truth and justice perfectly in your gates’” (Zech. 8.16). Jewish Interpretations Beginning with the saying of Rabban Gamliel (also known as the Elder to differentiate him from later descendants with the same name) the chain of tradition ceases to present pairs of sages. In its place we encounter a chain of teaching tradition that features descendants of Hillel culminating with Rabbi Yehudah the Patriarch, the redactor of the Mishnah. It is uncertain whether or not Gamliel’s family descended from Hillel but this claim operated to cement the authority of the House of Gamliel as continuous with the House of Hillel, thus reinforcing the teaching authority of Rabbi Yehudah the Patriarch. Scholars speculate that Rabbi Yehudah inserted Gamliel and Shimon into the text and later third-century editors inserted Rabbi Yehudah and his son Gamliel II in Avot 2:1-4. Following that were added further sayings by Hillel (2:5-7) until the chain of the teaching tradition from the academy of the sages resumes with Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai and his students in 2:8. The divergence of the chains of transmission also creates chronological discontinuities. Gamliel the Elder dies around 60 C.E. and Gamliel II around 230 C.E. When the chain reverts back to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, the text moves back to around 70-80 C.E. The chain of transmission then moves on to proceed chronologically until the re-emergence of Rabbi Yehudah the Patriarch in Avot 4:20, which signals the end of the chain of transmission for the purposes of this text.184 This section 184 Saldarini, Scholastic Rabbinism, 73; Tropper, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography, 23-24, 103-5.

CHAPTER ONE

109

will focus on Rabban Gamliel and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s teachings and will pass over those of Shimon without comment. One school of rabbinic tradition argues for the significance of a shift of terminology in the chains of transmission. Starting here, sages are no longer introduced with the formula “they received it [the Torah] from…” but that a teacher “used to say.” This is to signify that with the emergence of the Schools of Hillel and Shammai differing interpretations of halakhah emerged and increased varieties of opinion about how to render decisions regarding matters of halakhah. No longer did there exist a single universal tradition of halakhah but differing schools around which the sages coalesced. Gamliel’s saying continues the theme of the importance of sages to take great care in their instruction. This is especially the case when called upon to act as judges in matters of halakhah. The exhortation by Gamliel to acquire a teacher is interpreted differently than Yehoshua ben Parachyah’s in Avot 1:6. Yehoshua ben Parachyah instructs one to find a teacher to study with while here the advice is to find a teacher who can give consistent advice on matters of halakhah. To have a single teacher ensures that one’s answers are consistent and do not result in error by sometimes offering a lenient ruling and at other times a strict ruling on the same issue.185 The exhortation to not tithe by guesswork originally referred to the process of offering agricultural tithes to the priesthood. The concept behind this saying spoke to the importance of offering the ten percent required – if too little or too much was offered this created confusion over what remaining foodstuff could be properly consumed. The larger principle is for sages and judges to provide clear rulings that do not create doubt. Rabbeinu Yonah expands on this principle, offering that this saying is “a metaphor concerning reasoning in learning Torah. Torah study should not be approximate, it requires clarity and depth.” Going about Torah study with this sort of clarity allows one to recognize when one’s rulings are correct and when that of another is sounder.186 This is not only a benefit to the teaching authority of the sage, but it also benefits the entire community one serves, as all have greater clarity about how to fulfill the commandments found in Torah. The emphasis in Gamliel the Elder’s saying on the importance of juridical method and guidance reflects a development of the teaching tradition around Torah and halakhah. That Gamliel is also the first to be given an honorific title, “Rabban,” indicates the further concretization 185 186

Maimonides on Avot 1.16, Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 1.16. Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 1.16.

110

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

of a rabbinic teaching tradition sometime around the very end of the Second Temple period. In this context, a question of doubt would concern interpretive concerns and the need to properly interpret Torah. Gamliel’s saying, then, signals a further development in creating a fence around Torah. This fence is to be built with care and with the assistance of other sages to ensure that Torah is not only properly studied but also properly fulfilled. The final saying of the first chapter of Avot by Rabban Shimon echoes Avot 1:2 where Shimon the Righteous declares that the world stands on the Torah, the Temple service, and performing deeds of loving-kindness. According to Sforno, the saying of Shimon the Righteous speaks to the things for which the world was created, while the three items Rabban Shimon lists (justice, truth, and peace) speak to the key blocks of human society. Rabbeinu Yonah adds the further perspective that one could say that justice, truth, and peace are the necessary elements to ensure the continued existence of creation. If God created the world for the Torah, the Temple service, and deeds of loving-kindness, God continues to sustain it by justice, truth and peace. These three qualities, however, greatly depend on human collaboration with the divine will. Thus to sustain the world with justice requires courts of justice (Rabbeinu Yonah) or legal systems that are clearly equitable (Maimonides). Rabbeinu Yonah explains that truth is necessary for all societies because without it there is discord. Truth ensures social harmony, but it can only be gained by pursuing the Word of God, Torah. This Torah is known to be true because the one who is Truth delivered it. To pursue peace for society, according to Rabbeinu Yonah, means to understand that “peace includes what is good for the entire world, and its benefit is endless.”187 The force of this statement can have two social referent points. On the one hand, there is a broad sense that the study of Torah can help ensure that there is peace in the world – more knowledge of Torah will lead to greater ethical behavior and forge greater peace. On the other hand, this saying can also refer to the idea that on an inter-personal level the role of rabbis in offering legal disputes and resolving judicial disputes fairly by using Torah as a guide can help to lessen communal conflicts.188 This position is an ironic one to take if Rabban Shimon did indeed say this in the context of the gathering storm of the Jewish revolt against Rome that led to the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. But perhaps there 187 188

Yonah on Avot 1.18, 71. Claudia Heszer, Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine, 377.

CHAPTER ONE

111

was truth even in that irony. For indeed the rabbinic movement gradually gained appeal in its presentation of the study of Torah as a fitting alternative to the absence of Temple sacrifices. And even if one pillar of the world seemed destroyed with the end of the Temple, deeds of lovingkindness and Torah study abided. And so, one could still hope to practice justice, truth and peace in ways that spread these ideals everywhere, starting first with the exercise of teaching authority in the local communities that comprised the people of Israel. Christian Resonances From a Christian perspective, the appearance of Rabban Gamliel in Avot 1:16 has added significance since he appears twice in the Book of Acts in the New Testament. The first time occurs when the apostles are arrested after having publicly performed miracles and teaching in the name of Jesus in the Temple precincts. Appearing before a council of elders overseen by the high priest (perhaps meant to be identified with the Sanhedrin), the apostles, led by Peter, refuse to cease proclaiming Jesus as risen and the source of redemption for the sins of Israel. This speech enrages the council to the degree that reportedly they wanted to kill the apostles (Acts 5:27-33). At this moment, Gamliel intervenes. But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a short time. Then he said to them, ‘Fellow-Israelites, consider carefully what you propose to do to these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and disappeared. After him Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people to follow him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!’ (Acts 5:34-39)

Gamliel speaks cautiously. He does not explicitly support the nascent Christian movement, but neither does he condemn it. While this might initially be read as a positive portrayal of Jewish leadership in Acts, the following verses signal caution. “They were convinced by him, and when they had called in the apostles, they had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. As they left the council, they rejoiced that they were considered worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name. And every day in the temple and at

112

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

home they did not cease to teach and proclaim Jesus as the Messiah” (Acts 5:40-42). Gamliel functions rhetorically to serve as an example of the knowledge of Jewish leadership about the claims concerning Jesus. But the actions of the rest of the council, especially the flogging of the apostles and the order to not speak (and thus heal) in the name of Jesus, indicates the continuation of religious Jewish opposition to the followers of Jesus that is a central theme of Acts. This theme of Jewish opposition in the New Testament was used throughout Christian history to support anti-Jewish theology and practices. Gamliel appears a second time in Acts when Paul, defending himself before a hostile crowd at the Temple in Jerusalem, describes his own credentials to proclaim Jesus. I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated strictly according to our ancestral law, being zealous for God, just as all of you are today. I persecuted this Way up to the point of death by binding both men and women and putting them in prison, as the high priest and the whole council of elders can testify about me. From them I also received letters to the brothers in Damascus, and I went there in order to bind those who were there and to bring them back to Jerusalem for punishment. (Acts 22:3-5)

Paul’s authority has two sources. The primary one is the appearance of the risen Jesus to him on the way to Damascus (Acts 9:3-6; 22:6-11). It is this event that authorizes Paul as an apostle. But what enables him to speak authoritatively on the Scriptures and history and destiny of Israel in light of the risen Jesus is his learning at the feet of Gamliel. In a later appearance before the chief priests and the Sanhedrin, he attempts to play off factions between the Pharisees and the Sadducees by appealing to his own status as one trained as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6). His status as a Pharisee and one trained in Torah study does not appear to have been an invention of the author of Acts. In his own letters, Paul makes reference to his education as a Pharisee and one well-versed in Torah (Phil. 3:5). While this training is fundamental to Paul’s ability to effectively work in his role as an apostle to the Gentiles to announce the opening of the covenant through the person of Jesus the Messiah, Paul’s training with a person like Gamliel is always presented as preparatory to his current mission. After the figure of Paul, the trajectories of the early Christian movement and the House of Gamliel diverge. From the mid-first century to the early third century, the traditions of the early apostles and the houses of study begin to coalesce into the beginnings of normative Christianity

CHAPTER ONE

113

and rabbinic Judaism. Thus as the House of Gamliel reaches the height of its glory with Rabbi Yehudah the Patriarch’s codification of the Mishnah around 200 C.E., so Irenaeus of Lyon, Tertullian of Carthage, and Clement of Alexandria (among others) are engaged in their projects of defining the contours of catholic Christianity. The standard account of Jewish-Christian relations emphasizes the emergence of difference between these two traditions and would see the divergent chains of traditions between sages and bishops as evidence of the reification of that difference, as seen in the discussion of Avot 1.1. In the figure of Gamliel we discover a figure who can potentially link these two chains of tradition. Often when scholars look to discover mutual connections between Jews and Christians they tend to emphasize the figure of Jesus as someone whose Jewishness can be retrieved in a way that does not make him so distinctive from his context. Yet this commentary has shown that there are a variety of aspects of the figure of Jesus, primarily the emphasis on his own person as unique even in the earliest strata of his ministry, that make him irreducibly different from his Jewish contemporaries, such as Hillel. But what if Christians did not view Paul as representative of a break with the Jewish past but an apostle of a new role of Gentiles in Israel’s story? Might Christians began to consider Gamliel, as the putative teacher of Paul, one of the links in their own chain of tradition? What might Christians learn if they regularly took to contemplating Gamliel’s saying? Indeed, what if they looked at both Avot 1:1 and 1:18 as a statement of both a Jewish and Christian chain of tradition? What if they included Paul as a further link in this chain from Gamliel? Christians could do this in a way that is not triumphalist or supersessionist but rather as a means of acknowledging the riches they have been given as adopted heirs. Christians could view Jesus Christ as a teacher of Torah above all and see that the Gentile entry into God’s covenant with Israel also provides them with other teachers of Torah. Taking this stance allows Christians to hear polemical New Testament passages with different ears. Matthew 23:23 is a prophetic curse uttered by Jesus that at first read appears to negate much of the three sayings by Rabban Gamliel and Shimon. It reads, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others.” It seems that Jesus is rebuking the practice of careful tithing grounded in knowledge of Torah recommended by Gamliel and condemning the teachers of

114

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Torah for ignoring the three pillars of Shimon. But a closer look suggests that Jesus and our sages are not so far apart. In this passage, the practice of tithing itself is not discounted. The early community of Jesus followers did indeed tithe to the Temple priesthood; Jesus assumes a normative practice. The issue is not with doing what Torah commands, but rather the principles of how to do what Torah commands. Jesus asks that Torah be done with an ethical focus on the virtues of justice, mercy and faith.189 Klaus Wengst offers an interpretation whereby Jesus and Shimon are in more agreement than disagreement. He argues that Jesus’ phrase “weightier matters of the law” does not mean commandments that are difficult to fulfill but rather the essential aspects of the law, much as Shimon emphasizes core principals of justice, truth, and peace. Jesus’ phrase “justice” (țȡȚıȚȢ) corresponds to the Hebrew word din that Shimon employs. According to Luz, similar ideas of fairness and equity for all in society are at play. In the word rendered “mercy” (İȜİȠȢ), Jesus probably has in mind something merciful or charitable deeds, similar to what is rendered in Hosea 6:6. Although this word is not an equivalent term to “peace” (shalom) in Shimon, it carries much of the same resonance – a balanced and integrated society in which people are not in conflict but united for the common good as defined by Torah. Finally, the concept of “faith” (ʌȚıIJȚȢ) does not refer so much to belief but faithfulness and trustworthiness. This corresponds to the Hebrew word for truth (emet) used by Shimon, which also has similar connotations. In the view of Wengst, the words of Jesus must be identified as meaningful specifically in a similar context to Shimon’s. The polemical language in which the Pharisees and scribes are condemned may not be words original to Jesus but rather reflect a conflict between the Matthean community and others that date from after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., after the death of both Jesus and Rabban Shimon.190 If it is possible to defer the polemical language of Matthew 23:23 to a later redaction of the gospel, then these two sayings convey overlapping themes of the centrality of core ethical dimensions of the Torah. Here we can recollect the other saying of Shimon, that practicing Torah is 189 Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21-28: A Commentary, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2005), 121-23. 190 Klaus Wengst, “Worauf Die Welt Steht Und Das Gewichtigere in Der Tora (mAv 1,18 Und Mt 23,23)” in “Eine Grenze hast Du gesetzt”; Edna Brocke zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Ekkehard W.  Stegemann and Klaus Wengst (Stuttgart, W.  Kolhammer, 2003), 249-57.

CHAPTER ONE

115

greater than studying it insofar as the purpose of Torah study is to orient one towards God’s will for oneself and the world. In the gospels, Jesus similarly emphasizes the importance of performing deeds that reveal one’s orientation towards the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God (cf. Matt. 7:24). While there is a great deal that distinguishes Jesus from rabbinic Judaism, especially the collective focus on authority by interpretation of the Torah for the rabbis versus the self-authenticating authority of Jesus, it is not possible to distinguish the two based on questions of ethical orientation. It is clear that Jesus roots his teachings in the Scriptures of Israel, just as the rabbinic movement did. While Jesus does not place as strong a value on the performance of halakhah as the rabbis, neither does he completely discount its value. For Jesus the ethical orientation towards justice, truth, and peace will result in properly oriented performance of halakhah. But we also see with Shimon and other sages studied in this chapter that ethical behavior is vital for the performance of the commandments of Torah. Without this ethical orientation, the pursuit of wisdom contained in Torah is fruitless. This observation about the practice of halakhah might be a commonplace within the Jewish context, but it is less common among Christian thinkers who still tend to impose a legalistic matrix on Jewish thought and practice. It is also useful to observe that Rabban Shimon’s three pillars of justice, truth, and peace are behaviors and qualities that not only Jews strive for but are understood to be universal aspects of ideal human society. Thus Rabbeinu Yonah rightly observes, as cited above, that “peace includes what is good for the entire world, and its benefit is endless.” The pursuit of peace by students of Torah is meant to benefit not only Israel but also the entire world. Similarly, seeking peace and reconciliation is an activity that all followers of Jesus are to exercise and its benefit should not only be for those in one’s own group but for all, as the parable of the Good Samaritan aptly shows. The desire for peace as one of highest goals of society runs deep in the Christian tradition, as testified by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity… Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.”191

191 Catechism of the Catholic Church (Washington D.C.: United States Catholic Conference / Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994), #2304.

116

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

The orientation towards peace by both the Jewish and Christian traditions is not merely a shared similarity but is born out by the Christian inheritance of the Scriptures of Israel. Jesus’ call for the pursuit of justice, faithfulness, truth, and peace ultimately depends on the revelation of God at Sinai preserved in the Torah. The sources and forms of authority articulated by Jesus and the rabbinic movement and the implications of these claims diverge greatly. But the ethical orientations are not simply shared ones. It can rightly be said that Christian ethics is grounded in a preceding Jewish ethics. This in turn requires that Christian teachers and leaders properly account for the Jewish sources of their morality, including ones that form the basis of post-biblical Judaism, in their own teaching.

CHAPTER TWO

Avot 2:1 Rabbi said: “Which is the right way that one should choose? Anything that brings honor to the one who does it and brings honor from men. And be careful with a light commandment as with a weighty one, because you do not know the reward given for the commandments. And consider the loss from a commandment against its reward, and the reward of a sin against its loss. And keep in mind three things, know what is above you – a seeing eye, a listening ear, and all that you do is written in a book.” As discussed at the end of the previous chapter, the figure here called “Rabbi” is Yehudah ha-Nasi, or the Patriarch (ca.140 C.E.-ca. 220 C.E.), who was instrumental in codifying the Mishnah. Later generations remembered him as the mastermind of a reinvigorated Judaism centered around the observance of mitzvot and their interpretation through halakhah that could be lived out in exile from Jerusalem and the land of Israel. As a result, he is typically referred to simply as “Rabbi” but also at times as “Rabbeinu HaKadosh” (our holy or saintly teacher) on account of his preeminent virtue and wisdom. The Talmud says of him, “From the days of Moses to Rabbi we have not found Torah and greatness in one person” (BT Gittin 59a).1 Jewish Interpretations Given his status, it is surprising that Rabbi Yehudah only receives a single entry in Avot (and not even that in Avot de-Rabbi Natan A). On the other hand, there are actually four discrete units contained in this single saying that all deserve treatment. These units all stem from his question “Which is the right way that one should choose?” This is a core question that speaks to the basis of all forms of behavior in life. This notion of a right way to travel that forms the basis of a good life is a common theme in wisdom literature, as Wisdom personified herself says, “I walk on the paths of righteousness, on the paths of justice” (Prov. 8:20). For Rabbi Judah and his followers, this right way is found through 1

Taylor, 27, Herford, 39, Kehati, 37.

118

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

the path of halakhah, the system of interpreting Torah in terms of righteous behavior – actions to be done and actions to be avoided. This forms the ethical basis for the rabbinic vision of Judaism, one that is decidedly activist in orientation. As we will see, rabbinic themes of righteousness, meritorious behavior, and merit generate comparative reflections on Christian perspectives on grace and justification. Rabbi’s teaching on honor is best understood to concern the pursuit of glory or praise. This quality is not to be a self-inflated sense but rather is meant as baseline for determining ethical behavior. In one sense, this type of behavior is not directed specifically to Jews but speaks to universal norms of behavior. Rabbeinu Yonah emphasizes that one ought to earn praise (not honor) in the performance of mitzvot that comprise the right way. The purpose is not to gain praise for oneself but for God. “Man’s mitzvot bring honor to God, as well as to the one who does them. The glory of mitzvot is man’s true glory, making it the path he should choose for himself.” To perform what Torah requires sets one on a path of wise living that earns praise in the eyes of others. But this praise is not only found in deeds but also in the manner of doing them. For Rabbeinu Yonah, there ought to be an element of aesthetic appeal that makes the mitzvot of Torah, and the God who communicated them, attractive. “Mitzvot should be made beautiful through the object used to perform them. A lulav, a tallit, a Torah scroll, and similar objects should be beautiful. Through these objects, others will take note of the beauty of the mitzvah and praise the one who fulfills it.”2 Rabbeinu Yonah’s words point to an essential aspect of the activist orientation of the halakhic life, its dialectical component. God reveals that which ought to be done as an expression of the covenantal relationship between God and Israel. These commandments are done not simply to satisfy a divine whim. Rather, the fulfillment of them both glorifies the giver and the doer of the commandments, both God and the individual. Many mitzvot require material elements to fulfill them and thus the material world itself becomes a source of praise as well. Potentially all things can be caught up in a cycle of praise – God, humanity, and the material world. The fundamental orientation of this praise is towards the One who reveals the mitzvot – created things when praised 2 Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 2:1, 73. A lulav is the combination of four species boound together, the palm branch (lulav), willow, myrtle, and citron (etrog), used in the ceremonies of the festival of Sukkot. Tallit are the fringes that Jewish males are commanded to wear as a means of remembering God and the covenant.

CHAPTER TWO

119

are praised as conduits directing the attention of others towards God. Thus, the praise one gains in the doing of mitzvot is not a form of works righteousness or self-glorification but a means of drawing the attention of others to the One who made all things and sets order to the world. The second and third aspects of Rabbi Judah’s saying illustrates the tension around the performance of mitzvot between the reward promised in their fulfillment and the need to observe them in a dis-interested manner in order to remain oriented towards the One who ordains them. The Torah sets out the possibility of reward for the fulfillment of mitzvot. Indeed, the Talmud notes that in two different places, the Torah promises that doing a specific commandment will ensure long life and flourishing, in the Ten Commandments when one is commanded to honor ones father and mother (Ex. 20:12) and instructions for how to behave when one finds a nest with fledglings or eggs in it along with a mother bird (Deut. 22:6-7). It is reasoned therefore that all positive commandments must have a reward, while all negative commandments or prohibitions have a punishment (BT Nedarim 39b). But while the punishments for violating negative commandments are clearly spelled out (cf. Deut. 28:15-68), the precise nature of rewards for fulfilling actions that are commanded are not set forth. Given this, the rabbis reasoned that one ought to perform all mitzvot with equal zeal despite the uncertainty of reward in this world. Indeed, it is taught in a midrash through the means of a parable that God did not reveal the reward for all the commandments in the same way that a king who owns an orchard does not reveal to workers the reward for planting various kinds of trees. Just as the king desired all the trees to be planted regardless of reward so too does God desire all commandments to be done, regardless of their relative importance or reward. The timing of these rewards are also uncertain – “there is a command whose reward is close by and there is a command whose reward is put off to the time-to-come.”3 In light of the uncertainty of the content of the reward for doing mitzvot but with the knowledge of the certainty of a final reward and punishment, a sense of immediacy surrounds the daily performance of positive commandments and avoidance of negative ones. While it might seem momentarily inconvenient to perform a mitzvah, it is ultimately far better to do it. And similarly, although it might seem a small thing to violate a commandment and sin, especially in small day-to-day affairs and business dealings, the cost of the punishment far outweighs any momentary gains. 3

Pesikta Rabbati 23/24:2; Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 2:1; Taylor 27, Kehati, 38.

120

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Maimonides observes that one should not fall into the trap of frantically trying to fulfill as many mitzvot as possible. Rather, if one is fulfilling what appears to be a minor mitzvah, one ought not to abandon it to fulfill a seemingly more important mitzvah if the opportunity arises. But at the same time, one should not pass up the opportunity to fulfill a mitzvah in the course of one’s day. While costs exist for performing a mitzvah, their rewards, though unknown at the moment, are considerable. The final portion of this saying reinforces the importance of considering the punishment and reward of fulfilling or violating mitzvot. The early rabbis held a firm belief in the future reward and punishment by a just God. There is a sense in this saying of always conducting oneself as if in the sight of God. Meiri observes that the act of remembering or recollecting are most important here. The locus of remembrance is not God as judge but ultimately God as the creator who made all things and gave mitzvot as the means by which people ought to live in this world. God has chosen to be deeply involved in the affairs of this world. Just as a parent rewards and disciplines a child, so too God has chosen to be part of the human family. In the eyes of the rabbis this is expressed most deeply in the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai and which the rabbis interpret for their own time. The mitzvot are not restrictions on behavior or unfathomable decrees but the means through their active fulfillment that humans come to their deepest flourishing and realization of the ideal life for which God created them. Christian Resonances Rabbi Yehudah’s saying creates resonances that are continuous with the question of Jesus’ view of Torah that concluded the final section of the previous chapter. A common trope in Christian interpretation of the teachings of Jesus is that he opposed the legalism of his era, especially as captured in his conflicts with the scribes and Pharisees recounted in the gospels. Often, the words of Jesus condemn hypocritical behavior in the fulfillment of religious duties (cf. Matt. 6:5; 23:15) of his era. This critique of certain behavior transformed into a pattern of Christian teaching that Judaism as a religion is essentially inclined towards hypocrisy. The discussion at the end of the previous chapter has already dealt with some of these issues. What is useful for this saying is to understand that both Jesus and the rabbis are equally concerned with ensuring that all behavior has its proper orientation towards God. The question of finding the right way on which to follow God’s will for humans was one that Jesus himself was asked about. Often when this

CHAPTER TWO

121

question was posed to Jesus it was in the form of which good deeds must be done to have eternal life or which was the greatest commandment. In both cases, Jesus summarizes essential aspects of the Torah (Matt. 19:16-19; 22:36-39). When pressed for more detail, Jesus urges that one does even greater good deeds, then sell all one has and give it to the poor. This will create a greater reward in heaven (Matt. 19:21). For Jesus, it is enough to fulfill the commandments. The everyday observance of what God requires ensures God’s reward (Matt. 6:1, 6), even if it might be an eschatological reward in heaven. Jesus’s teaching on pursuing a path that leads to divine reward is consonant with the teaching tradition of Rabbi Yehudah and his interpreters. Indeed, Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew even seems to acknowledge the distinction between light and weighty commandments – “Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19).4 While the Christian tradition emphasizes the importance of grace (the unrequited merit of Christ that ensures divine favor for sinful humans), Jesus teaches that there is reward for doing what God commands. In a way, this is a scandal, especially to Protestant traditions that established their self-understanding in opposition to behavior it understood as “works righteousness.” When using this term, Protestants often caricaturized Judaism as legalistic and applied it rhetorically to Roman Catholicism. There are certainly passages in which Jesus appears to undermine the notion that an individual might merit a reward for fulfilling the divine will. For example in the parable of the vineyard in Matthew 20, laborers are all paid the same wage despite some working all day and others only one hour. Yet the owner of the vineyard freely gives the same wage, despite the differing periods of labor. Indeed, Jesus ends this parable with the teaching that “the last will be first and the first will be last” (Matt. 20:16). This great reversal for the Matthean community has implications for how it governs itself (Matt. 18:15-20). And yet there is a strong sense that any reversals or rewards ultimately will be granted by God in the age to come. Jesus speaks of the promises of reward for following the will of God, even when the nature or process of granting the reward is inscrutable. Reading Yehudah’s saying and its interpretations helps break open the importance of the concept of reward in the teachings of Jesus and 4

Viviano, 31-33.

122

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

the unknown nature of these rewards. While the parable of the king and the orchard from Pesikta Rabbati cited above does not have the same sense of reversal as Jesus’s parable in Matthew 20 does, there remains an underlying sense of the importance of following what God desires. There is certainly a stronger sense of the priority of the individual mitzvot in the rabbinic text while Matthew’s text is less explicit on the symbolism of the labor itself. For both traditions, the orientation of the fulfillment of what God wills is for the glorification of God. The rewards they carry are a promise. But the deferral of the promised rewards makes glorifying God the more proximate and satisfactory reward. In this sense Jesus’s saying that “your Father who sees in secret will reward you” for the commandments fulfilled, such as giving alms (Matt. 6:4) is consonant with Rabbeinu Yonah’s teaching that “The glory of mitzvot is man’s true glory, making it the path he should choose for himself.” Significant strands of contemporary Christianity de-emphasize the notion of reward for righteous behavior (as in modern Judaism), insisting that ethical behavior that ensures God’s designs for justice and peace are more significant. In a way, this is not very far removed from the teachings of Rabbi Yehudah, Jesus, and Rabbeinu Yonah. Yet the idea of a reward in the afterlife, especially some sort of material one, is a more remote idea today for Christians and Jews alike. A challenge in this resonance between the teachings surveyed here then is how one today might be able to speak of what it means to believe in the promise of a future reward for the fulfillment of the divine will, especially via concrete, ordained behaviors. Avot 2:2 Rabban Gamliel, son of Rabbi Yehudah the Patriarch used to say, “Torah study along with an occupation is appropriate for the labor required by both of them makes sin to be forgotten. And all Torah study that does not include a vocation will cease in the end and will cause sin. And let all those who labor for the community, let them labor for the sake of heaven, for the merit of their fathers aids them and their righteousness endures forever. As for you, I will account you worthy of a great reward, as if you had done it.” Avot 2:3 “Be cautious with the authorities, for they do not befriend someone except for their own benefit. They appear to be friends when it is to their gain, but they do not stand by someone in the hour of his need.”

CHAPTER TWO

123

Avot 2:4 He used to say, “Make his will like your will, so that he may make your will like his will. Nullify your will before his will so that he might nullify the will of others before your will.” Rabban Gamliel III was the son of Yehudah the Patriarch and succeeded him in this office sometime around 230 C.E. He is regarded as the last Patriarch in the generation of the tannaim, the rabbis whose teachings were collated into the Mishnah. Although the Roman authorities recognized the House of Hillel as the leaders of Jews in Roman Palestine, after the death of Yehudah, the most important teachers of Torah began to be found elsewhere, especially around the circle of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, which we will encounter later in this chapter of Avot.5 At this point it is worth emphasizing that rabbinic Judaism does not speak with a unified theological perspective. Multiple voices are given credence and designated leaders are not the sole authority. In many ways, one can also see a multiplicity of perspectives in the Christian tradition. Jewish Interpretations This teaching on the vocation of Torah study is an expansion upon Shemayah’s teaching to “love work” and the benefits of work in Avot 1:10. But for what reason is work combined with Torah study? Some, such as Meiri see this as a practical move – to ensure that one is not poor and thus not tempted to sins such as thievery, bribery, or other forms of corruption brought on by financial needs. The combination of work with Torah study not only prevents poverty, but also reinforces ethical behavior in all realms of life, including business dealings. On the other hand, the point of combining labor with Torah study is not simply a course in practical ethics, but actually designed to exhaust the person in body and spirit so that one is too tired to engage in sinful activities. Rabbeinu Yonah underlines that this approach is especially effective at resisting the evil inclination, the term rabbis used to describe the human propensity to sin. Virtuous actions, on the other hand, reinforce the human inclination towards goodness. Thus to give in to gluttony or indulgence when one is idle can lead to a cascade of sinful behavior that result in destruction. It is better to keep oneself busy at all times with that which yields positive behavior, whether at work or in Torah study. Indeed, when one  finds oneself tempted to sin during the course of the day, even in 5

Herford, 42.

124

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

the midst of one’s work, it is best to head to the study hall and engage in Torah study in order to keep sin at bay. In the second half of Rabban Gamliel III’s first saying we see that the concept of laboring for the community does not apply only to rabbis, but any Jewish leader. In the context of this saying this would especially be the case since at this time there was not a professional class of clergy in Judaism. The core message is that one should not labor for oneself alone, or engage in Torah study for its own sake. Rather, one’s circle of concern ought to encompass all within a community. For those who serve as communal leaders the burden of leadership is high. This teaching continues with Rabban Gamliel’s gloss on Shemayah’s saying in 1:10. While one is to hate authority according to Shemaya, it is also important to take it up for the sake of the community. In particular it is laudatory if leadership is exercised for the sake of heaven, that is, for the glory of God. Once the task of leadership is taken up for the sake of heaven, then the leader is actually capable of accomplishing more than if laboring for one’s own glory for “the merit of their fathers aids them and their righteousness endures forever.” Towards the end of this saying, Rabban Gamliel introduces the concept of the merit of the fathers (zekhut avot). Rabbinic thought asserts that when God deals with Israel, especially in times of great need, God takes the deeds and covenantal fidelity of the ancestors of Israel into account. Typically the three patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are seen as the principle vehicles of this merit, but at times the four matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca, Rachael, and Leah are also included. Often the appeal to the merit of the fathers is closely linked to an appeal to the covenant God made with Israel that has at its source the relationship between these ancestors and God.6 In this light, the leaders of a community, whatever good they might accomplish, do not accomplish it on their own but, in a very real sense, with the support of the rest of the community of Israel, not only in that time and place but throughout the ages. It is by this support, that God enables leaders to fulfill their work and care for a community. In short, a network of graced relationships sustains Israel. The conclusion of Rabban Gamliels’s teaching reveals how one ultimately must rely on God’s grace to labor for the sake of heaven: “As for you, I will account you worthy of a great reward, as if you had done it.” Rabbinic texts maintain the usefulness of the merit of the fathers but also maintain that this merit is limited and cannot meet all needs. When it 6 Solomon Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing, 1993), 172-80.

CHAPTER TWO

125

seems as if no human righteousness is available by which to effect God’s will, it is enough to simply trust in God to aid one. Thus a midrash on Psalm 31:1 teaches “Because when a man trusts in me, I will deliver him.”7 Sforno explains that if Jewish leaders seek to fulfill God’s will in their work, then God will also fulfill their will. For this to happen, the work must be done for the sake of God and not for oneself. Even if leaders fail in preventing hardships for their communities, God will reward them as if they had accomplished all that was needed for the community. This is a graced response by God, the willingness of God to consider the effort alone sufficient and reckon a reward, regardless of outcome.8 Righteousness is not attained alone, but always with others, whether in the house of study, by the merits of ancestors, or amid communal responsibilities. In Judaism, righteousness and redemption are corporate categories in which stands a form of grace where the pursuit of righteousness is ultimately grounded in God’s gracious decision to support and aid those seeking the divine will for its own sake. Rabban Gamliel’s third and final saying about conforming to the divine will is not directed only to communal leaders but rather to all who strive towards God. All effort should be made to fulfill the commandments and study Torah as a way of aligning the human will with the divine will. By doing this, it is taught that God will fulfill one’s wishes as a reflection of God’s “constant desire to benefit His creatures.” To nullify one’s will means deliberately avoiding those things forbidden in the negative commandments of Torah, thus ensuring one’s will is aligned with God’s even in the avoidance of sin as much as in the performance of duties. It is even possible that the reference to “the will of others” is a circumlocution for the possibility of altering God’s will in so far as, according to the Talmud, the righteous can effect the annulment of divine decrees.9 ARN B offers a comment on this saying in the name of Rabbi Yehudah the Patriarch, Gamliel’s father, that further explores the meaning of aligning the human will with the divine will. It reads: If you have done his will as though it were your will, you have not yet done his will as he wills it. But if you have done his will as though it were not your will, then you have done his will as he wills it. Is it your wish to live and not to die? Die, so that you will not need to die. Is it your wish to live? Do not live, so that you may live. It is better for you to die in this

7 8 9

Midrash Tehillim 31:1; Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, 184. Sforno on Avot 2:2. Kehati, 43-44; Meiri on Avot 2:2; cf. BT Shabbat 63a.

126

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

world, where you will die against your will, than to die in the age to come, where, if you wish, you need not die.10

This teaching underlines that in the ideal scenario, the one who studies Torah and fulfills the commandments does not do it for reward or righteousness for its own sake. Rather, one fully realizes God’s will when it becomes one’s own. There is in this a form of death, a death of the will, a death of the self that paradoxically leads to a fullness of life. One is destined to die in this world, but the question is about the kind of life one lives up to the point of death, one in which either personal will or divine will was pursued. To pursue self-will ultimately leads to a double death, in this world and the next. But to pursue the divine will means a death to self in this world but a fullness of life in the world to come. This path represents a form of justification of the righteous. Christian Resonances Rabban Gamliel offers in his sayings an affirmation of the rabbinic belief that one can orient one’s will away from sin and towards righteousness, especially by recourse to the aid of Torah study. We have already explored some of this positive attitude towards the human will while commenting on Hillel’s saying in Avot 1:14. Rabban Gamliel’s saying in Avot 2:4 and the variant of Rabbi Yehudah’s in ARN B 32 offers a further opportunity to reflect on the process of aligning the human will with the divine. As Saldarini notes, these teachings, especially Rabbi Yehudah’s, have a strong parallel in the Gospel of Matthew: “For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it” (Matt. 16:25).11 The exhortation to align the will of his disciples to that of God’s is also taught by Jesus as one of the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer: “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is heaven” (Matt. 6:10). The transformative dimension of submitting to the divine will is further taught in Matthew 23:12 – “All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted.” This movement of the will to submit to divinity is not only taught by Jesus to his disciples, but Paul in the Letter to the Philippians shows how Jesus himself modeled this movement between human and divine wills: Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,  who, though he was in the form of God,

10 11

ARN B 32, 193. ARN B, 193, fn. 34.

CHAPTER TWO

127

did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,  but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form,  he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death— even death on a cross.  Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name,  so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,  and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil, 2:5-11)

The Christian tradition classically understands this passage to mean that the work of Jesus Christ was accomplished via the voluntary selfemptying (kenosis) of the Son of God or Logos into human form, leading to the Incarnation in Jesus Christ, followed by his ministry, humiliation in crucifixion and death, and glorification in his resurrection and ascension. It is understood that all of this occurred by the divine will of God. The salvation of humanity could only be fully revealed in a righteous submission of the Son to the will of the Father. Through the process of conforming to the divine will, Jesus Christ was in turn glorified. And it is this process that both Jesus and Paul exhort disciples of Jesus to imitate. Gamliel’s saying helps offers a mirror to the Christian spiritual practice of submitting one’s will to the divine will. The Christian tradition classically defines submission to the divine will as a graced ability. The grace of justification supplied by God to the believer in the person of Jesus Christ allows humans to cooperate with God’s grace in the doing of good works. Whenever one consents to do good and conform to the divine will, this is a cooperation in divine grace already first offered by God.12 We see a similar notion of graced human divine collaboration in Rabban Gamliel, including the notion that all human attempts to meet God’s will are ultimately met and completed by God’s own work: “As for you, I will account you worthy of a great 12 Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler, s.v. “Grace,” Theological Dictionary, ed. Cornelius Ernst, trans. Richard Strachan (New York: Herder and Herder, 1965), 194-95.

128

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

reward, as if you had done it” (Avot 2:2). Both traditions affirm the necessity of divine grace and the human capacity to comply with the divine will, precisely because of the reality of divinely graced assistance. Further reflections on Rabban Gamliel’s teachings bring forth two more points about the nature of communities gathered as the people of God. First is the undisputable reality that the physical people of Israel both before and after the Incarnation of Jesus Christ lived as graced communities. If Gamliel (and Rabbi Yehudah) can speak to experiencing the transformation that occurs in the submission to God’s will and attest to God’s assistance in conforming with his will as expressed in the commandments, then this is significant data that illustrates experiences of grace within rabbinic Judaism. This warrants a change in Christian ecclesiology and soteriology, requiring that any formulation of the experience of grace to include not only Christian experiences but also Jewish ones. And this is requisite not only for thinking about Israel as the people of God prior to the Incarnation but also afterwards, up to the present diversity of Jewish communities. This means that both the Church and Israel are conduits of divine grace. This insight reinforces a two-covenant theology in which the covenant of God with Israel via Torah and the covenant of God with the nations via Jesus Christ stand as the means by which the world is redeemed. One covenant is for the Jewish people (Israel) and one for the nations (Church). This insight also brings greater difficulty for defining the role and person of Jesus Christ and the means by which a Trinitarian theology ought to be understood. The mystery of Israel as a covenanted people who do not recognize the identity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God (Rom. 9:3-5) is compounded by the evidence of their graced existence. The challenges to traditional Christian theology are immense. Further discussion of this in light of contemporary ecclesial teachings will be discussed in the first portion of chapter five. The second insight to consider is the repeated rabbinic testimony that redemption is a corporate experience. The importance of dedicated communal leadership is not that by their own merits they effect the well-being of the community, but rather they serve as leaders who rely on communal support and the aid of ancestors to ensure corporate well-being that is grounded in God’s providential care. This reminder of corporate redemption as Israel speaks to the modern confusion in Christianity over salvation that all too often has been over-emphasized as an individual event. It is useful to remember that all Christians experience redemption as members of the Body of Christ. Indeed, in a very real way when gathered as communities in praise and worship, Christians are gathered as Christ. Especially

CHAPTER TWO

129

in sacramental traditions, this reality is underlined in the sacrament of Eucharist in which the priest, standing as a representative of Christ to the community offers with the congregation a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise in the liturgy to God the Father. By the power of the Holy Spirit, this gathered community, people and priest, are the Body of Christ and in the reception of the sanctified elements, also receive Christ. This moment illustrates that Christians are not saved as individuals but are saved together. Thus, it is helpful to see that in both Christian and Jewish traditions that a corporate experiences of being a graced people of God also means that salvation itself is a corporate experience. Avot 2:5 Hillel said, “Do not withdraw from the community and do not trust in yourself until the day of your death. And do not judge your neighbor until you reach his place. And do not say a word that cannot be understood, because eventually it will be understood. And do not say, ‘When I am free I will study,’ because you may never be free.” Avot 2:6 He used to say: “A boor cannot fear sin, and an ignorant person cannot be pious, and a bashful man cannot learn, and an impatient person cannot teach. And not all who are overly occupied in business become wise. And where there are no men, strive to be a man.” Avot 2:7 He also saw a skull floating on the surface of the water. He said to it, “Because you drowned someone, you were drowned, and in the end those who drowned you will be drowned.” Avot 2:8 He used to say, “The more flesh, the more worms; the more possessions, the more worry; the more women, the more witchcraft; the more maid servants, the more lewdness; the more servants, the more thievery; the more Torah, the more life; the more schooling the more wisdom; the more counsel, the more understanding; the more charity, the more peace. One who acquires a good name acquires it for himself. One who acquires words of Torah acquires life in the world to come.” After running through sayings of the descendants of Hillel represented by the family of Yehudah the Patriarch, the structure of Avot shifts to

130

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

take up the sayings of Hillel again. There are two opinions about the identity of this Hillel. One is that this is the same Hillel who was paired with Shammai earlier in Avot. It is explained, for example, by Simeon ben Zemah Duran that “This is the same Hillel who was mentioned above. But his sayings were interrupted so that the order of Nesiim [Patriarchs] who were his descendants might be completed. Now the other sayings of Hillel are introduced, in order to place them next to those of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, who was his disciple.”13 Thus while the chain of transmission through pairs seemed to have ended with the sayings of Hillel and Shammai in Avot 1:12-15 and shifted to teachings by the descendants of Hillel through Rabban Gamliel the Elder to Yehudah the Patriarch to Rabban Gamliel the Younger in Avot 1:16-2:4, Hillel reappears to signal a shift back to a teaching tradition represented by Yochanan ben Zakkai and his disciples in Avot 2:8-14. Here then we see a tension between a teaching tradition that focuses on the sayings of the most prominent teachers of each generation versus a teaching tradition with a dynastic focus. An alternative identification for the Hillel in 2:5-7 is that this is not the esteemed Hillel at all, but a figure known as Hillel the Lesser. This is the stance set forth by the medieval commentary in the Machzor Vitry and in the Codex Kaufmann, one of the oldest editions of the Mishnah. Key for this argument is that the saying of Hillel in 2:7 is also found in the Babylonian Talmud, but attested to Hillel the Lesser.14 Although the latter argument has merits, it is clear that the majority of the commentary tradition assumed this figure was Hillel the Elder and the architecture of Avot also suggests this interpretation even if some of the material might not be authentic to Hillel the Elder.15 Jewish Interpretations Rabbi Obadiah Sforno argues that the main theme of the second chapter of Avot is the cultivation of watchfulness as a quality for all, not just the learned elite. In light of this, Hillel’s sayings have a broad application.16 Avot 2:5 illustrates this principle well. Many commentators 13

Judah Goldin, The Living Talmud, 86. Taylor, 30; Goldin, Or Hadash, 260. The parallel saying attributed to Hillel the Younger is in BT Sukkah 53a. 15 In many editions, Avot 2:4 contains both the final saying of Gamliel and the first saying of Hillel. I have elected to more clearly delineate these sayings, following the numbering found in a minority of editions. The reader should be aware of this if consulting other editions or commentaries on Avot. 16 Sforno, Introduction, xiii. 14

CHAPTER TWO

131

understand that the underlying concern of this saying is the career of Hillel’s contemporary, Yochanan the High Priest, who after serving as high priest for eighty years, became a Sadducee, a party the rabbis considered opponents and, in later traditions, heretical.17 Thus, Hillel’s teaching is a warning to not remove oneself from the norms and teachings of the community. One should not trust in oneself overly or think that one will always be able to resist sin, temptation, or error. As a counterbalance, one should always look to received teachings to guide one. At the same time, when a neighbor sins or falls into error, one should not judge them too harshly. Instead, one should realize that in a similar situation one might have fallen into the same error. Motivations or weaknesses might also be undetected, as they might have been in the case of Yochanan the High Priest. And so one must also have clarity in teaching and not offer any teaching that is obscure or too difficult to understand, lest it lead students into error.18 The problem of error and unbelief as it relates to teaching students is a concern that Rabbeinu Yonah expands on in the exhortation “do not trust in yourself until the day of your death.” On one level, he writes, this saying teaches that one should always be on guard against sin and to never assume one has conquered it. Rabbeinu Yonah expands this saying to also refer to matters of faith. He warns, “Do not learn from a non-believer, not even if he teaches something that is true, because any interaction with him will be harmful. You may be tempted to believe his improper ideas, as they are attractive and enticing.” The word rendered as “non-believer” is minim, which can have a range of meanings. In Rabbeinu Yonah’s context of thirteenth century Spain, this term can refer to a Jew considered heretical, such as the Karaite sect that rejected the rabbinic tradition of Oral Torah for the Written Torah alone; or to Jews who have committed idolatry, in this case by conversion to Christianity; or the term could refer explicitly to a Christian.19 From context, it is hard to know precisely what Yonah meant by the use of minim. Clarity in teaching will avoid misunderstanding and keep one from straying into error. Ensuring some time to study daily will also keep one within the norms of a community. The point is to always have time to study Torah, for its words are the surest guides. Hillel’s words on finding 17

BT Berachot 29a; Sforno on Avot 2:5. Sforno on Avot 2:5. 19 Ruth Langer, Cursing the Christians? A History of The Birkhat Haminim (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 78-81. 18

132

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

a time to study echo both his question in Avot 1:14, “And if not now, when?” and also his colleague Shammai’s exhortation to make a fixed time for study in 1:15.20 In Avot 2:6 and the first half of 2:8, Hillel establishes qualities that prevent one from adequately advancing in knowledge of Torah. The second half of 2:8 reinforces habits and practices that lead to growth in knowledge of Torah and, ultimately, life in the world to come. Concerning character traits, Hillel teaches, “A boor cannot fear sin, and an ignorant person cannot be pious.” The word “boor” here refers to someone who is uncultivated and will not listen to reproof intended to change behavior. There is a sense from Rashi that such a person is devoid of any knowledge of Torah and has no redeeming qualities. A person in such a state cannot even attend to the simplest ways of wisdom, having the fear of sin, and hence the desire to do that which is good. Sforno takes this to mean that the unlearned should at least be able to do the minimum amount of Torah observance. They at least can learn what he calls “practical Torah,” the bare performance of the mitzvot. Ideally, such a person can be elevated out of mere repetition to some deeper understanding of their purpose and rationale in order to better fulfill the mitzvot. The ignorant person of this saying is the am ha-aretz, literally, a “man of the land” that in rabbinic literature had the sense of a vulgar or ignorant common person. The statement that such a person cannot learn to be pious mitigates this sense. As Rashi teaches, a common person might be able to attain a certain level of Torah knowledge, but cannot ascend to true piety that involves a higher degree of fulfillment contained in the concept of setting a hedge around Torah found in Avot 1:1. The medieval commentary in the Machzor Vitry, following the Talmud in Berachot 47b, goes so far as to teach that an am ha-aretz is one who has studied Scripture and the Mishnah but not the Gemara (the commentary on Mishnah found in the Talmud). Studying Gemara allows one to truly practice what Torah teaches and allows one to do so with pure thoughts and with a spiritual sense that only the pious attain via study of Gemara. Others (the ignorant) might be good members of the Jewish community, but not truly pious.21 Hillel also opines that “a bashful man cannot learn, and an impatient person cannot teach. And not all who are overly occupied in business become wise. And where there are no men, strive to be a man.” These 20 21

Herford, 45; Maimonides on Avot 2:5. For rabbinic views on the am ha-aretx, see Heszer, Social Structure, 290.

CHAPTER TWO

133

traits refer to qualities of learning. The sense that a shy or bashful person cannot learn speaks to the idea that in order for a student to grow in knowledge of Torah, it is necessary to ask questions of teachers and fellow students. Rashi interprets this saying by quoting again from the Talmud in Berachot 63b: “He who is prepared to look foolish in order to learn Torah will ultimately become great in Torah. He who remains silent and does not ask questions will remain without knowledge.” An impatient person cannot teach because one must be able to repeatedly answer questions. Moreover, as Maimonides counsels, a teacher must be patient with the mistakes of students and so one given to perfectionism will soon lose patience. The exhortation “where there are no men, strive to be a man” refers to the need for continual growth in knowledge of Torah. On one level, it is an amplification of Hillel’s question in Avot 1:15, “If am not for myself, then who?” Rabbeinu Yonah picks up this sense when he teaches that this saying means that if one lives where there are no teachers, one must find self-motivation to continue teaching. And if a community is truly lacking a teacher of Torah, then one must learn all the more, not only for oneself, but also for the entire community. But in this call to become ever more knowledgeable in Torah for the sake of oneself and the community there is a warning against pride and a caution for humility by Rabbeinu Yonah. We can explain this further that in a place where there is no one greater than you in wisdom, try to be a man; do not refrain from working to become even wiser. Even if there is no one wiser than you in the entire city, and even if there is no one as wise as you in your whole generation, you should view yourself as if you lived in the time and place of the great sages of the Talmud. Even if you should manage to reach their level, imagine, then, that you are standing among the prophets, with Moses our Rabbi. When will you reach their level of piety and wisdom? In this way, you will never neglect your learning, and you will refine your character daily, because you gain more wisdom and become like an overflowing spring.22

One is never the greatest teacher of Torah. Even if one provides a tremendous service by being the sole teacher of Torah for a community, remember all the great sages who have gone before. By recalling Moses and the great sages (whose wisdom is contained in Avot) one is recalled to a place of proper humility that allows one to continue to cultivate 22

Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 2:6, 94.

134

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

virtue and wisdom until it is like an overflowing spring. This spring of wisdom benefits not only the teacher but also all students of the teacher. Hillel’s final lengthy saying in Avot 2:8 concerns a standard theme of biblical wisdom literature – the avoidance of overindulgence in material goods and the pursuit of wisdom. More specifically, this saying concerns what sort of wealth to accumulate, not material wealth but rather spiritual wealth. We see this in Sforno’s opening comment about this saying: “The more something is inherently perfect, the better. In contrast, that which is not inherently perfect – even though it may well be a necessary means by which to attain some type of perfection – is superfluous and harmful, when excessive.”23 The negative portion of this saying concerns the perils of a man who pursues material wealth above all else. He overindulges in rich foods, gaining weight and so providing more food for worms in the grave. Polygamy was permitted in the Jewish world into the medieval period. The warning that wives will turn to witchcraft does not mean that women were necessarily prone to sorcery but that wives would turn to magic in order to win the attention of their husband, thus creating even greater discord in the household (as well as violating the command against such practices in Ex. 22:17). If a man has several wives, then maidservants are needed for them. As well, male servants are required to attend to other needs of the household. In the patriarchal assumptions of that world, these servant groups were presumed to have inclinations towards particular sins for which the master of the household would be held responsible.24 In contrast to the piling up of material goods is the man who pursues Torah, the accumulated knowledge of which leads to life (cf. Deut. 30:20). Pursuing knowledge of Torah, fulfilling mitzvot, and growing in virtues are the purpose of life. Material needs surely ought to be attended to, but they must not be confused with the goal of life or be a temptation for overindulgence.25 The phrase “the more schooling” can mean “the more sitting,” as the word used here is yeshiva. The sense of this phrase can be that wisdom grows through study of Torah or that it grows as one studies, either by teaching students who force a teacher to deeper insights by their questions or by colloquies with fellow teachers.26 23 24 25 26

Sforno on Avot 2:8, 42. Taylor, 31; Viviano, 46; Yonah on Avot 2:8. Meiri on Avot 2:8. Rav on Avot 2:8; Maimonides on Avot 2:8.

CHAPTER TWO

135

Notably, growth in virtue and knowledge of Torah occurs in a communal learning context. One never advances by one’s own work alone but in a collaborative way. This saying illustrates again the communal form of developing righteousness. The phrase “the more charity, the more peace” deserves a comment that will be carried over to the next section on Christian resonances. The Hebrew word for “charity” here is tzedekah, which in the Tanakh is usually understood to mean “righteousness.” However, in rabbinic literature, this word takes on the specific sense of charity – good works done for the benefit of others. Sforno explain this saying well in light of this specific meaning: “the [more one increases] one’s desire to do good unto others – the more one will engender peace in both one’s own self, as well as in one’s relationship with others… One also ‘increases peace’ by acquiring and frequently practicing the trait of bestowing good unto others. For in this manner one emulates one’s Creator, and thereby will find peace from all accusers when one shall be put to test.”27 The act of doing good generates peace among others. Indeed, this is a mean of imitating God who above all else creates and declares things good (Gen. 1). Sforno goes on to argue that deeds of charity enable one to be an arbiter of disputes and a peacemaker. These deeds give one a good name and hence make one able to create peace among arguing parties, which in itself is an aspect of tzedekah. Concerning the conclusion of this saying, “One who acquires words of Torah acquires life in the world to come,” Rashi interprets this to mean that in the world to come, the Torah itself will be an intercessor for the student of Torah and will proclaim his merits before God. He draws this from the Babylonian Talmud in Sotah 21a where the sage Raba teaches that while one is engaged in Torah study, the Torah protects and rescues one. One then can accumulate merit in a lifetime dedicated to the pursuit of spiritual wealth found in Torah that will result in greater benefits in the world to come than any accumulation of material wealth in this world. Christian Resonances “Do not learn from a non-believer” Rabbeinu Yonah’s interpretation of Avot 2:5 to “not trust in yourself until the day of your death” to also include the injunction “do not learn 27

Sforno on Avot 2:8, 45.

136

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

from a non-believer” speaks to the comparative theology project that undergirds this commentary. Rabbeinu Yonah speaks eloquently to the sense within many religious communities that there is something that might be lost when the teachings of those outside enter in to discourses and debates. He was correct to voice this fear: the Jews of thirteenthcentury Europe lived in a context of intense pressure to convert; indeed he lived in Gerona at the very time that Dominicans and Franciscans began their coercive missionary campaigns against Jewish communities there.. In the contemporary context of Jewish-Christian reconciliation and the flourishing of inter-religious dialogue and collaboration, there can still be unease when the teaching of another religious tradition are used to guide the life of a different religious community. There can be a sense that something is lost when another teaching tradition fits its way in. Is the home tradition at risk of dillution or diminution? This concern of loss or threat to a religious community is not restricted to Jewish contexts alone. Comparative theologians operating in many different contexts often face the challenge of returning to their own communities of practice and belief with insights gained from their deep study of another religious tradition and find members of their home tradition indifferent or even antagonistic to the sharing of these insights or the pursuit of their implications. As Francis Clooney writes, “the return home might be more difficult than we wish.”28 One might find that the insights generated from comparative study do not fit well into the presupposition and practices of one’s home community. One might even come to positions that seem to undermine, or at least require rethinking of, core doctrines. For instance, as a Christian engaged in the work of comparative theology by means of engagement with Judaism, I am repeatedly challenged by the supersessionist underpinnings of many Christian beliefs. How can I affirm the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ while continuing to affirm the validity of the prior covenant with Israel, especially in light of the fact that this implies that Jews have no need of the redemption doctrinally articulated in the person and work of Jesus Christ? How can I proclaim core Christological and Trinitarian doctrines while also affirming the Jewish belief in a unitarian monotheism? The answers to these questions need not entail a rejection of core Christian teachings, but they can result in an articulation of them that are not widely held by other Christian theologians and traditions.

28

Clooney, Comparative Theology, 156.

CHAPTER TWO

137

A comparative theologian might be so drawn to another tradition that there emerges a form of “multiple religious belonging” in which one is not willing to renounce ones home tradition but also is compelled by the truth in another tradition.29 Given the shared roots of Christianity and Judaism, this sense of attraction is not unusual. But the draw towards Judaism as a Christian can lead to negative reactions from two sides. Jewish communities are rightly cautious about Christians who seek to be among them out of concern for ulterior motives. And in the Christian tradition there is a long held set of attitudes against Judaizing, against “acting Jewish,” or even speaking positively of the mitzvot of Torah so that a Christian might experience from co-religionists deep resistance to asserting any sense of belonging to both Judaism and Christianity. But the dilemma goes even deeper. How does one maintain a deep devotion to Jesus Christ and also cultivate a similar piety towards Torah? How does one recite the Shema and its unitarian claim and also affirm the doctrine of the Trinity? In what covenant does one participate – Sinai or the one revealed in the Last Supper? Or does the covenant of Abraham encompass both? If so, what is the purpose of the Incarnation of the Word of God as Jesus Christ? To investigate one’s sense of multiple religious belonging to both Judaism and Christianity is to come close to the anxiety of not belonging anywhere at all. And so perhaps there is truth in Hillel’s warning to not trust in yourself and in Rabbeinu Yonah’s words to not listen to the words of an unbeliever if that means to not abandon the norms of one’s community. And yet, this commentary is an exercise in exploring how to remain rooted in one’s own tradition while learning deeply from another. One can be rooted in one’s own tradition and not abandon the wisdom and truth revealed in it while also drinking in the wisdom and truth found beyond its perimeters. Piety, learning, and grace Avot 2:6 and the commentaries on it highlight the centrality of learning for Jewish piety and a clear classification of Jews based on the degree to which they participate in learning from the boor to the am ha-aretz to the student to the sage. Thomas Viviano, a Christian scholar, identifies this passage as emblematic of study as a form of worship in rabbinic Judaism. Viviano argues that the phrase “an ignorant person 29 Many Mansions? Multiple Religious Belonging and Christian Identity, ed. Catherine Cornille (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002), 4.

138

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

(am ha-aretz) cannot be pious” is indicative of a significant divide between Hillel (and rabbinic Judaism) and Jesus of Nazareth (and Christianity). Viviano argues that the key difference between Jesus and the Pharisees (of which he considers Hillel a member) was that for Hillel “in respect of the relation between this ideal of Torah study as a means of salvation and the various classes of the Jewish people of that day… Study was in a measure salvific.” He goes on to describe this approach as an “inner flaw” which Jesus and the early church took pains to create distance from.30 At first glance there seems to be truth to Viviano’s claim. The early followers of Jesus did not emphasize study as part of following Jesus, even though the Gospel of Matthew refers to scribes within the movement (Matt. 13:52). But Viviano misses that the wider commentary tradition does not understand this teaching to refer to salvation at all. Rather, it is about forms of piety and spiritual attainment. Those able to study are pious, shown forth in their ability to create fences around the Torah in the fulfillment of the mitzvot and a disposition that reveals a fuller sense of spirituality. Moreover, those who pursue this piety are reminded by Rabbeinu Yonah to do so in humility, keeping in mind the great sages that have gone before one. Study then and its piety is in the end part of the cultivation of virtue: “In this way, you will never neglect your learning, and you will refine your character daily, because you gain more wisdom and become like an overflowing spring.”31 Commentary on Hillel’s words do not indicate that salvation lies in piety but rather that study and humble attention to the mitzvot manifests an elevated spirituality. In Judaism, salvation does not lie in scrupulous performance but rather by being members of the covenanted people of Israel. Indeed, traditionally Mishnah Avot contains this preface, taken from Mishnah Sanhedrin 11: “All Israel have a portion in the world to come, as it is said (Is. 60:21): “And your people are all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hand wherein I glory.” This movement between emphasizing the redemption of a community of believers and praising the piety of an elite group within it is a familiar dynamic in Christianity, even in its origins, despite Viviano’s protest of elitism. Even in the gospels there is a tension regarding the highest ways to be a follower of Jesus. The path of discipleship begins with Jesus’ call 30 31

Viviano, Study as Worship, 41, 44. Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 2:6.

CHAPTER TWO

139

to follow him and learn from his teachings (Matt. 4:18-20; 5:1-2). But in response to the question of a rich young man on how to gain eternal life, Jesus tells him to follow the Ten Commandments. When he replies that he has done all of them, Jesus then tells him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me” (Matt. 19:21). As the disciples digest this message they ask how anyone can be saved at all with these sorts of requirements. Jesus tells them that while this is impossible for humans, God can make such things happen. Indeed, at the last day, those who have given up all to follow Jesus will receive a reward of a hundredfold (Matt. 19: 25-30). God’s grace will come and sustain those who strive to follow Jesus’ words and example. In the Christian tradition, Jesus’ words to the rich young man and other similar exhortations such as “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt. 5:48) or “take up your cross and follow me” (Matt. 16:24) were interpreted to apply not to all Christians. Specifically, these so-called “evangelical counsels” or “counsels of obedience” were understood to apply to those who pursued the ascetic life as monastics in the forms of the three-fold vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. By the fourth century there were two tiers of being Christian. There was the basic duty of being a Christian that all members of the Church had to pursue and then there were the additional pious requirements taken up by a spiritual elite. Salvation did not depend on taking up these counsels; all Christians were saved by the grace of baptism. Certainly tensions developed in Christianity over these tiers, just as such tensions can be evinced in the sayings of Hillel and his commentators. For example, a key aspect of the Protestant Reformation was a rejection of the monastic life in exchange for an insistence on an equality among all Christians articulated as the “priesthood of all believers.” An exploration of the two tier system of community members in both Jewish and Christian traditions returns us to the Christian theme of grace. If there is an “inner flaw” in rabbinic Judaism, as Viviano claims, then there is also in Christianity. But this can also be turned around. There is a deep sense of common purpose and identity among the members of both communities. There are those who ought to be encouraged to do that which they can to be faithful members of the community. And then there will be leaders who exercise a role as spiritual elites who show the high ideals of their respective traditions. But all members are bound up in a common purpose from which they will not be excluded. All Jews are redeemed for the world to come as part of the testimony of

140

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

their mission as the elect nation of God. All Christians are saved ultimately not by their striving but by the gracious activity of God working through the person of Jesus. If, as Christians confess, it is the same God who accomplishes this gracious, redeeming work in both communities, the Christian is again forced to come to terms with the question of whether the process of salvation for Jews is necessarily of a different order than for Christians and what implications that has for a deeper sense of Christian mission and witness. This issue flows over into the final Christian resonance for the sayings of Hillel and the commentaries on them. Righteousness and Intercession The phrase in Avot 2:8 “the more charity, the more peace” is challenging to a Christian theological framework because of the trajectory in the rabbinic tradition to render tzedekah not according to its primary meaning in Tanakh as “righteousness” but rather as “charity.” For Christians, this is a challenge because the biblical usage of tzedekah has shaped how Christians conceive of the process of salvation. Flowing from the writings of the Apostle Paul, salvation was located in being rendered righteous as Abraham was: “For what does the scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’” (Rom. 4:4). Thus justification occurs by faith (Rom. 5:1). The works of the Law traditionally were interpreted through a Pauline lens to not have a bearing on one’s salvation. Rather this occurs through the person and work of Jesus Christ: “Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law” (Rom. 3:27-28). The Johannine tradition identifies Jesus Christ as the sole intercessor: “But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (I John 2:1-2). Within Christianity the concept of tzedekah as “righteousness” differed from the rabbinic development of this same term into the concept of “charity.” Moreover, recall the end of Avot 2:8 and how Rashi interprets the statement “One who acquires words of Torah acquires life in the world to come” to mean that in the world to come the Torah itself will be an intercessor for the student of Torah and proclaim his merits before God. Again, the Christian reader is made aware of how differently the Jewish tradition conceptualizes redemption. Where Paul discounts the works of the Law so that within a few generations many Christians

CHAPTER TWO

141

appeared deeply disaffected from their common origins with contemporary Jews, the rabbinic notion that works of the Law (charity, mitzvot) could generate peace and that the Torah could serve an intercessor on the day of judgment are seemingly discordant developments. Once again, the Christian who studies rabbinic literature is faced with the challenge of reconciling a deeply held covenantal relationship between God and the people of Israel with the Christian claim of the necessity of salvation for all in Jesus Christ. A Christian, especially one who holds to a normative Christology such as that articulated in the Nicene and Chalcedonian formulations and who also desires to approach Judaism from a non-supersessionist stance, is left with the option of either simply glossing over this disjunction or attempting to find a deeper mode of reconciliation among these seemingly contradictory truths. One proposal has already been offered previously in this commentary, that there are two covenants in play in the divine plan for salvation, one that includes a covenant between the God of Israel and the people of Israel enacted through covenants, most prominently the covenant at Sinai and manifested through the keeping and study of Torah. The second is a covenant between this same God of Israel through the Incarnation of that same God in the person of Jesus Christ that is made through his life, death and resurrection with all the other peoples of the earth. But what of the notion that doing Torah is what justifies Jews, and that indeed the Torah itself might serve some intercessory role? Does this not undermine the uniquely intercessory role of Jesus Christ? One mode by which to think through this issue is to ponder the intersection between Logos and Torah. There is a trajectory in early Christian writings that associated the Logos, that is the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, with the Torah that was spoken at Sinai. Justin Martyr speaks of Logos as the rational principle that orders the world but also the very Word of God as also being Jesus Christ. It was the Logos that spoke forth at Sinai and gave the Torah as the intermediary of God.32 The peril of Justin Martyr’s approach is that it initially served as the engine for much of the supersessionist logic of Christianity – if Torah is a revelation of God via the Logos, when the Logos becomes incarnated this is presumed to be a higher and better revelation, rendering Torah as a transitory and incomplete form of revelation. 32 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Edinburgh and Grand Rapids: T&T Clark / Eerdmans, 1989), 127:2-4.

142

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

But there is another mode of interpreting these forms of revelation. Instead of a narrative of succession, the giving of Torah and the Incarnation can be interpreted as complimentary forms of revelation. Speaking from a Christian perspective, one can view the Word of God incarnated in two modes. One is a verbal incarnation written into the lives of Israel through Torah. Great respect and honor is rendered to this form of incarnation such that a fence is established around it. If the Word of God is active and living, then the Word of God as Torah would be a spiritual reality that could indeed speak back to the one who gave it and intercede on behalf of those who kept it. Ultimately God is the final arbiter of redemption, but Torah and the works done in accord with it have a positive role. From this perspective, a Christian who accepts a two covenant model of redemption may be able to place the intercessory roles of Jesus Christ and Torah side by side. This is not a perspective that might be affirmed from within the Jewish tradition for a variety of wellfounded historical and theological reasons, but it can create a logical consistency faithful with the full system of revelation from a Christian perspective. Avot 2:9 Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai received it from Hillel and from Shammai. He used to say: “If you have learned much Torah, do not claim credit for yourself, because for such a purpose you were created.” Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai had five disciples, and they were: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanos, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah, and Rabbi Yose the Priest, and Rabbi Shimon ben Natanel, and Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh. He used to recount their praises: “Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanos is a plastered cistern that does not lose a drop; Rabbi Yehoshua – happy is she who bore him; Rabbi Yose is pious; Rabbi Shimon ben Natanel fears sin; Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh is an overflowing spring.” He used to say, “If all the sages of Israel were in a scale of a balance, and Eliezer ben Hyrkanos were in the other scale, he would outweigh them all.” Abba Shaul said in his name: “If all the sages of Israel were in a scale of a balance, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanos with them, and Rabbi Eleazar was in the other scale, he would outweigh them all.” Avot 2:10 He said to them: “Go out and see which is the right path to which one should cleave. Rabbi Eliezer said: “A good eye,” Rabbi Yehoshua said: “A good friend,” Rabbi Yose said: “A good neighbor,” Rabbi Shimon said:

CHAPTER TWO

143

“One who foresees what will be,” Rabbi Eleazar said: “A good heart.” He said to them: “I prefer the words of Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh because all your words are contained in his.” He said to them: “Go out and see what is the evil path that one should shun.” Rabbi Eliezer said: “An evil eye,” Rabbi Yehoshua said: “An evil friend,” Rabbi Yose said, “An evil neighbor,” Rabbi Shimon said, “One who borrows and does not repay, whether he borrows from a man or from God, as it is said, ‘The wicked borrows and does not repay, but the righteous repays graciously’ (Ps. 37:21),” Rabbi Eleazar said, “An evil heart.” He said to them: “I prefer the words of Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh because all your words are contained in his.”33 Jewish Interperetations Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai was a disciple of Hillel’s who also learned from Shammai. He survived the fall of Jerusalem and died ca. 80 C.E., but not after first having established the rabbinic academy at Yavneh. There the rabbis reshaped Judaism away from the Temple cult to the study of Torah. This body of sayings associated with Yochanan ben Zakkai is unique for several reasons. Avot 2:9 marks the last time that the verb “received” is used. Up to this point, there is emphasis on an unbroken chain of transmission of teaching stretching from Sinai to the rabbis. Significantly, the teaching tradition shifts after Yochanan ben Zakkai to the verb “said.” Correlated with the destruction of the Temple and the emergence of the academy at Yavneh, there is a sense of the end of one form of a teaching tradition with Yochanan ben Zakkai and the emergence of a different mode of teaching Torah after him that reflected the fracturing and reconstitution of Jewish life after the destruction of the Temple.34 Another unique aspect of the sayings associated with Yochanan ben Zakkai is that only one of his own sayings is offered, with more emphasis on describing his disciples and their own teachings. Rather than an emphasis on halakhic teaching, these saying in Avot 2:10 all the way to 2:14 represent the establishment of his school at Yavneh and the vitality of its teaching. Indeed, the focus on a teacher and his disciples and even some of the literary forms of individual sayings in this unit reflect patterns 33 Note that in some modern edition, 2:9-10 is numbered as 2:12-13. I have chosen to follow the traditional enumeration, although this makes for longer sayings. 34 Herford, 49-50; Goldin, Or Hadash, 261.

144

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

also found in contemporaneous Hellenistic philosophical academies, especially among Stoics, reflecting the participation of the rabbinic movement in the wider cultural and intellectual milieu of the eastern Mediterranean world.35 Adding to this, from a Christian perspective, Yochanan’s dates would have made him a rough contemporary of Jesus, his disciples, and other early followers of the Jesus movement in the Land of Israel. Yochanan’s urging that “If you have learned much Torah, do not claim credit for yourself, because for such a purpose you were created” speaks to a conviction found earlier in Avot and its commentaries that while the study of Torah may indeed merit reward, one must always engage in it with humility for the purpose of Israel is to study Torah. More than that, the Machzor Vitry teaches that God made the study of Torah a condition of creation. If Israel did not study Torah, then creation itself would revert to chaos. In a fundamental way, the fate of all things hinges on Torah study. And yet, Rabbeinu Yonah counsels, “Even if you feel that you have already learned a great deal, you are still only at the beginning. When will you get to the middle, let alone the end? For the Torah is longer than the earth and wider than the sea (Job 11:9) and human comprehension will never fully grasp it. How very far removed we are!” The great and weighty work of Torah study must be done with all humility.36 Given the inexhaustible nature of the Torah, there are many modes of approaching its study. The five disciples of Yochanan ben Zakkai represent the multiple possible approaches. While Yochanan affirms the excellence of Eleazar ben Arakh’s answers, this is not meant to suggest that the other answers are lacking. Rather, these two exchanges highlight the need to discern amid the vastness of Torah, the key virtues to develop, and dispositions to avoid. Because one cannot be skilled in all virtues or qualities, it is necessary to choose which are the best to develop.37 The weighing and comparison of Eliezer ben Hyrkanos and Eleazar ben Arakh sets forth two commendable models of learning. Rashi and other commentators identify the comparison between the two sages as the distinction made in the Talmud between “Sinai” and an “uprooter

35 Saldarini, Scholastic Rabbinism, 79-85; Judah Goldin, “A Philosophical Session in a Tanaaite Academy” in Teaching the Ancient World, ed. Douglas M. Astoli (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 99-115. 36 Machzor Vitry on Avot 2:9, citing BT Avodah Zarah 3a; Yonah on Avot 2:9, 101. 37 Herford, 53.

CHAPTER TWO

145

of mountains.” A scholar who is a Sinai is one who has completely memorized all of Torah and is perfectly able to recall it just as it was delivered at Sinai. But an uprooter of mountains is able to subtly answer any question so that he can overcome even the most insurmountable issue of halakhic interpretation as if a mountain has crumbled before him due to the strength of his reasoning. Thus Eleazar ben Arakh is also compared to an overflowing spring because of the creativity of his interpretations that offered new insights into already established teachings. Such a one can skillfully perceive the core principles of Torah and make judgments without error. Yet ultimately one should not perceive a deficiency between Eliezer ben Hyrkanos and Eleazar ben Arakh. Rather, as Rabbeinu Yonah says, “One is speaking about quality of knowledge, and the other is speaking about reasoning and analysis.” Sforno adds that both types of sages are needed as some students will profit from studying with each kind. A student who learns best by receiving transmitted knowledge would do best with one like a Sinai while those students who flourish by using dialectical reasoning will do best to study with one like an uprooter of mountains.38 Yochanan ben Zakkai’s affirmation of Eleazar ben Arakh’s identification of a good heart as the best quality to develop and the evil heart as the key quality to avoid speaks to the larger notion of ethical development in rabbinic thought. Rabbis used the term middah or “attribute” to describe moral development. While many positive attributes ought to be developed, rabbis pragmatically understood that one had to choose which to cultivate with the hope that other positive traits would emerge as well. For Maimonides then, Eleazar’s affirmation of a good heart refers to the range of good deeds that reflect a middle path of moderation towards virtues including behaviors such as satisfaction with one’s life, associating with moral people, and so forth. Rabbeinu Yonah identifies a good heart specifically with having “goodwill”, that is, a positive disposition towards others so that he relates to them gently and does not easily give in to anger. This positive disposition not only inclines the heart to others and God, but also activates the body towards action, so all that is done is out of selflessness. “One who constantly dedicates his eyes and heart to devising plans to serve God because of his intense attachment to God will reach this level where desire to serve translates into action.”39 38 39

Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 2:9, 105. Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 2:10, 110.

146

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Christian Resonances The account of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai and his five disciples resonates with the stories of Jesus and his disciples. Although Jesus is famous for having twelve disciples, the gospels initially recount him calling five disciples – Andrew and Peter, the brothers James and John, and Matthew. Just as Yochanan ben Zakkai says of Yehoshua that the one who bore him is blessed, so someone in a crowd at one point declares of Jesus (whose name is a variant of Yehoshua) the same thing (Luke 11:28). Although no great meaning can be drawn of these resonances, it indicates similarities in the ways that the early rabbinic movement and the early Jesus movement organized and the categories of praise that could be accorded to respective figures in the movements. The notion of the development of positive qualities (middot) is a point of emphasis in early Christianity. Certainly a good heart is a key quality for Jesus, who speaks of the importance of the interior disposition of a person as determinative for the rest of their state of being and relationship to God and others (cf. Mk. 7:21-22). The development of moral qualities as an essential aspect of the Christian life was central in early Christian literature. A primary example of this is Clement of Alexandria’s treatise The Instructor. Like Yochanan ben Zakkai, Clement organized his Christian disciples in the style of a Greco-Roman philosophical school. In this treatise he defines the Christian life as the pursuit of wisdom for the purspose of participation in the divine life. This realization of the purpose for which humans were created is achieved by receiving teachings from the Instructor, the Word (or Logos), made incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ. Clement conceptualizes the goal of life to be the healing of the passions, that which distracts the soul from God, in order that the will might be oriented towards God (I.1). This occurs via the revelation of the Word (Logos) in Jesus Christ. Humans can be restored to God because they are created in God’s image. That which is made by God can be restored by God via instruction given by God (I.3). This teaching resonates with the intepretation offered by the Machzor Vitry that creation itself is dependent on Israel studying Torah. Instruction from God and its study, generated either via Torah or the Incarnation, and interpreted by teachers passed on to disciples, is a mediation of the preservation and redemption of creation, of which humanity is paradigmatic. For Clement, the restoration of humanity by the instruction of the Word begins with baptism, which he describes as a ritual of illumination and an elevation of the intellect towards a more rational (and hence divine) state (I.6). Once illuminated via baptism, the Christian is to receive

CHAPTER TWO

147

instruction concerning a salvific course of conduct, not unlike the middot that Yochanan and his disciples conceptualize.40 Clement identifies the giving of the Law at Sinai via Moses as the teaching of the Word, that is the pre-existent Christ, but he avers that this was only a temporary form of graced instruction, the fullness of which was revealed in the incarnation of the Word in Jesus Christ (I.7). Instructed according the teachings and example of Jesus Christ, humanity is to pursue a course of moral life so that it might truly reflect the image of God in which it was created (Gen. 1:26). Christians are to gain a “moral loveliness resulting from the training of Christ” that will show that disciples are “being assimilated to God by a participation in moral excellence.”41 This training in the moral behavior that a rational soul is to undertake is very concrete, following the the counsels and teachings of Christ found in the New Testament and amplified by Clement in the rest of this treatise. The goal is virtue leading to eternal life, the ultimate goal of human life: “Virtue is a will in conformity to God and Christ in life, rightly adjusted to life everlasting.”42 Clement is very similar to the rabbinic emphasis on the development of virtue as key for a life lived in relationship with God. Like the rabbis in the sayings studied here, Clement affirms that one can with effort strive to attain an outstanding moral state. While the rabbis locate this striving within the graced context of the elect people of Israel and the divine instruction provided by Torah, Clement situates this effort within the revelation of God mediated first via Sinai but clarified and finalized in the person and teaching of Jesus Christ and accessed via baptism and the teaching of the church. With the aid of grace, revelation, and instruction one can be restored to the intended image of God desired in the original creation of humanity. We see then in Clement a wisdom based approach to the Christian life that resonates with the rabbinic view of Avot but largely absent from the later western theological tradition, especially as mediated by Augustinian theology and its emphasis on a restoration predicated on the erasure of original sin in baptism and a deemphasis on the efforts human can perform to participate in salvation. Although the development of middot is a vital dimension of the rabbinic program, it is not as closely linked to salvation as the development of 40 Clement wrote when adult baptism was normative. His catechetical vision would also work with infant baptism but would require a different mode of catechesis. 41 Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor I.13 in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Edinburgh and Grand Rapids: T&T Clark / Eerdmans, 1989), 235. 42 Ibid., I.14; ANF 2:235.

148

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

virtue is in Clement. For Clement, to advance in “moral loveliness” according to the precepts of Jesus Christ is also to advance in conformity to God, culiminating in a full participation in the divine life that begins in the life and rituals of the church and culminates in the afterlife. This process of divinization, or theosis, is a core concept of Eastern Christian traditions and is predicated in the intercessory work of the Word, Jesus Christ, who after the Incarnation is fully human and divine, meaning that all humans have the potential of participating in the divine nature after the Incarnation. This conception of the goal of human life differs from the rabbinic outlook. But to observe the similar emphasis on the development of virtues indicates the importance of human cooperation with the divine will for human goodness and fulfillment in both early Judaism and early Christianity. Clement’s emphaisis on a programmatic pursuit of virtue did not gain prominence in the post-Augustinian West, especially in Protestant traditions. But the resonances of Clement’s wisdom oriented Christology and anthropology with the rabbinic vision of Torah learning and middot suggests a path that Christians might legitimately develop. Avot 2:11 They each said three things: Rabbi Eliezer said: “Let the honor of your neighbor be as precious to you as your own; and do not be easily angered, and repent one day before your death. Warm yourself before the fire of the sages but look out for their burning coals so that you are not burned, for their bite is the bite of a fox, and their sting is the sting of a scorpion, and their hiss is the hiss of a serpent, and all their words are coals of fire.” Avot 2:12 Rabbi Yehoshua said: “The evil eye, and the evil inclination, and the hate of other people removes one from the world.” Avot 2:13 Rabbi Yose said: “Let the property of your neighbor be as precious to you as your own, and prepare yourself for the study of Torah, because it is not yours as an inheritance, and all that you do, let it be for the Name of Heaven.” Avot 2:14 Rabbi Shimon said: “Be careful in reciting the Shema and in the prayer, and when you pray, do not make your prayer perfunctory, but a prayer for mercy and an entreaty before God, as it said: ‘For he is gracious

CHAPTER TWO

149

and compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in kindness, and renouncing punishment’ (Joel 2:13); and do not be evil in your own sight.” Avot 2:15 Rabbi Eleazar said: “Be eager to study Torah; and know how to answer an Epicurean, and know before whom you labor, and your employer is trustworthy to repay you the wage for your labor.” Avot 2:16 Rabbi Tarphon said: “The day is short, and the task is great, and the laborers are idle, and wage is great, and the master of the house urges on.” Avot 2:17 He used to say: “You are not required to finish the task, but you are not exempt from it, if you have studied Torah greatly, you will be given a great reward, for your employer is trustworthy to reward you for your labor. And know that the reward of the righteous is in the world to come.” Jewish Interpretations Following the dialogue between Yochanan ben Zakkai and his five disciples, each disciple in turn offers three teachings. To end this chapter, Rabbi Tarphon, also a disciple of Yochanan ben Zakkai, offers two sayings that in the context of this collection build upon the saying of Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh. Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanos’s saying about the danger of drawing too close to the sages speaks to the complex dynamics of the rabbi-disciple relationship. This saying might reflect Eliezer’s own difficult relationships with his fellow rabbis since according to tradition he was excommunicated by other sages around 95 C.E., remaining out of fellowship with his fellow rabbis until his death around 117 C.E.43 One should eagerly draw close to the sages because their wisdom is attractive and good, just as the warmth radiated from a fire. But like fire, the sages must be treated with care and respect. Drawing too near, becoming overly familiar, or speaking in frivolous way with them will result in punishment. Sforno summarizes the commentary tradition on this passage by comparing the various forms of the bite, sting, and hiss as the three degrees of punishment 43

Herford, 56-47; cf. BT Baba Mezia 59b.

150

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

a rabbinic court can level for disrespecting a Torah scholar. The bite of a fox signifies a verbal rebuke, the sting of a scorpion a temporary ban from the academy, and the hiss of the serpent the excommunication from the community of Torah scholars.44 Maimonides offers another view on this warning by means of a story of the excommunication of Jesus of Nazareth by Yehoshua ben Perachiah. Speaking of the hiss of the serpent, he says, “Do not think that if they smart you with their tongue, you can fool them by talking with guile. They will not be deceived, as [implied by] the verse: “They will not harken unto the voice of the charmers.” (Ps. 58:6) See what transpired with regard to Gehazi and his master [Elisha] (II Kings 5:20-27), and Jesus the Nazarite and Yehoshua ben Perachiah.” As mentioned in relationship to Avot 2:5 and Hillel’s warning to not remove oneself from the community, at times Jewish thinkers used Jesus as a negative example to indicate the danger of breaking with the rabbis. Here Maimonides references Sanhedrin 107b in the Babylonian Talmud in which Jesus angers Yehoshua and so is driven away from him. This excommunication in turn led Jesus into the error of his teachings that developed into Christianity, the practitioners of whom created hardships for later generations of Jews.45 Rabbi Shimon’s teaching in Avot 2:15 concerns a common religious question about how to make ritual action more than rote exercises. At the core of this saying is the idea of how to properly dispose the inner person when praying even the most common prayers. In this case the two prayers are the Shema drawn from Deueronomy 6:4-9 (“Hear, O Israel, the is our God, the Lord is One”) and the Amidah, the prayer that forms the backbone of all Jewish services. Given that both of these prayers were to be recited at morning and evening prayer (and in the case of the Amidah in other regular liturgies), the problem of how to say these prayers in a way that does not make them mere words of repetition is obvious. While at times it is good to undertake routine activities, such as the fixed activity of Torah study advocated by Shammai in Avot 1:15, according to Rabbi Shimon these prayers should be undertaken with great intentionality. As Meiri teaches concerning this saying, one must take heed when saying the Shema and Amidah since these prayers reflect fundamental Jewish commitments. In the Shema’s first passage, one affirms the monotheistic reality of divinity and reiterates God’s special covenant 44 45

Sforno on Avot 2:11. Maimonides on Avot 2:11, 87.

CHAPTER TWO

151

relationship with Israel. These affirmations Meiri identifies with taking on the yoke of heaven, that is, recognizing God’s sovereignty over the life of Israel. In the Amidah, one is performing what the rabbis identify as the “service of the heart” in place of Temple sacrifices. This is the means by which one fulfills the command to love God with all of one’s heart. The idea of attentiveness when praying is encapsulated in the rabbinic concept of kavanah, intention. Kavanah speaks to an inward disposition one ought to have when reciting prayers or performing mitzvot so that they are directed towards God. Regarding the recitation of the Shema, the Talmud teaches that the opening of the Shema with “Hear, O Israel” should be understood to mean, “Be attentive and hear, O Israel” (BT Berakhot 16a). According to Solomon Schechter, one should especially pray the Shema and Amidah with intentionality, since it is by the recitation of them that the heart of Israel in exile is awakened to God. And to be awake to God in prayer means that the whole person should be focused on the recitation and words of the prayer. Schechter notes, referencing the Talmud, that “prayer without devotion is like a body without a soul.”46 Prayer without spiritual attentiveness and intentionality in essence is not fully prayer. The concluding sayings of Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Tarphon that form the end of this second chapter are worth considering together. When Eleazar speaks of the need to know how to answer an Epicurean, he is likely not referring to the followers of the philosophical school of Epicurus. Rather, the term epikoros in rabbinic literature referred to anyone deemed a heretic, specifically any Jew who denied God, brazenly disregard the commandments in Torah, or rejected the Oral Torah of the rabbis. The reference to Epicureans might be apt, though, since this school of thought rejected any notion of a God who rewards and advocated living for physical pleasure alone, a stance completely opposite the rabbinic world view.47 This wariness of those who would deny the value of Torah and its study leads to an affirmation by both Eleazar and Tarphon of the great rewards that lie in the study of Torah. Eleazar insists that one should live constantly aware of the God before whom one labors, knowing that a reward is certain. The form of this labor is the work of Torah study and the performance of the mitzvot found therein. Commentators see in the self-awareness of this work cosmic dimensions. Rabbeinu Yonah envisions 46 47

Schechter, Aspect of Rabbinic Theology, 156-57. Goldin, “Philosophical Session,” 61-62; Kehati, 62.

152

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

an ongoing cycle of mutual joy in the work of Torah that repeats through time. Rabbeinu Yonah teaches that just as God delighted in Torah when it was created and Torah delights in God’s creation that is humanity (Prov. 8:30-31), so too should humans delight in Torah. While these sayings of Eleazar and Tarphon speak of the reward of labor, this work is also a form of play and delight that speaks to God’s desire to bless all creation. Despite this positive perspective, Tarphon’s sayings speak to the reality that not all engage in the work of Torah and its study. To say that the day is short and the task is great means that even in one’s lifetime one will not master Torah nor fulfill it perfectly. The rabbis knew that there were many not awake to the awesomeness and potential delight of this task. Yet, as the Machzor Vitry teaches, Israel is bound to God as servants since God took Israel out of Egypt. In return for this deliverance, at Sinai Israel accepted God’s Torah and the mitzvot found in it. To study Torah is to give what is due to God (which is what the daily recitation of the Shema discussed above encapsulates). Rabbeinu Yonah counsels that one should not despair of the awesome nature of the work but instead do what one can according to one’s abilities, confident that if one does what God has obligated Israel to do, reward is sure to come, especially in the world to come. Christian Resonances In Maimonides’s commentary on Avot 2:11 we again encounter Jesus of Nazareth presented as an example of the type of disciple one should not be. In this context, Jesus represents the disciple who deserves excommunication, the highest form of punishment possible for a student. This negative portrayal of Jesus is a deep challenge for Christians since they seek to live their lives as disciples of him. It is very hard to bridge the gap between Jesus as the ultimate wayward disciple and Jesus as the ultimate guide of faithful discipleship. As noted previously, this gap is due to fundamentally different orientations of the Jewish and Christian traditions. As Avot attests, the path of wisdom and attainment of reward in the world to come rests in the study of Torah, which sustains creation and seals Israel as the people of God. For Christians, the path of wisdom is the person of Jesus Christ, the incarnated Word of God, the preexistent Logos, whose example, death and resurrection guides one to a transformed life that results in eternal participation in God. Both traditions call its students to be disciples, but the object of discipleship has different points of focus and emphasis.

CHAPTER TWO

153

This difference is illustrated in Rabbi Tarphon’s saying about the task of laboring for the sake of Torah and the great reward for the disciples of rabbis despite the great difficulty of the task. We find a resonance with this saying in Mattthew 9: “Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and curing every disease and every sickness. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest’” (Matt. 9:35-38). Like Rabbi Tarphon, Jesus speaks of a great reward from the God of Israel if they go about the task set before them. Immediately prior to this, Jesus has been healing people and teaching publicly in ways that identify him (to some) as the Messiah. Jesus envisions the people of Israel as a sheep without a shepherd (cf. Num. 27:17; Ezek. 35:5). Jesus envisions his mission to gather and renew the people of Israel before the coming harvest of the Lord, or the end of the age. The mission of his followers is to aid in this ingathering. Indeed, immediately following this passage is Matthew’s account of the naming and commissioning of the twelve disciples. He “summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to cure every disease and every sickness… These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.  As you go, proclaim the good news, “The kingdom of heaven has come near”” (Matt. 10:1, 5-6). Jesus and the disciples are on a mission to spiritually restore Israel based on Jesus’ unique relationship to the God of Israel as the agent and herald of the coming eschatologically-oriented Kingdom of God.48 The similarities in the words of Tarphon and Jesus must be balanced with their divergences. In both cases, disciples are rewarded for their labor in accordance with God’s desires for Israel. And yet, although these words are roughly contemporaneous, the focus of God’s intentions for Israel diverge markedly according to the differing emphases on the role of Torah and the person in these two Jewish communities. While these divergences circulate around Torah and Jesus but it might be better to see it also as a question of the focus of the life of Israel. As we have made clear, for the rabbis, God is understood to desire that Jews conform to the divine will via Torah study. Jesus does not devalue Torah, but his 48

Daniel Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 137-41.

154

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

words signify that his words and life are the lens through which it ought to be interpreted. There is urgency to the teachings of Jesus. His mission is the spiritual renewal of Israel in the light of God’s imminent eschatological intervention. This is not to say the rabbis did not also have concern for spiritual renewal. This commentary has demonstrated the opposite. But there is not the same eschatological urgency. While Avot and its commentaries indicate the certainity of a future reward, there is a resolutely this-worldly, even quotidian, focus. From a Christian perspective this comparison highlights the two elements that differentiate rabbinic Judaism from Christianity – the centrality of the person of Jesus and the eschatological orientation of the Jesus movement. It is especially hard to appreciate two millennia later the twining of these foci given that most aspects of contemporary Christianity have lost the sense of eschatological urgency that marks the New Testament. It might very well be easier for Christian readers to appreciate the importance of Torah, though filtered through the lens of Jesus, and its convergences with rabbinic teachings than to embrace the apocalyptic expectations of his earliest disciples. One approach to resolving this tension might be to remember that Jesus’ ministry and eschatology (like that of prophets such as Jeremiah or Hosea) focused on a renewal of Israel’s relationship with God as expressed in terms of spirituality, worship, and ethics. It is ironic that the great majority of the Jewish people did not recognize Jesus in terms of this mission. This stance is part of the reason for some of the hostile ways in which Jesus is portrayed in later rabbinic literature. Yet some Jews did see Jesus as the One who renewed God’s covenant with Israel along with progressively more Gentiles. Paul spends much time in his letters to the Galatians and Romans reflecting on this seeming reversal. It could be argued that Jesus did accomplish his mission, but through the means of a great mystery by which Gentiles were brought in to share a covenant relationship with the God of Israel that runs in tandem with that enjoyed by the Jewish people, the original and abiding people of Israel. Yet the renewal of the people of Israel still occurred given that Avot and other rabbinic texts provide evidence for a spiritual and ethical renewal of Israel accomplished by the sages and rabbis. Indeed thus far we have seen how rabbinic teachings have sustained the Jewish people in a grace-filled relationship with the God of Israel. We might then say along with Paul in Romans 11 that a great mystery has unfolded by which through complex and painful events, there has grown a tree of the people of God that features both Jews and Christians.

CHAPTER THREE

Avot 3:1 Akavya ben Mahalalel said: “Know three things and you will not come into the hands of sin. Know from whence you came, and where you are going, and before whom you will give an account and reckoning. From whence did you come? From a stinking drop. And where are you going? To a place of dust, worms, and maggots. And before whom will you give an account and reckoning? Before the king of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be he.” Jewish Interpretations The third chapter of Avot is not as obviously structured as the first or second chapter. There is not a clear chronological order to the sayings of the rabbis or another organizing principle at work. The medieval commentator Sforno, though, observes a focus in this chapter on instilling in the average person a greater degree of zeal. These sayings, he writes, impel the reader to “witness the pleasantness of God’s words and to appreciate the knowledge of the One above, while guarding his ways according to his will.”1 Among the major themes in this section are the pursuit of wisdom, the avoidance of sin, and the performance of righteous deeds.2 Akavya ben Mahalalel is a relatively obscure figure. He probably comes from the early generation of the Tannaim, living perhaps around the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. His exhortation to know three things is a counterpoint to Rabbi Judah’s teaching on three things to avoid in Avot 2:1. The exhortation to gain knowledge for the sake of one’s moral development (the avoidance of sin) can also be heard as an echo of the famous inscription of the oracle of Delphi’s teaching to “Know thyself.” Whereas Hellenistic philosophy taught one to look within the self to develop morally, the Jewish sages emphasized knowledge of God as Creator and Judge of all as the fundamental orientation upon which moral development is predicated.3 1

Sforno, xiv. Devora Steinmetz, “Distancing and Bringing Near,” 76. 3 Steinmetz, “Distancing and Bringing Near,” 82; Lerner, “Tractate Avot,” 271; Gershonson, “Greek Proverbs,” 214. 2

156

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Unlike many of the other sayings in Avot, there is a noted pessimism in this teaching. Human life is constricted – it begins with unseemly origins (the discharge of semen) and ends with decay (dust, worms, and maggots) and the certainty of divine judgment. As Jonathan Schofer notes, the purpose of this teaching is to teach that “God should be at the center of one’s consciousness, with all worldly concerns reduced to darkness and dust. The aim of this exercise is practical – the person ‘will sin no more.’”4 Pre-modern commentators emphasized the qualities that awareness of these three things produced, namely, humility, an absence of materialism, and pursuit of mitzvot. Maimonides summarizes this aptly when he writes, “When a person contemplates from where he came, he will be moved to humility. When he contemplates his destiny, he will lose all concern for the matters of this world. And contemplation of the greatness of the One who gave the commandments will make him eager to fulfill those commandments. And when a person attains these three qualities, he will not sin at all.”5 Other commentators rightly point out the origins of this saying in the teachings of the book of Ecclesiastes. While much of the wisdom teachings of Avot stem from more optimistic wisdom books from the Bible, such as Proverbs, this one is derived from a more pessimistic source. That all will return to dust, worm and maggots illustrates that all is futile and vain (Eccl. 1:2-3). This awareness ultimately will drive one, Rabbeinu Yonah argues, to the one who judges all. This in turn will lead one to perform good deeds (mitzvot) and avoid sin, as Ecclesiastes teaches: “Revere God and observe his commandments!” (12:13). Yet one cannot avoid the sense of a certain fatalism in this teaching. In this saying, Judah Goldin notes, one is compelled to face the lot of humans as one of decay, hemmed in by sin and temptation, facing the certain judgment of God. The fear of God impelling one to good behavior is the only source of hope.6 Christian Resonances In the rhythm of the Christian life, Ash Wednesday marks a specific time when Christians are also reminded of their own mortality. On this fast day that marks the fifty-day penitential season of Lent, Christians are exhorted to take on practices of self-discipline, prayer, and introspection. 4 5 6

Schofer, “Spiritual Exercises in Rabbinic Culture,” 212. Maimonides on Avot 3:1, 91. Goldin, Or Hadash, 264.

CHAPTER THREE

157

In the liturgy, members are marked with ashes with the words, “Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” In one prayer over the ashes, it is said, “Grant that these ashes may be to us a sign of our mortality and penitence, that we may remember that it is only by your gracious gift that we are given everlasting life.”7 Afterwards, in the traditional recitation of Psalm 51 in the liturgy, worshipers declare “Indeed, I have been wicked from my birth, a sinner from my mother’s womb” (Ps. 51:6). To remember one’s origins from the material elements and one’s eventual return to it resonates with the reminder from Akavya ben Mahalalel to remember that one is returning to dust, worms, and maggots. As well, the notion of sinfulness even in the womb connects to the notion of the humility of coming from a putrid drop. Just as this awareness encouraged the avoidance of sin, so too the Ash Wednesday liturgy is designed to draw Christians towards repentance and amendment of life. While the coming judgment of God is not a key theme in the liturgy, on Ash Wednesday Christians are reminded of God’s desire to forgive all sins. While Akavya’s saying ultimately orients one to pursuit of mitzvot, Ash Wednesday emphasizes not so much good works as amendment of life so that through the ministrations of the sacraments of the Church one is able to live in a righteous manner. Good deeds are expected as an outcome of this practice, but the priority lies in the reconciliation of the penitent to the almighty and merciful God. There is less of a pessimistic tone in this liturgy compared to Akavya’s saying and a greater emphasis on the certain possibility of newness of life after repentance. Avot 3:2 Rabbi Hananiah the deputy high priest said: “Pray for the peace of the ruling authority, since if not for the fear of it, people would swallow one another alive.” Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradyon said: “When two sit together and there are no words of Torah between them, this is an assembly of the scornful, as it is said ‘Nor did he sit in the seat of the scornful’ (Ps. 1:1). But when two sit together and there are words of Torah between them, the Shekhinah is between them as it is said: ‘Those who feared the Lord spoke to one another, and the Lord listened and heard and in his presence a book of remembrance was written of those who fear the Lord and think about his Name’ (Mal. 3:16). Now I find here only two, whence is it proved 7

Book of Common Prayer, 265.

158

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

that even if only one person sits and occupies himself with Torah, that the Holy One, blessed be He, appoints a reward for him? As it is said, ‘Let him sit alone and be patient, when He has laid it upon him’” (Lam. 3:28). Avot 3:3 Rabbi Shimon said, “If three eat at a table and they do not talk about the words of Torah, it is as if they have eaten sacrifices to the dead, as it is said: ‘All their tables are full of vomit and filth without God’ (Is. 28:8). But if three eat at a table and they do talk about words of Torah, it is as if they ate from the table of God, as it is said: ‘This is the table that is before the Lord’” (Ezek. 41:22). Avot 3:4 Rabbi Hananiah ben Hakinai said, “One who stays awake at night or who walks on the road at night or turns his heart to idleness, is responsible for his own soul.” Avot 3:5 Rabbi Nehunya ben Haqanah said: “All who accept the yoke of Torah are freed from the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly cares, and all who remove the yoke of Torah, take upon them the yoke of government and the yoke of the cares of the world.” Avot 3:6 Rabbi Halafta of Kefar Hananyah said, “When ten sit and occupy themselves with Torah, the Shekhinah dwells between them, as it has been said: ‘God stands in the divine assembly’ (Ps. 82:1). And whence is it proved for even five? As it is said, ‘He founded his band upon the earth’ (Am. 9:6). And whence is it proved for even three? As it is said, ‘He judges in the midst of judges’ (Ps. 82:1). And whence is it proved for even two? As it is written, ‘Those who feared the Lord spoke to one another, and the Lord listened and heard’ (Mal. 3:16). And whence is it proved for even one? As it is said, ‘In every place where I cause my name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you’ (Ex. 20:24).” Jewish Interpretations This section of sayings forms a unit that concerns the process of making study of Torah a central part of the life of a sage. The rabbis in these sayings were alive during the era between 70 and 135 C.E., that is,

CHAPTER THREE

159

between the destruction of the Temple in 70 and the catastrophic results of the failed Bar Kokhba revolt. Some rabbis suffered martyrdom during this time. In light of that context, this unit of sayings can also be read as a meditation on how to preserve the Jewish community in the midst of the destruction of its central symbols – the Temple and Jerusalem as a Jewish city. Thus, Rabbi Hananiah the deputy high priest’s teaching to pray for the ruling authority can be read as an appeal to accommodate to Rome. Active roughly in the same time as Yochanan ben Zakkai and his disciples, one can view the rabbis in this section (some who were also students of Yochanan) as offering supplemental teachings to the chain of tradition that Avot presented in the first two chapters. In this section I will focus on three core themes in this unit – Torah study and the presence of God, table fellowship, and the yoke of Torah.8 Both Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradyon in Avot 3:2 and Rabbi Halafta of Kefar Hananyah in 3:6 offer a saying that underlines the reward that awaits those who engage in Torah study. As befitting the genre of Jewish wisdom literature, Hananiah contrasts those who do not heed to Torah with those who are blessed by its study. The citation of Psalm 1:1 indicates that this saying might have been originally a midrash on it.9 The Shekhinah, the presence of God that dwelt in the Temple, is the reward for Torah study. Although the divine presence certainly was not understood to be tied to one temporal location, the rabbis debated whether some aspect of the Shekhinah remained at the site of the destroyed Temple. Some held that the Shekhinah went with the people of Israel in exile.10 For these rabbis living in such a time of social upheaval the question of God’s presence was a pressing one. Moreover, the presence of scoffers who turn aside from Torah in light of such upheavals must have been a clear challenge to pursuing the path of wisdom.

8 On the dating of these scholars and their context, see Otto Michel, “Ein Beitrag zur Exegese des Traktates Abot” in Verborum Veritas: Festschrift für Gustav Stählin zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Otto Böcher und Klaus Haacke (Wuppertal: Rolf Brockhaus Verlag, 1970), 349-59. For these rabbis as supplemental teachers, see Saldarini, Scholastic Rabbinism, 103. As with other sections of Avot, a number of options exist for numbering these sayings. I have chosen one reflected in a number of traditional commentaries. 9 Viviano, 68. 10 Rivka Ulmer, “Construction, Destruction, and Reconstruction: The Temple in Pesiqta Rabbati” in The Temple of Jerusalem: From Moses to the Messiah, ed. Steven Fine (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 118-19; Rebecca Lesses, “Eschatological Sorrow, Divine Weeping, and God’s Right Arm” in Paradise Now: Essays on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism, ed. April D. De Conick (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 277.

160

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

These two sayings are part of the rabbinic argument that after the destruction of the Temple, the study and performance of Torah replaces the sacrificial system at the heart of Israel’s covenantal relationship with God. If the Shekhinah is no longer a felt presence at the Temple, then now it is through the act of studying Torah that the Shekhinah that has followed Israel into exile is most vividly present. Avot 3:2 shows that even when studying Torah alone the Shekhinah is there, while Avot 3:6 shows that the Shekhinah of course is present when more than two are present. In both sayings, a midrashic form of exegesis is utilized to underscore this teaching.11 Commentaries on these sayings discuss what it means to merit the presence of the Shekinah through this form of study. Meiri teaches that this means that those studying are able to gain a glimpse of the glory of God. Rabbeinu Yonah teaches that the word “Shekhinah” refers to earning a reward in the world to come for the study one has done. The presence of God is deferred until the afterlife. Rav Yirael Meir Lau underscores that Torah study is equivalent to the ancient Temple in providing for God’s presence among the Jewish people. In his view the discussion of God’s presence among varying numbers of people gathered to study means that “the greater the number of Jews gathered to fulfill God’s word the more they will merit a revelation of His Presence.”12 The range of views on Torah study as a means for gaining God’s special presence reflects the polyvocal nature of Jewish thought and the open-ended nature of interpretation in the tradition. It also might reflect a reluctance to definitively state how and by what means God is present – to overly define God’s presence unduly limits it. Rabbi Shimon in Avot 3:3 addresses the discussion of Torah at meals, revealing the communal nature of the life of the sage. Table fellowship was a key means of marking group affiliation in the ancient eastern Mediterranean world. Debates over the proper means of establishing table fellowship through the question of hand washing, for example, was a flashpoint between Jesus and his followers and disciples of the Pharisees (cf. Mark 7:1-23). By eating together, the rabbis indicated that they represented a distinct group, in this case, dedicated to the life of Torah study. If they are Torah students, then ideally, even at mealtime, they ought to speak of Torah. 11 A similar anonymous saying can also be found in the Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 6a. 12 Rav Lau on Avot 3:3, 340.

CHAPTER THREE

161

The Temple imagery in this saying by Rabbi Shimon is noteworthy. This Rabbi Shimon is commonly identified as a student of Rabbi Akiva and a teacher of Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi. A survivor of the turmoil during the Bar Kokhba revolt, Shimon was an important conveyor of the rabbinic tradition in the second century.13 As noted previously, this period saw the rise of rabbinic Judaism and its argument that the study of Torah can stand in for the Temple sacrifices. The quotations from the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel illustrate the concern for the Temple in Shimon’s thinking. Isaiah’s “sacrifices to the dead” refers to idolatry and the altar upon which they are offered is imagined as a table filled with filth instead of food. Instead of idolatry, one should place offerings on the table of the Lord (per Ezekiel), that is, the altar in the Jerusalem Temple. By citing Isaiah and Ezekiel, Shimon symbolically moves the altar where atoning sacrifices were offered out of the Temple and into the houses of scholars when they gather around the table for meals. Commentaries on this passage expand upon this idea. Rashi argues that as soon as words of Torah are spoken, a dinner table becomes God’s table. The Machzor Vitry cites the Talmud: “So long as there was the Temple, atonement was possible for man by means of the altar. Now that there is no Temple, a man achieves atonement by means of his table” (BT Berakhot 55a). Continuing, it is added that this atonement is offered “by his giving food and drink to the poor.”14 If the teaching is to be extended, then it can also be argued that those engaged in Torah study at table become like the priests who offer the sacrifices and eat of it as part of their priestly role. Though the Temple is gone, God’s presence is not. Atonement is still possible but rather than through sacrifices it is found by study. We see here also a sort of democratizing of the priesthood. Whereas earlier the priesthood was hereditary, now it is possible to imagine that through the practice of Torah study anyone can symbolically be a priest and offer a kind of atoning sacrifices for Israel. In Avot 3:5, Rabbi Nehunya ben Haqanah, another disciples of Yochanan ben Zakkai, uses the image of the yoke to describe the benefits of a life lived according to Torah. Everyone serves under some kind of yoke; the issue is the kind under which one serves. The yoke of Torah is the observance and fulfillment of Torah so that it guides one in all endeavors of life. In contrast, to reject the yoke of Torah is to take on another yoke, that of service to the government and worldly affairs. 13 14

Herford, 670. Rashi on Avot 3:3; Machzor Vity on Avot 3:3.

162

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

The yoke of government entails all that comes with Jewish life as a diaspora community – the sense of being beholden to the whims of a government that is not one’s own. The yoke of worldly affairs entails all the concerns about sustenance in this life – food, money, shelter and the rest.15 How then does taking on the yoke of obedience to Torah liberate one from these yokes of worldly concerns? Some interpret this to mean that one will simply not have concern over the things of this world. Diligent study of Torah and the performance of its mitzvot will distract one’s attention from these other concerns. Others hold that by such commitment to Torah, God will intervene to ensure that rules do not interfere in one’s life (such as military conscription) and that one will be satisfied with the modest living situations that accompany a student of Torah. Both Meiri and Maimonides offer that this saying about yokes is best understood in light of a midrash from the Talmud. When in Exodus 32:16 it refers to the two tables of the covenant between God and Israel that “the writing was God’s writing incised upon the tablets” one should not read “engraved” (charut) but “freedom” (chayrut). Embedded in the giving of the Torah is freedom from the challenges of this world through Torah study. While Jewish life historically has been filled with many challenges, political and material, this teaching in Avot served to provide the student of Torah with an inner disposition of freedom, a spiritual liberty that could not be removed because it came as a gift from the God of Israel who bestowed all the graces and benefits of Torah. Christian Resonances The teaching in Avot 3:2 that when two are gathered studying Torah the Shekhinah is there resonates with a teaching in Christianity, based on Matthew 18:19-20: “Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.  For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” The general consensus about this passage is it is adapted from earlier Jewish teaching on the Shekhinah’s presence and that Avot reflects a later development of that teaching. Crucially in Matthew, gathering in the name of Jesus guarantees his presence, displacing the study of Torah and equating Jesus with the Shekhinah. Both Avot and Matthew emphasize that the divine presence is manifested on the basis of corporate deliberation. Avot 3:2 identifies this primarily as Torah study, 15

Taylor, 46; Maimonides on Avot 3:5.

CHAPTER THREE

163

but Avot 3:6 also notes that when three are gathered this is also the case, linking this with the role of a body of three judges. This bears a strong parallel to Matthew 18 where the wider context of this teaching links it to the process of communal discipline and judging done in the name of the risen Jesus. In both Avot and Matthew, identifying the divine presence with the community of believers is a response to the question of where God is present to Israel after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. For Avot, it is located in the dedicated study of Torah, for Matthew, it is in discipleship to the risen Jesus.16 Despite the apparent parallel in these two sayings, we again see a significant divergence. Matthew is not unlike Avot in that its community seemed to include those of the scribal class who saw in Jesus the ideal path to wisdom (cf. Matt. 13:52). In this way, there is a resonance with the rabbis of Avot, who saw the study of Torah as the way to wisdom, and in turn eternal life.17 And yet, there is a notable difference in the roles of Torah and Jesus in these sayings. While the study of Torah serves as both a duty and a means of attaining the divine presence, the person of Jesus is both the one whom his disciples follow but also the very presence that is an outcome of discipleship. This dual role of Jesus, as both path to divine presence and the divine presence itself, differentiates the Jesus movement from other strands of the era of formative Judaism. Although I have argued that the teachings of Jesus in Matthew are not meant to abrogate the importance of Torah, this saying requires a further refinement of that argument. Commentators have noted that Matthew 18:20 reflects the Matthean community’s experience of the risen Christ. From this we can infer that Torah is important for this community and it ought to be followed and studied. But in Matthew’s context knowledge of Torah is secondary to following Jesus, revealed to be the Messiah of Israel and also uniquely an eschatological manifestation of the divine presence. If the loss of the Temple is indeed a catalyst for the re-imagination of Jewish life in our sources, we can discuss this in terms of a decentering of Jewish life that is re-centered alternately in either Torah study or following Jesus. The divine presence for the rabbis is moved out into the people of Israel by the act of Torah study while for the Matthean community it is accessed by the act of gathering in the name of the risen Jesus. While the 16 Joseph Sievers, “‘Where Two or Three… ’: The Rabbinic Concept of Shekhinah and Matthew 18:20,” SIDIC 17: 4-10. 17 Lawrence Wills, “Scribal Methods,” 255.

164

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

fundamentally different orientations for accessing the divine presence seemingly divides Jewish and Christian communities, Christians are to be reminded that there still remains an eschatological hope of reconciliation between these two people of God. The Roman Catholic Church has instructed that though much divides Jews and Christians, they may still hope to have “a common meeting in God, in prayer and silent meditation.”18 Because of a common covenantal relationship with the God of Israel, moving into the divine presence is still a discourse shared by Jews and Christians that for Christians is grounded in a future hope of reconciliation (cf. Rom. 11.26). The comparison of Torah study to taking on a yoke in Avot 3:5 resonates with a passage from Matthew 11. This chapter highlights resistance to the message of Jesus, a theme of the Gospel of Matthew. In this chapter, Jesus condemns three cities of the Galilee (Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum) that did not attend to his message (Matt. 11:20-24). While these cities refuse to heed the miracles that were signs of his power and identity as God’s agent, Jesus declares that “wisdom is vindicated by her deeds” (Matt. 11:19). In this context of rebuke, Jesus offers this teaching of his identity: At that time Jesus said, “I thank  you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants;  yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.  All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matt. 11:25-30)

Matthew presents Jesus as the teacher of wisdom who guides his disciples to knowledge of the God of Israel. Indeed, Jesus is the Son of God, the special agent of revelation for Israel, according to this pericope. Implicit is that other teachers, the “wise,” are ineffective teachers. In keeping with the rhetoric of Matthew, this critique of the wise is aimed at the Pharisees and scribes, of whom the rabbis of Avot can be considered heirs. The issue is that the wise only seek to reinforce their own 18 “Guidelines on Religious Relations with the Jews,” in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, rev. ed., ed. Austin Flannery (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1987), 745.

CHAPTER THREE

165

circle of learning while he offers the wisdom of God to the simple (also translated as children). These simple are the people of the land, the am ha-aretz, who are the everyday members of society who do not have time or means or desire to enter the house of study.19 In light of this critique Jesus offers the invitation to take on his light yoke. Both Avot and Matthew utilize the yoke as an image of following the commandments of God, employing the image of taking on the yoke offered by Wisdom in the book of Sirach: “Put your neck under her yoke, and let your souls receive instruction; it is to be found close by” (Sir. 51:26). We see then that in offering his yoke, Jesus speaks not only as a personification of Wisdom but as an incarnation of it. While the rabbis offer the yoke of Torah instruction, the yoke represents what Torah teaches, not what a rabbi might teach. But in Matthew, Jesus is both the teacher and the yoke. The point is not that Jesus replaces Torah since this would contradict the prior teaching that he did not come to abolish the Torah but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17). Rather, Matthew declares that Jesus offers a way to God that involves fulfilling Torah by adhering to his specific teachings. This is a path that is available to all, even the simple, and need not involve detailed study. Jesus offers this way because he is the Son of God and the vehicle for the Father’s revelation: “All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Matt. 11:27). His gentle and humble way of teaching (Matt. 11:29) shows that humility and love, natural outcomes of knowing Torah, are the path to knowing God. Calling this yoke light would mean that the audience of this message would hear that the yoke of Torah obedience offered by Jesus is a path of following God that is graciously open to all.20 As John Meier writes, “In Jesus the Wisdom of God, the teacher and the subject taught are one and the same. Adherence to his person is the sum-total of the law, a yoke that proves most light to the true disciple.”21 The yoke of Jesus is significantly different from the yoke found in Avot 3:5. There has been a significant strand in Christian teaching that emphasizes the yoke of Jesus as a path distinct from Torah obedience. We

19 Harrington, 169-70; Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community, 183-84; Luz, Matthew 8-20, 163. 20 Luz, 171-75. 21 John R. Meier, Matthew, New Testament Message, vol. 3 (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1980), 128.

166

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

find this already in Acts 15:10 where, in the context of the Council of Jerusalem that debated how much Torah Gentile followers of Jesus ought to observe, Peter declares, “Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?” Here we find a negative depiction of following Torah that implies its fulfillment is overly burdensome, a reading that has extended throughout the Christian tradition. In the context of Acts 15, Gentiles are required to follow Torah only in a reduced form, attending mostly to prohibitions against participating in idolatry, “For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every Sabbath in the synagogues” (Acts 15:21). In others words, both Jewish and Gentile followers are bound to follow the Torah as given by Moses, but Gentiles to a lesser degree. Yet this lesser form of observance is also understood to be reasonable and in accord with being a disciple of Jesus.22 Christian language about Torah is paradoxical. Clearly Jesus upholds its ongoing validity. And yet, Torah is displaced in so far as Jesus is the definitive revelation of God. This displacement leads to Christian deemphasis on the importance of Torah in favor of asserting the limitations of Torah observance. Ultimately, following the commandments becomes viewed as a form of spiritual bondage (Gal. 5:1).23 And yet, we must return to the commentaries on Avot that insist that obedience to Torah is not a limitation but a practice that actually liberates one spiritually. By taking on the rabbinic path of the yoke of Torah, one is free from the demands of the world that take one away from true service to God. This message of spiritual liberation is not far from the one the Gospel of Matthew offers concerning Jesus. Indeed, it also resonates with Martin Luther’s thesis in his treatise On the Freedom of a Christian that a Christian is simultaneously free and a servant to all by virtue of his spiritual freedom in Christ that enables him to lovingly serve others free of selfinterest. Once again, we have encountered a moment in which Christians and Jews possess a shared spiritual insight yet remain divided by the path of by which to attain this insight – between Jesus and Torah. A third example of shared insight with diverging paths is the teaching about the shared table in Avot 3:3. As noted above, the teaching that 22 Daniel Marguerat, “Paul and the Torah in the Acts of the Apostles” in Michael Tait and Peter Oakes, ed., The Torah in the New Testament (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 98-117. 23 For a typical Christian view, see John Chrysostom, Commentary on Galatians.

CHAPTER THREE

167

speaking words of Torah at table makes it God’s table is developed by medieval commentators to mean that such a table becomes a place of making atonement, specifically by offering food and drink to the poor from that table. Symbolically, God’s altar has moved from the Jerusalem Temple to appear where any speak Torah in their houses, ensuring that atonement remains for Israel. In this sense, atonement is a form of reconciliation where all Israel is sustained. Christianity is organized around the sacrament of Eucharist, also known as Communion, the Lord’s Supper, or the Mass. If according to Avot speaking the words of Torah sanctifies a table to make it an altar, according to the New Testament occurs by reciting the words of Jesus declaring that bread and wine are his body and blood (cf. I Cor. 11:2326). In the late second century, the theologian Irenaeus of Lyon articulated the spiritual significance of consuming the bread and wine in memory of Jesus in this way: But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, “In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins” (Col. 1:14). And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.24

Irenaeus illustrates how participating in the rite of the Eucharist is participation in redemption. The remission of sins offered through the blood of Jesus reveals divine sharing in human suffering. The death and resurrection of Jesus is the promise of the redemption (including bodily resurrection) of those who believe in Jesus because the divine participated in creation by taking on flesh and blood. This is made 24 Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Edinburgh and Grand Rapids: T&T Clark / Eerdmans, 1989), V.2.2, 528.

168

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

manifest in the Eucharist where the bread and wine became the tangible promise of the restoration and salvation of believers. Atonement is a reconciliation of believers to God whereby sins are removed by the death of Jesus and thus ensuring eternal life, the promise of which is made manifest in consuming the bread and wine as the body and blood of Jesus. Although Christianity has historically conceptualized the table as a place where the benefits of the sacrifice of Christ are made tangible, it is helpful to recognize that the language of a table becoming an altar is not exclusive to Christian thought. The words of Torah spoken at a table can make it a place where the Shekhinah is present and where atonement for Israel is made. This leads us back to the insight that Torah occupies a similar place for Jews that the person of Jesus Christ does for Christians. Both represent modes of mediation with the divine and access to blessedness and redemption. And yet we also see that Torah consistently operates as a means for expressing covenantal relationship with the God of Israel whereas Jesus Christ operates as the means of approaching the God of Israel because he is also substantially, according to Christian doctrine, the incarnation of God. Thus, there exists an ontological distinction between the path of studying Torah and the path of following Jesus. Despite the shared symbols and imagery stemming out of a shared world of the first century C.E., there is an irreducible difference of meaning that Torah and Jesus convey. It is the complex interplay of shared yet irreducibly different meanings that the comparative theologian must constantly return to. Even though the symbol of Jesus Christ and the symbol of Torah are fundamentally distinct pathways for coming to deep relationship with the God of Israel, when considering them together one need not assert, from a Christian perspective, that the path of Torah study for Jews must inherently give way to the path of following Jesus. This claim speaks against a long heritage of supersessionist thought that has insisted this must be the case. And yet, the Christian comparative theologian must also admit that despite the universalizing claims made for Jesus Christ in Christian theology, an alternative path exists for Jews. And the very existence of this alternative path implies the possibility of other paths to God as well. Avot 3:7 Rabbi Eleazar of Bartotha said: “Give to him what is his, for you and yours are his. And thus David said, “All is from you and it is your gift that we have given to you” (I Chron. 29:14).

CHAPTER THREE

169

Rabbi Shimon said, “The one who walks along a road studying and interrupts his studies to say, ‘How beautiful is this tree!’ or ‘How beautiful is this field!,’ Scriptures considers it as if he has sinned against himself.” Avot 3:8 Rabbi Dostai son of Yannai said in the name of Rabbi Meir: “If one forgets a single word of his studies, Scripture considers it as if he has sinned against himself, as it is said, ‘But take utmost care and watch yourselves scrupulously, so that you do not forget the things that you saw with your own eyes’ (Deut. 4:9). But what if his studies have become too hard for him (because of age)? Scripture states that ‘so that they do not fade from your mind as long as you live” (ibid.)’. Thus he has not sinned against himself unless he deliberately removes them from his mind.” Avot 3:9 Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa said: “Anyone whose fear of sin comes before his wisdom, his wisdom endures, and anyone whose wisdom precedes his fear of sin, his wisdom does not endure.” He used to say, “Anyone whose deeds are more than his wisdom, his wisdom endures, but anyone who wisdom exceeds his deeds, his wisdom does not endure.” Avot 3:10 He used to say, “Anyone in whom the spirit of humanity finds pleasure, in him the spirit of God finds pleasure, and anyone in whom the spirit of humanity does not find pleasure, the spirit of God does not find pleasure in him.” Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: “Morning sleep, and midday wine, and childish speech, and sitting in the houses of the assemblies of the ignorant remove one from this world.” Avot 3:11 Rabbi Elazar of Modi’in said: “One who desecrates the sacred things and one who disparages the festivals and one who shames his neighbor in public, and one who breaks the covenant of our father Abraham (peace be upon him) and one who interprets the Torah not according to the halakhah, even if he has knowledge of Torah and good deeds – he will not have a share in the world to come.”

170

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Avot 3:12 Rabbi Ishmael said: “Be swift for a superior and kind to the young and receive everyone cheerfully.” Jewish Interpretations These six sayings continue to illustrate the heightened attention to study of Torah required of sages and their students. This is especially prominent in Avot 3:7-8 and 10. The instruction in 3:7 that one ought not to stop to praise the beauty of a tree or a field while walking along on the road at first might seem unusual, especially given that the rabbis provide elsewhere a blessing of praise to God when one sees something beautiful, notably trees (BT Ber. 58b). This saying assumes one is walking along the road and studying. But this does not mean one is reading as one is walking. Rather the verb used here for study (shanah) has the sense of repeating what has been learned, reflecting an oral teaching culture. It is from the same root as the word mishnah, which are the individual units of halakhic teaching that in total comprise the Mishnah. Thus we can assume that Rabbi Eleazar of Bartotha has in mind a rabbi or student who is reviewing what has been learned from a teacher or colleague, either mentally or aloud, if with a travelling companion. Thus in the context of this saying, to break off one’s concentration to observe a passing thing of little consequence compared to the task of Torah study at hand is ill-advised. As Meiri notes, this saying teaches that one should treat this kind of informal study of Torah with the same degree of devotion as one would if engaged in study in a house of study. At the same time, this teaching echoes the warning in 3:4 that the Torah scholar ought to take special care while travelling, lest temptation or danger overtake him. To break off from Torah study to engage in idle talk about what is along the road might take one’s mind away from obligations to the Torah and its commandments. Worse, as Rashi notes, if one becomes distracted from Torah, one might also lose the protection from Torah that it provides to the pious traveller. Thus, it can be said, as the saying concludes, that one has sinned against one’s self.25 In Avot 3:8 Rabbi Dosa son of Yannai, teaching in the name of Rabbi Meir, reinforces the importance of not forgetting Torah. Again the verb used here is shanah, implying that this is learning associated with memorizing precepts concerning the proper interpretation of Torah as taught by rabbinic sages. The issue here is not only the danger such forgetfulness 25

Taylor, 48; Herford, 73; Meiri on Avot 3:7; Rashi on Avot 3:7.

CHAPTER THREE

171

might hold for the individual but the potential harm for the rest of the community. To forget one point of Torah implicitly is to forget many other points since all the teachings of Torah hang together. Following upon this, Rabbeinu Yonah warns that for a teacher of Torah to forget a point of interpretation of a mitzvah potentially is to lead an entire community astray with a wrong ruling. The sin here is the departure from the warning in Deuteronomy 4:9 to not depart from the teachings set forth in Torah. But what if one becomes unable to properly remember all that has been learned due to age or illness? Such a person is not rendered guilty but this also speaks to the need for a community of learned scholars to support one another in rendering rulings.26 Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas in Avot 3:10 warns against activity that distracts from the study and fulfillment of Torah: “Morning sleep, and midday wine, and childish speech, and sitting in the houses of the assemblies of the ignorant remove one from this world.” ARN A links each activity with neglect of Torah. To sleep late is to miss the time of reciting the Shema at morning prayers. Childish talk refers to the danger of studying Torah at home where one can be distracted towards idle talk instead of studying Torah at fixed times. Overindulgence in wine speaks for itself as a danger to abiding by Torah. The final phrase condemning “sitting in the houses of the assemblies of the ignorant,” according to ARN, does not refer to synagogues or houses of study but rather concerns the danger of loitering in market places and on street corners rather than being occupied with Torah. Rabbeinu Yonah observes that it is proper to say that indulging in these activities takes one out of the world since, “If you have spent your life so far on useless affairs, neglecting Torah study, why should you be granted still more years of life?”27 Cultivating a dedicated life that avoids laxity and ensures good relationships with others illustrates the earlier saying of Chanina ben Dosa in 3:10 that “Anyone in whom the spirit of humanity finds pleasure, in him the spirit of God finds pleasure.” A part of living righteously in the eyes of God is creating positive social relationships with others. We see here the continued insight that the pursuit of Torah study is not simply for the sake of the betterment of the individual but is meant to benefit all. Righteousness has a strongly social orientation in Avot. The saying of Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa returns the reader to the question of the relationship between wisdom and deeds. He was a Galilean 26 27

Taylor, 48-49; Kehati, 81; Yonah on Avot 3:8. ARN A 21; Yonah on Avot 3:10, 159.

172

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

miracle worker, a student of Yochanan ben Zakkai and saw the fall of Jerusalem in the 130s. Chanina ben Dosa was known more for his deeds of power than his halakhic reasoning, emphasizing an unswerving and simple faith in God. In this saying he emphasizes that while wisdom (acquired via knowledge of Torah) is good, it is not as important as doing good deeds that are pleasing to God.28 ARN A teaches that good works can proceed wisdom since Israel declared upon hearing the Torah proclaimed by Moses on Sinai: “We will do and obey” (Ex. 24:7). This means that Israel promised first to do the mitzvot found in Torah and then study it after doing what is commanded. This saying imparts that performing mitzvot is a regulative principle for wisdom, as illustrated from ARN B where Simeon ben Eleazar teaches that one whose wisdom precedes his works is like one who rides a horse with no bit and then falls and breaks his neck. If wisdom is a horse, then performing the mitzvot is the bit. To study Torah prior to practicing it gets the order wrong – the doing of Torah is always superior to its study, as important as that might be. This insight works on several different levels according to commentators. Rabbeinu Yonah observes that this saying illustrates that even the most simple, uneducated person need not worry about his education level. As long as he holds to what he is taught concerning the mitzvot and does not swerve from the teaching of his rabbi, he will receive his reward. “Your first responsibility is to fulfill the mitzvot properly; then your wisdom will endure.”29 Sforno further emphasizes corporate fulfillment of mitzvot in his insight that there is a distinction to be made between the terms in this saying of “fear of sin” and “wisdom” and “good deeds.” For Sforno, the fear of sin is like the conscience that keeps one from doing that which harms others. Wisdom includes proper social behavior, while good deeds relate to thing people do to benefit others. Ideally, the fear of sin (avoiding harming others) and wisdom (acting responsibly and justly towards others) are qualities that affirm God is the creator of all. The person who has these qualities seeks to align personal will with divine will. But if one is not oriented to a knowledge of God, even if one seeks to not harm others, ultimately his own self-interest will conflict with his concern for others and lead to sin. Thus, says Sforno, it is important for one’s good deeds to exceed one’s wisdom because such a person will act righteously 28 29

Viviano, 75; Herford, 77. Yonah on Avot 3:10, 157.

CHAPTER THREE

173

even without the influence of societal expectations. Sforno explains, “This person recognizes the greatness of his Creator, and seeks to emulate him. His actions demonstrate that his social wisdom and responsibilities are motivated by this desire. It is for this reason that his wisdom endures, for no circumstance will prevent him from pursuing his ideal.”30 Sforno’s interpretation illustrates the coherence of living according to Torah with living in accord with the divinely intended nature of the created order. Abiding by Torah leads to harmony among all people and hence is a true mark of wisdom. Wisdom is an outcome of this way of life, not a prerequisite for it. If abiding by Torah is to cooperate in the divine will for all things, then its opposite is certain destruction. Rabbi Elazar of Modin illustrates this in his warning in 3:11. Elazar was an uncle of Bar Kokhba who led the revolt against Rome in the 130s. Bar Kokhba ultimately executed Elazar out of suspicion that he was a collaborator. Given this context, it is unlikely that Elazar’s warning about desecrating sacred things relates to the Temple and its sacrifices but rather concerns tithes to the Temple and support of its priests. To disparage a festival refers to the weekdays in between the beginning and end of the week-long observances of Pesach and Sukkot, the chol hamoed. On these days, while activities defined as work were not prohibited, one was not to engage in normal activity as if it was a typical day of business nor eat or dress as if it were an ordinary day but to observe the festival as prescribed in Torah and rabbinic interpretation. These exhortations refer then to treating specific material things and certain periods of time as dedicated to God and not ordinary.31 Elazar continues with a warning against breaking the covenant of Abraham. The primary meaning of this warning refers to a practice of surgically reversing circumcision among some Jewish men in the ancient world (cf. 1 Macc. 1:15). More pressing, during the Bar Kokhba revolt (the context of Elazar’s final days), one of the precipitating events for this rebellion was the ban decreed by Emperor Hadrian against Jewish circumcision.32 Alongside this, it might be possible to hear in this saying a reference to some Jewish Christians who spoke against the need for circumcision for Gentiles, as Paul famously did. In later eras of European 30

Sforno on Avot 3:10, 78-79. Kehati, 86-87; Goldin, Or Hadash, 266. 32 Shaye Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 46. 31

174

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Judaism this second interpretation was rendered by Rabbi Israel Lipschutz who held that this refers to nonbelievers “who believe man was created in the image of God but deny God’s covenant with Abraham or that of his descendants.” That is, the danger lies in the assertion that there is not a unique covenanted relationship between God and Israel and the covenant of circumcision is thus unnecessary.33 Finally, Elazar’s condemnation of teaching Torah not according to the halakhah of the rabbis illuminates the competing interpretations of Torah in the era immediately following the destruction of the Temple. Later commentators (such as Meiri and Rashi) take this to refer to those who taught publicly about the hidden or mystical aspects of Torah without also emphasizing the literal meaning of Torah and the fulfillment of mitzvot (which of course ought to be done according to the teachings of the rabbis). All five of these warnings by Elazar delineate, according to Maimonides, that these sins are so severe that they cut one off from God’s redemption of Israel and life in the world to come. In a way, these practices and teachings are what makes one a heretical Jew, even if the category of heresy might be a borrowed interpretive lens.34 Christian Resonances Chanina ben Dosa’s saying and the commentary on it concerning the fear of sin preceding wisdom has resonance in the Christian tradition. The rabbinic insight that “fear of sin” is another term for “good works” is key and logical, since the Scriptures teach that a wise man is one who avoids sin and keeps Torah (Ps. 1:1; Prov. 2:1-19). This linkage is also what enables ARN A to set good works above wisdom by its citation of Exodus 24:7 – “We will do and obey.” Sforno further interprets this saying to show that performing the mitzvot is of greater good than merely studying them because fulfilling the Torah is what aligns human will with divine will. This in turn ensures that such a person will both act for the greater good of society while also not being influenced merely by social expectations and norms. This standard of behavior determines whether one is wise. The confluence of human and divine will in fulfilling Torah is a useful point of reflection. As noted previously in this commentary, the rabbinic 33

Goldin, Or Hadash, 266; Viviano 79; Israel Lipschutz, Tiferet Yisrael on Avot 3:11. Taylor and Viviano both see this saying as the creation of a category of heresy. But this specific term or its cognate (min) is not used here nor is there the same type of “heresy hunting” one might find in a Christian writer such as Irenaeus. 34

CHAPTER THREE

175

approach to the relationship between performing mitzvot and righteousness serves as a counterpoint to Christian debates about the relationship between faith and works. Specifically, is it the works that one performs that saves one or the faith that one possesses prior to works? This debate, while acted out classically in the Protestant Reformation, finds its origins in the New Testament canon. Paul is taken to stand for the position that it is faith in Jesus Christ independent of works that makes one righteous before God: “But to one who without works trust him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5). On the other side is the Epistle of James, which appears to prioritize the performance of good deeds. It is worth lingering over this letter to explore some of its resonances with the saying of Chanina ben Dosa. The Epistle of James, written in the late first century, instructs its audience to live out what it has been taught: “But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves… But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act – they will be blessed in their doing” (James 1:22, 25). James reflects assumptions that overlap with Avot 2:9 and its commentaries. The focus of this teaching is that blessing flows from doing what one has been taught concerning the law. Blessing as a reward is clustered with righteousness and wisdom in the Jewish world of this letter’s audience. One sees here a strong resonance with ARN A’s indication that Exodus 24:7 (“We will do and obey”) illuminates Chanina’s teaching that performing mitzvot precedes wisdom or any other reward. Some commentators have tried to reconcile James with Pauline teachings so as not to suggest that early Christians continued to follow Torah. Thus Martin Dibelius argued that since the Epistle of James never deals with questions of ritual law, this indicates that this community accepted the Pauline teaching of freedom from the law so that all one should be concerned with is the moral law. This is illustrated by the reference to the care of widows and orphans in 1:27.35 However, Dibelius betrays in his writing an overarching concern to harmonize James with a reading of Paul informed by Lutheranism – an approach that more recent Pauline scholarship has shown to be problematic. As a counterpoint we can follow other trajectories for James. In James 1:22-25 the pairing of hearing and doing the law (which is Torah and 35 Martin Dibelius, James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James, rev. Heinrich Greeven, trans. Michael A. Williams. Hermeneia – A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 116, 119-20.

176

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

not some other concept of an ethical law) with wisdom is a classically Jewish trope. The concern of doing the law as an expression of piety and concern for the vulnerable (James 1:27) echoes Leviticus 19 which outlines ethical behavior as the standard for holiness. The law is considered perfect because it provides what is required for participating in God’s salvation, which James considers an eschatological gift. The law of liberty itself is not necessarily a reference to a Pauline notion of being set free from the requirements of the law (cf. Rom. 7:6), but refers to the biblical practice of jubilee when people were released from obligations and bonds.36 This notion of freedom found in the law also resonates with the teaching from the Talmud discussed in Avot 3:5 that when the tablets of the law were given to Moses on Sinai they were not engraved (charut) but rather contained freedom (chayrut).37 As with rabbinic Judaism, James finds liberation in adhering to Torah – it is the doing of the law that brings one to true freedom. In the second chapter, the Epistle of James goes on to consider the relationship between faith and works. The locus of fulfilling the law is the command from Leviticus 19:18 “You shall love your neighbor as yourself ” (James 2:8). We have already seen in chapter one that this command formed the basis of the ethical teachings of both the rabbis and early Christians, appearing in the sayings of both Rabbi Hillel and Jesus. In the context of his community, the author of James instructs his audience that if they have only faith in God’s saving faith, this is not sufficient. Rather, they must also care for the vulnerable in their community (James 2:15-16), declaring, “So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (James 2:17). Faith in God’s work of redemption is made vital by participating in God’s redeeming work by caring for the vulnerable in a community, illustrating fulfillment of the Levitical love command. Thus it can be said that one “is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24)38 This is a different view on the relationship between faith and works than that found in traditional readings of Pauline literature, which emphasizes faith prior to acts as what makes one righteous before God (cf. Rom. 4:1-6). We can read James rebalancing this relationship so that the doing of works is not overly de-emphasized in nascent Christian 36 Robert W. Wall, Community of the Wise: The Letter of James (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997), 88, 91-93. 37 BT Eruv 54a. 38 Wall, 132-33, 152.

CHAPTER THREE

177

communities.39 But the saying of Chanina ben Dosa and its interpretations also illustrate that James is part of a larger Jewish context that understood there was a necessary relationship between equal goods. For Chanina, it was the keeping of Torah (“fear of sin”) and wisdom, while for James it is works and faith. In both texts, the activity must be reconciled with a quality (wisdom/faith) that leads towards an eschatological reward (life in the world to come in a rabbinic world view or justification for eternal life for the Christian). The insight of the commentators on Chanina’s teaching and the insight of James is that a proper relationship between activities and qualities must be established. Although much of the Western Christian tradition, especially Protestantism, has embraced a Pauline perspective as conveyed via Augustine and later Luther and Calvin, the approach taken up by James and also illustrated by Chanina and his commentators can serve as a useful counterweight. The honor accorded to the law (Torah) by James and the importance of it for shaping the ethical standards of his early Christian audience takes us to Avot 3:11 where Rabbi Elazar of Modi’in warns against publicly breaking commandments and violating rabbinic halakhah. As we saw in the interpretation of this saying, these condemned actions are the ones that would set one outside of fellowship with like-minded rabbis. Eventually, this was part of what set the boundaries for the wider Jewish community, as Maimonides taught in his commentary on Avot. From a Christian perspective, the final two condemned practices – rejecting circumcision and rejecting halakhic interpretations of Torah – are worthy of more reflection. While Jesus of Nazareth does not teach about circumcision, this is not surprising since his mission was primarily to Jews for whom this practice was not an issue but rather an accepted norm that signified belonging to the covenant of Abraham and his lineage. But as early followers of Jesus began bringing Gentiles into the movement, the question of circumcision arose. This issue was famously resolved at the Council of Jerusalem where Paul, Peter, James, and other leaders determined that Gentile converts were not obligated to be circumcised or keep most dietary and purity laws but to keep away from meats and other products offered to idols, sexual immorality, and meat that had not been properly slaughtered (Acts 15:20). While Gentiles are not expected to receive circumcision, the morality that informs Torah is incumbent on them. 39

Dibelius, 165-66.

178

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Paul offers his version of these events and an argument against circumcision in his Letter to the Galatians. In this community some insisted that to follow the God of Israel whom Jesus revealed to them required circumcised. The insight of this faction was that if by Jesus Gentiles have been brought in to the life of the God of Israel, then they in some way must also be part of the covenanted people of Israel. But if this is the case, they ought to receive circumcision, the physical sign of belonging to this covenanted people, the children of Abraham. Paul’s argument is to locate connection with Abraham not in the physical act of circumcision but rather in possessing the same faith that Abraham had. “Just as Abraham ‘believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,’ so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham” (Gal. 3:6). As a result, the giving of Torah was a temporary measure until fullness of faith was attained in Jesus. But the children of Abraham need faith, not the law, to come to the fulfillment of God’s promises for them (Gal. 3:23-29). Thus, the practice of circumcision is unnecessary (Gal. 5:2-6). While Paul’s emphasis on the primacy of faith in Jesus created a form of Christianity that lowered the barriers of entrance into the Christian Church, one can also ask what was lost when circumcision was removed from Christian practice. The practice of circumcision inscribes onto male members a physical mark of belonging to the people of Israel.40 The question of whether or not a (male) Christian should be circumcised encapsulates the tensions at the heart of Christian identity. Do Christians have a share in God’s covenantal promise with Israel? If they do, should they observe Torah or not? If they are to observe Torah, how much of it should they? In the letter to the Galatians, Paul shows that Gentile followers of Jesus are heirs to the promise of Abraham, but he demonstrates this in part by an allegory where he locates those who follow the law given at Sinai as the children of Hagar, bound for slavery, while followers of Jesus are children of Sarah, children of God’s promised covenant with Abraham (Gal. 4:21-28). Paul goes on to reject the necessity of circumcision for Gentile followers of Jesus. As part of his rhetoric, he opposes the working of the flesh, which must be abandoned, to the working of the Spirit, which is available by belonging to Jesus. It is the Spirit that liberates one from the demands of the law, identified with the 40 Obviously there is a gender restrictive aspect to the centrality of this rite. There does not exist a similarly central rite that marks female Jews as members of the people of Israel. On gender dynamics in Jewish identity, see Judith Plaskow, Standing at Sinai: Judaism from a Feminist Perspective (New York: Harper, 1991).

CHAPTER THREE

179

flesh (Gal. 5:16-26). We see that the rejection of circumcision can also be read as a rejection of the necessity of Torah for Gentiles. But in doing so, Christians should be careful in the language of enslavement that is applied to Torah. We see that in a Jewish perspective, Torah is not a form of enslavement, but rather a path of liberation to move one from only serving one’s needs to serving God and thus working for the greater good of a community. But this insight requires developing new interpretive approaches to Pauline literature so that in the interpretation of it one encounters the spiritual depth of a life lived according to Torah. Ultimately, one encounters again here the dilemma of how both to speak well of Torah as a Christian while also acknowledging that it is the person of Jesus Christ, not Torah, that is meant to shape the Christian life. This brings us to Elazar’s warning against embracing only non-halakhic or mystical interpretations of Torah. In his view, and that of his commentators, to de-emphasize the halakhic portions of Torah, that is, the performing of it, is a grave mistake. This is because it is by doing Torah, as taught by Chanina ben Dostai, that one comes to a life of wisdom and righteousness. While the rabbis might not have had Christianity in mind, this saying still resonates with a traditional Christian approach to Torah that allegorizes much of its content rather than see its literal fulfillment as a necessary part of the Christian life. As we have already seen, this is rooted in the decision made at the Council of Jerusalem that keeping Torah was not incumbent on Gentiles and the influence of Pauline thought examined above. Thus the offering of ground meal (Lev. 2:1) was taken by Justin Martyr to spiritually signify the Eucharist and the bells on the hem of the priestly garments (Ex. 28:32) to prefigure the twelve apostles.41 The patristic allegorization of the Torah in part came out of a good instinct to preserve the value of the Old Testament in the face of detractors like Marcion who read Paul to warrant the removal of it from the Church’s canon. But the insistence of the allegorical and Christological meaning as primary and the relegation of the literal keeping of Torah as a form of slavery or a punishment for sin (as Justin Martyr teaches elsewhere in Dialogue with Trypho) raises the question of what the value of Torah is at all. When we turn back to a canonical reading of the New Testament, we encounter Jesus’ affirmative teachings based upon Torah, as discussed throughout this volume. And we also see a view of the Christian life found in the Epistle of James that takes as its basis for the 41

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 41-42.

180

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

ethical life the Levitical vision of the social life of Israel. Because we know that the Jewish people do not experience keeping Torah as an intolerable burden but rather as a vital means of expressing their relationship with the God of Israel, it seems necessary for Christian teaching to adapt to this insight. And yet, by tradition and norm, Christians do not have the same relationship with Torah and certainly not with keeping all the commandments in Torah, even, for the most part, the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy enshrined in the Ten Commandments. While Christians might not be reasonably expected to take up the observance of Torah as Jews do, they would do well, if they understand themselves to worship the same God of Israel, to grapple with what of Torah might now be incumbent upon them. Do the laws of jubilee apply to them? How ought they interpret the laws of sacrifice and tabernacle in a way that might both embrace a Christological interpretation while also affirming the continuing value of these laws on their own? How might the social codes enshrined in Torah continue to inform contemporary Christian ethics? These are questions that do not exist only for individual scholars but for the ecclesial communities they belong to. Avot 3:13 Rabbi Akiva said: “Jesting and irreverence accustoms one to lewdness; tradition is a fence to the Torah; tithes are a fence to wealth; vows are a fence to abstinences; a fence to wisdom is silence.” Avot 3:14 He used to say: “Beloved is man because he was created in the image (of God); even greater was this love that it was made known to him that he was created in the image, as it is said, “For in his image did God make man” (Gen. 9:6). Beloved are Israel for they are called children of God, as it is said, “You are the children of the Lord your God” (Deut. 14:1). Beloved are Israel, for to them was given a precious instrument; even greater was this love that it was made known that to them was given a precious instrument with which the world was created, as it is written, “For I give to you good instruction, do not forsake my Torah” (Prov. 4:2). Avot 3:15 “All is foreseen, but freedom of choice is given; and the world is judged with grace; and all is according to the multitude of the deeds.”

CHAPTER THREE

181

Avot 3:16 He used to say: “All is given on pledge, and a net is spread over all living things. The shop is open and the shopkeeper lends on credit, and the ledger is open and the hand writes, and all who wish to borrow may come and borrow. But the collector regularly goes around all day and he exacts payments from man with his consent or without it, and they have what to rely upon, and the judgment is a judgment of truth, and all is prepared for the banquet.” Avot 3:17 Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said: “If there is no Torah, there is no good conduct; if there is no good conduct, there is no Torah. If there is no wisdom, there is no fear (of God); if there is no fear (of God), there is no wisdom. If there is no understanding, there is no knowledge; if there is no knowledge, there is no understanding. If there is no food, there is no Torah; if there is no Torah, there is no food.” He used to say: “Anyone whose wisdom exceeds his deeds, to what is he like? To a tree whose branches are many but whose roots are few, and the wind comes and uproots it and overturns it, as it is written: “He shall be like a bush in the desert, which does not sense the coming of good: it is set in the scorched places of the wilderness, in a barren land without inhabitant” (Jer. 17:6). But one whose deeds exceed his wisdom, to what is he like? To a tree whose branches are few but whose roots are many, so that even if all the winds of the world come and blow upon it, they cannot move it from its place, as it is said: “He shall be like a tree planted by the waters, sending forth its roots by a stream: it does not sense the coming of heat, its leaves are ever fresh; it has no care in a year of drought, it does not cease to yield its fruit” (Jer. 17:8). Avot 3:18 Rabbi Elazar ben Chisma said: “Bird offerings and calculations concerning menstruants, these are essential parts of halakhah; but the calculation of the seasons and gematriot are the auxiliaries of wisdom.” Jewish Interpretations The final third of this chapter of Mishnah Avot is dominated by sayings for Rabbi Akiva ben Joseph. He was one of the most prominent of the rabbis in the first half of the second century, having been a student of Rabbis Eleazar and Yehoshua. In turn, his teachings were lauded by Rabbi Judah the Patriarch. He recognized the insurgent leader Bar

182

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Kokhba to be God’s Messiah and was executed by the Romans in 135 C.E. for refusing to comply with an imperial ban on public teaching of Torah.42 The four sayings of Akiva illustrate the intersection of the gift of Torah, the attributes of God, and the human pursuit of ideal behaviors and qualities. In his first saying, Akiva presents four fences around Torah (or five, if one counts the first phrase). One fence is concerned with preserving and protecting aspects of Torah while the others concern how to cultivate ideal aspects of human behavior and character traits. While the statement “tradition is a fence to the Torah” seems like a repetition of the instruction to “make a fence for the Torah” in Avot 1:1, commentators do not understand Akiva’s saying to concern the creation of Oral Torah to amplify Written Torah as in the earlier saying. Here “tradition” (masorah) serves as the fence. Commentators states (anachronistically) that this refers to the Masoretic comments in written copies of Torah that preserve the correct spelling of words or clarify how to interpret words with missing or extra letters. These notations ensured that the written text of the Torah remains stable, in contrast to copies of the Talmud (representative of the Oral Torah) which contain a wide degree of textual variance.43 According to Rashi, Akiva’s teaching shows that one is not authorized to interpret Torah in an excessively personal or idiosyncratic ways. This observation internally links the interpretation of Akiva’s teaching to the instruction in Avot 3:11 to not interpret Torah contrary to halakhah, or the received teaching traditions. The other fences in this saying relate to forms of behavior and the development of the character of the ideal student of Torah. The first phrases of this saying teaches that to avoid lewdness and bad character one should create the hedge of avoiding foolish talk. To say that tithes are a fence to wealth means that tithing does not diminish one’s wealth but actually magnifies it. Rabbeinu Yonah offers an interpretation of this saying based on a rabbinic midrash on Deuteronomy 14:22 where the word “to tithe” is repeated to mean something like “You shall completely tithe.” Citing BT Taanit 9a, Yonah quotes Rabbi Yochanan’s explanation that this means “separate tithes in order that you should become wealthy.” For Rabbeinu Yonah, tithes should be given out of a feeling of generosity since, to refer back to Avot 3:7, all one has is from God and thus one 42 On the martyrdom of Akiva and intersections with Christian martyrdom, see Daniel Boyarin, Dying for God, ch. 3. 43 Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 3:13; Rashi on Avot 3:13.

CHAPTER THREE

183

can trust God to repay one graciously. Yonah also teaches that one should view giving charity as the same as tithing. Anyone who gives graciously, whether by charity or tithes, will be rewarded graciously. Additionally, according to Meiri the giving of tithes or charity can aid the wealthy so that it regulates any potential avaricious pursuit of further wealth.44 Meiri’s insight that tithes are a fence guarding against the potential for sin extends Akiva’s teaching that vows are a fence for abstinence. Meiri explains that choosing to abstain from practices that are harmful allows one to move away from the influence of the evil inclination to the good inclination. To make a vow might be a useful means of changing behavior since, according to Rashi, to break a vow carries a stronger penalty than deviating from a less formal commitment to avoid certain behavior. At the same time, a vow has less stringent penalties than an oath, which makes something completely forbidden to a person. Thus a vow can last for a more limited period. One can also read the making of vows and abstinence as a spiritual discipline taken on voluntarily that involves separating from permitted pleasures such as eating, drinking, and marital relations as well as the pursuit of fame and riches. As Rabbeinu Yonah says, “Separating oneself from the roots of materialism and the physical body, and coming close to the soul and its spiritual essence, brings man closer to the service of his Creator.”45 In this sort of practice, one would eat, drink or engage in marital relations only for sustenance, for Torah study, and for the sake of fulfilling the commandment to procreate. These regulatory practices then would make one able to better resist sin. In this way, such vows are recommended for those who might overindulge in the appetites. Akiva’s final teaching in Avot 3:13 that “a fence to wisdom is silence” does not refer to all speech but rather the avoidance of ordinary conversation. Such avoidance can be especially useful when studying Torah, both to avoid idle chatter but also so that one listens more than speaks when being taught in order to learn better. This attentiveness to learning yields wisdom. As Meiri teaches, “there is nothing as useful as silence for a person who has to study; thus he will listen and give ear to the words of the sage and carve them on the tables of his heart. Such conduct will bring a person wisdom.”46 44

Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 3:13, citing BT Ta’anit 9a, 167-68; Rabbi Meiri on Avot

3:13. 45 46

Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 3:13, 169. Rabbi Meiri on Avot 3:13.

184

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

In Avot 3:14, Akiva moves from a general divine love for humanity to a specific love for Israel. This love is amplified in the revelation embodied in Torah. This description of love has a tripartite shape. First there is the act of love in not just creating humanity but also endowing humanity with the image of God. This love is even greater by making humanity aware of its creation in the divine image. While Genesis 1:26 records this creation, only in Genesis 9:6 does God reveal the divine image to humanity when God speaks to Noah after the Flood. Given that this revelation was prior to God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendants who were to become Israel, this revelation of the divine image in which humanity was created was made known to all humanity. This is especially the case since according to Genesis it was the children of Noah who repopulated the earth. To be created in the image of God, according to Maimonides, does not mean that God has a corporeal form, bur rather that humanity possesses the ability to apprehend things intellectually in a manner analogous to the divine intellect. Rashi comments that this revelation requires humanity to seek to conform itself to the divine will which is possible given the divine image.47 God’s revelation to Israel moves the circle of God’s concern to just one people. Israel becomes God’s chosen nation in terms of familial adoption. That Israel is told they are regarded as children of God shows even greater divine love towards Israel. According to Rabbi Yisroel Lipschutz, while it might be possible for other sinful nations to lose their image of the likeness of God, this is never possible for Israel because God always regards Israel as a child and so will never entirely cut them off. This should not be a cause for arrogance or pride, but, teaches Rabbeinu Yonah, should call Israel to humility and steadfastness in accomplishing God’s will. Finally, divine love for Israel is even more pronounced in entrusting them with a “precious instrument,” the Torah by which the world was created. We have encountered before the idea that Torah is a constitutive part of the created order, such as in Avot 1:2 and commentaries on Avot 2:10. Midrash on Genesis 1:1 describes the Torah as the blueprint by which God made all things. The first chapter of this midrash quotes Proverbs 8:22, “The Lord made me at the beginning of his way,” to indicate Torah is synonymous with personified Wisdom. Indeed, the world was created for the sake of Torah and that Israel might follow 47 Taylor, 58; Herford, 87; Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, chapter 1; Rashi on Avot 3:14.

CHAPTER THREE

185

Torah and thus fulfill God’s will.48 Torah is a precious gift by which Israel may acquire both material and spiritual gain. But this gift must be exercised and cultivated. Given that all creation exists for Torah to be fulfilled and that Israel in particular has been entrusted with Torah, a Jew must not consider oneself overly righteous simply for being entrusted with Torah. Rather, one ought to humbly seek to fulfill Torah and the righteousness it requires. Akiva’s saying in Avot 3:15 illustrates how one ought to understand the nature of human life if one possesses knowledge of Torah. God is the benevolent Creator who desires humanity to obey his will, yet he also permits humanity to choose which path to follow, thus the beginning of this saying: “All is foreseen, but freedom of choice is given.” While some religious traditions have sought to reconcile the perceived conflict between divine foreknowledge and human freedom, Akiva and the broader rabbinic tradition take it as a given that God grants human freedom, even if it is not immediately apparent.49 Humans know this balance between divine foreknowledge and human freedom exists because Torah teaches that human actions are judged. As multiple commentators argue, the divine attributes disclosed in Exodus 34:6-7 provide this knowledge: “The Lord! The Lord! A God compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in kindness and faithfulness, extending kindness to the thousandth generation, forgiving, iniquity, transgression, and sin.”50 This declaration made to Moses on Sinai reveals that God will always judge the actions of his chosen people with mercy. While God knows what will be done, deeds will be judged according to the intention and purposes of those who commit them. Thus Akiva can state that “the world is judged with grace.” This judgment varies according to both the quality of goodness or wickedness by which a deed was committed. It is for this reason, according to Meiri, that Torah shows Israel how to repent of sins so that God might act more mercifully towards his children.51 The importance of repentance and righteousness leads to the conclusion of Akiva’s teaching in this saying: “and all is according to the multitude of the deeds.” God’s judgment is righteous even when merciful 48

Midrash Genesis Rabbah I.1, 4-5. Herford, 88. See also Stephen Hultgren, “Rabbi Akiba on Divine Providence and Human Freedom: Abot 3:15-16 and Abot De Rabbi Nathan (B) 22:13-15,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 18:2 (2011): 107-43. 50 Rashi on Avot on Avot 3:15; Maimonides on Avot 3:15; Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 3:15. 51 Meiri on Avot 3:15. 49

186

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

and so Rabbeinu Yonah comments that those who commit more good deeds will be judged more leniently than those with fewer good deeds. For Maimonides, this underlines the importance of developing good character traits. This is accomplished by a commitment to continually observe mitzvot and the good deeds they enshrine. The ability to consciously follow God’s will as revealed in Torah, according to Sforno, comes through the intellectual faculties that reflect the divine image. By choosing good deeds “man’s conscious choice emulates his Creator who is good to his creation and all his creatures, as stated in the expression, ‘in our image, after our likeness’ (Gen. 1:26).”52 Humanity can endure God’s righteous judgment not only because of divine mercy but also because humans have the capacity to follow the divine will by virtue of their divinely bestowed intellectual gifts. An awareness of the inevitability of divine judgment is the focus of Akiva’s final saying in Avot 3:16. This saying offers the metaphor of God as a shopkeeper who both extends credit and collects debts: “All is given on pledge, and a net is spread over all living things. The shop is open and the shopkeeper lends on credit, and the ledger is open and the hand writes, and all who wish to borrow may come and borrow.” As Jonathan Schofer notes, this saying illustrates how God’s activity encompasses all people – all comes under God’s beneficence and God’s judgment.53 Meiri envisions that the world is God’s shop and God as the Creator makes available all things, whether good or bad. One can purchase what one chooses, and thus choose either the way of righteousness or wickedness depending on how one interacts with creation. By extending credit God both holds out the promise of an eventual judgment, with reward or punishment, but this judgment is delayed because God is long-suffering (cf. Ex. 34:6 in Avot 3:15). The ledger, containing the record of all deeds, eventually requires an accounting. This is accomplished by God’s angels who go through the world exacting judgment in terms of rewards or punishments felt in this life. Rabbeinu Yonah comments that the freedom to engage in a range of behaviors in this world means one needs to exercise restraint and discernment: “The fools think that the world was created for enjoyment, but the sole interest and pleasure of the righteous is zealous fulfillment of the mitzvot. Everyone choses his own path, and fortunate is he who chooses 52

Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 3:15; Maimonides on Avot 3:15; Sforno on Avot 3:15,

89. 53

Schofer, The Making of a Sage, 125.

CHAPTER THREE

187

the right one.”54 This echoes Sforno’s teaching concerning the prior saying. One can choose the right path if one uses the divinely endowed intellect to heed to the instructions of Torah and perform the mitzvot Torah contains. Just as the certainty of judgment exists for all, so too “all is prepared for the banquet.” This banquet symbolizes life in the presence of God in the world to come. This imagery comes from the description of God’s presence before the elders at Sinai: “Yet He did not raise His hand against the leaders of the Israelites; they beheld God and they ate and drank” (Ex. 24:11).55 In rabbinic thought all of Israel has a share in the world to come (Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1). As Rashi teaches, Akiva’s final words in this saying means that all, whether righteous or wicked, will eat at the banquet. But Meiri goes further, saying that the banqueting in the world to come will vary for each person depending on the deeds they have done. For some this banquet will be sweeter, for others more bitter. Thus God’s judgments will continue to be felt. After the four sayings of Akiva, chapter three of Avot ends with two sayings by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah and Rabbi Elazar ben Chisma. Elazar ben Azaryah was a contemporary of Akiva and head of the Sanhedrin after Rabbi Gamliel. Rabbi Elazar ben Chisma was a disciple of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanina and Akiva.56 These two sayings build upon the teaching of Akiva concerning Torah. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah’s saying in Avot 3:17 is a contrast of four pairs and a parable. Elazar teachers that the following pairs cannot exist without each part: Torah and good conduct; wisdom and fear of God; understanding and knowledge; and food and Torah. Torah in the sense of its revelation and its knowledge through study frames this teaching. All good conduct flows from Torah; in the absence of Torah there is no good conduct. Rabbeinu Yonah comments that to study Torah naturally leads to good character traits. Alternately, if one does not exhibit good character, then if that person studies Torah, it does not truly dwell with them. This relates back then to the teachings of Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa in Avot 3:9 that one whose wisdom exceeds his deeds does not truly have wisdom. Insight gained from the study of Torah might be categorized into the pair of understanding and knowledge. Knowledge is the ability to determine the concept underlining a fact or idea. Understanding is 54 55 56

Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 3:15, 183. Taylor, 60; BT Berakhot 17a. Herford, 92, 94.

188

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

the process of applying this acquired knowledge beyond the said fact or idea. But if one is not able to do this sort of extrapolation, then one’s knowledge is deficient. Again, the pair of knowledge and understanding ought to be understood to be concerned primarily with the rabbinic practice of studying Torah and putting it into practice by the performance of mitzvot. Following these pairs, Elazar ben Azaryah offers a parable concerning a tree and its roots. This parable continues his teaching (and that of Chanina ben Dosa in 3:7) of the importance of prioritizing the practice of Torah over the acquisition of basic knowledge of it. In this parable, the branches of the tree is human knowledge while the roots represents human actions, specifically the performance of the mitzvot. To overemphasize mere knowledge of Torah means one ultimately trusts in oneself and not in God, which is expressed primarily through the diligent performance of righteous deeds (cf. Avot 1:17). At a time of testing or erroneous teaching, represented by the wind, such a person will be thrown into destruction. The righteous one will have the deep roots of the performance of mitzvot even though his knowledge of Torah might appear modest.57 This parable properly locates the teaching that humans are made in the image of God. While humanity resembles God in terms of the intellectual sphere, humans do not approximate God in this capacity. Rather, humans ought to accept this as a gift and cultivate it properly, but always with an awareness that their primary duty is conforming to the divine will as expressed through the Torah and the performance of its mitzvot. In the final saying of chapter three, Elazar ben Chisma teaches “Bird offerings and calculations concerning menstruants, these are essential parts of halakhah; but the calculation of the seasons and gematriot are the auxiliaries of wisdom.” Although hard to grasp in the English, the beginning of this saying references two tractates of the Mishnah. The tractate Qinnim (“nests) concerns the laws of bird sacrifices while Niddah deals with menstruation and attendant mitzvot, which included bringing an offering of birds. Commentators note that these two tractates deal with complex deliberations concerning how to discern different types of bird sacrifices (the most common form of sacrifice but with varying purposes and functions) and the varying calculations, sometimes very detailed, concerning menstrual cycles. These tractates concerning mundane and intimate parts of everyday life require a high 57

Rashi on Avot 3:17; Machzor Vitry on Avot 3:17.

CHAPTER THREE

189

degree of attention and detail. All parts of Torah, even the most slight or complex, require full and diligent study. This is in contrast to what Elazar calls gematriot, understood by commentators to refer to geometry and mathematics. While these are useful and important topics, the knowledge of them does not facilitate deeper knowledge of Torah. Thus all of Torah ought to be mastered before moving on to other areas of learning.58 Christian Resonances The final portion of the third chapter of Avot raises four themes that have resonance with the Christian tradition: the practice of forms of abstinence and asceticism, Torah as the instrument of creation, Israel as the beloved children of God, and the use of parables for teaching. Like their Jewish counterparts, Christian leaders offered guidance for regulating behavior leading to virtue. Akiva framed this in 3:13 in terms of various fences, such as tradition, tithes, vows, and silence. In this passage, tradition served as a means of regulating an interpretive tradition while the other fences supported generosity and charity, abstinence, and wisdom. Of particular interest is the Jewish commentary tradition concerning abstinence and the two possible trajectories of its application: either to refer to the taking on of additional vows in order to detach oneself from material pleasure and the other to use abstinence from pleasures to aid those who have overindulged in them. Although Christianity is well known for its monastic traditions that highlight the traditional three-fold vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, a more useful resonance for this passage concerns how non-ascetic Christians ought to approach the ordinary pleasures of food, drink, and marital relations. In the New Testament, Paul writes extensively on how to consider food, especially what sorts of meat is acceptable to eat (Rom. 14) and marriage versus continence (I Cor. 6:13-8:13), counseling both a freedom to eat meat and marry, but also ruling that those who accept a more stringent attitude towards the eating of meat (perhaps reflecting Jewish concerns for kosher meat) or continence should be tolerated. In all things, a sense of unity in Christ, indeed that the community views itself as the Body of Christ, is paramount. The consumption of food or marital practices ought to serve the larger purpose of life in Christ.

58

Rav on Avot 3:18; Meiri on Avot 3:18.

190

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Clement of Alexandria writes that behavior around food and marital relations ought to contribute to the Christian life. Clement argues that the Law of Moses is an ethical blueprint for the acquisition of virtues: “To keep the commandment, which means a faultless observance of them, is to defend our security in living. It is not possible to show endurance without courage, still less continence without self control.”59 Clement envisions the Law of Moses as a guide that leads one to Christ, who as the Logos is the one who generated the Law.60 Yet, the Law is to be interpreted allegorically, in keeping with Clement’s understanding that Christ’s incarnation has revealed the spiritual patterns behind the literal sense of the Law. Thus concerning asceticism he uses the example of the prohibition on eating pork: “The divine Law bears all the virtues in mind. It particularly directs human beings to continence, establishing that as the foundation of virtues. In fact, the Law gives us a preliminary education in the acquisition of continence starting from the use of animals which are naturally fat, like the pig family, which is naturally fat.… Similarly, the Law, to restrict our appetites, forbids the consumption of those fish which lack fins or scales; these surpass the rest of fish in fatness.”61 Clement finds tremendous value in Torah, or the Law, but primarily for its Christological significance. He would violate the warning in Avot 3:11 about interpreting Torah contrary to halakhah. Yet, Clement offers a positive Christian reading of the continuing value of the Law: it remains a guide for the development of virtues and for spiritual advancement, precisely in its emphasis on the regulation of behavior that leads to the curbing of appetites. This role of Torah is not unique to Clement – it is what makes vows a fence for abstinence for Akiva. But the process of developing virtues found in abstinence has differing loci – the halakhic observances themselves for Akiva and their Christological interpretation for Clement. The important role of Torah for cultivating virtues is part of what leads Akiva to describe it as the precious instrument that has been entrusted to Israel in Avot 3:14. As described previously, Christianity tends to describe the person of Jesus Christ in ways similar to Torah for rabbinic Judaism. In this case, there also exists an early Christian tradition

59 Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis II.18.80, trans. John Ferguson, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 85 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press of America, 1991), 211. 60 Clement, Stromateis II.18.91. 61 Clement, Stromateis II.20.105, 227.

CHAPTER THREE

191

that conceives of Jesus Christ as the human incarnation of the Logos that created the world by the command of God the Father. The Gospel of John famously begins, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being” (John 1:1-3). In Paul’s Letter to the Colossians, Jesus Christ is specifically identified as the one who helped establish creation. “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross” (Col. 1:15-20). In the context of Rabbi Akiva’s teaching, it is useful to see how Torah is simultaneously revelatory of God and God’s will for humanity as well as the agent by which God’s desire to create is fulfilled. Torah is both a vehicle for creation and the source of revelation. In the New Testament Jesus Christ is conceptualized in a parallel way. Torah still exists as an important form of revelation, but it is subordinated to the person of Jesus Christ, acting as an instructor for the development of virtues (cf. Gal. 3:23-25). Torah is subordinated to Christ because of the claims, seen in John 1 and Colossians 1 and elsewhere, that God is uniquely present in him in a way that does not apply to Torah. While in Avot Torah reveals God and is given specifically to Israel, Jesus Christ is the incarnation of God himself in human form for Christians (and the whole world). While following Torah leads to a better share in the life of the world to come for Israel, Jesus offers life for all who claim the promise of it in his sacrificial death and resurrection. This final point brings us to another theme found in Avot 3:14 – Israel as beloved children of God. This claim expresses the common idea that God elected Israel to be a special nation dedicated to divine service and Torah. Christians also conceptualize themselves as chosen as the children of God but emphasize that this is not limited to a particular people. Allegiance to Jesus Christ creates an alternate people, potentially inclusive of all nations. In New Testament thought, followers of the risen Christ are made children of God and adopted as heirs of God

192

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

(cf. Gal. 3:23-4:5). While the rabbis argues that the Jews, the physical descendants of Abraham, are the beloved of children of God and are identified as such by keeping Torah, the New Testament expands membership in the Abrahamic family to include Gentiles brought in by the spiritual work of Jesus Christ. This ability to be part of the family of God is possible because of humanity’s creation in the image of God. Much like Maimonides, Christian theologians taught Christians are most like God in intellectual terms. However, Augustine, representative of other Christian thinkers, argues that humans are made in the Trinitarian image of God, interpreting the phrase “Let us make man” in Genesis 1:26 to be a reference to the Trinitarian life of God.62 Returning to Colossians 1:15, we also are reminded that Jesus Christ is described as “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” Theological clarifications of this verse coming out of the Arian controversy in the fourth century understand this passage to mean that God the Son is eternally generated from God the Father and serves as the creative Word bringing all creation to be in expression of the will of the Father. But, we can also see that humanity itself has a double image of God – it shares an intellectual image of God in creation but Christians also bear another image of God by becoming followers of Jesus Christ the Son of God. As Paul writes, “For those whom he (God the Father) foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family” (Rom. 8:29). This notion that Christians can take on the image of Christ informed the concept of theosis, or divinization, where by virtue of Christ’s post-resurrection participation in the Trinitarian life of God as the human nature of God the Son, humans can be slowly transformed to participate in this divine life.63 The metaphors and parables employed by Akiva and Elazar ben Azaryah resonate with teaching devices used by Jesus. The metaphor of a divine collection of debts has echoes in Jesus’s parables about the parable of the debtor who does not forgive the debts of others in Matthew 18:21-35 and with the parable of the creditor who cancelled the debts 62 Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P. The Works of Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, I/13 (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2002) III.19, 29-20, 30. 63 On this point see Lars Thunberg, “The Human Person as Image of God: Eastern Christianity” in Christian Spirituality: Origins to the Twelfth Century, ed. Bernard McGinn and John Meyendorff (New York: Crossroads, 1987), 291-311.

CHAPTER THREE

193

of two debtors in Luke 8:40-43. Of the two, the second parable has a deeper resonance since it teaches that Jesus freely offers God’s forgiveness of sins, both great and small. Paul teaches that it is the death of Jesus that causes God to forgive all sins, “erasing the record that stood against us” (Col. 2:14). In Luke the teaching is similar to Akiva’s – all will have a place in the world to come while the Pauline teaching suggests that saving belief in the sacrificial death of Jesus is necessary. But it is important to hear the words of Jesus addressed to a Jew when heard by Gentiles. Jesus’s parable affirms the election of the beloved children of Israel while Paul teaches Gentiles what they must do to enter into the spiritual family of the covenanted children of Abraham. Elazar ben Azaryah’s parable about two kinds of trees in 3:17 has elements similar to Jesus’s parable about the house built on rock and the house built on sand in Matthew 7:24-27. Just as a tree with large branches and small roots will be knocked down in a storm, so will the house built on sand. A house built on rock will endure like a tree with large roots and small branches. The crucial difference is that a person who is like a strong tree has accomplished this by learning to obey Torah and do what it teaches. But one who is like a house on a rock is a person who Jesus says “hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock” (Matt. 7:24). This shows the divergence between the focus on Torah as the primary vehicle for living according to the divine will and obedience to the teaching of Jesus. This parable comes at the end of the Sermon of the Mount which we have shown elsewhere is permeated with teachings elaborated from Torah. Thus, the words of Jesus do not replace Torah but “they give the right basic orientation both for the understanding and for the doing of Torah.”64 This again reveals the fundamentally Jewish context of the teachings of Jesus. The task for hearing these words in a Gentile context is what does it mean to follow Jesus as teacher of Torah as well as mediator, savior, and incarnation of God? Obedience to Torah is not eliminated for the follower of Jesus but it is subordinated to discipleship to Jesus as the primary path way for salvation. The challenge is to not permit subordination to lead to denigration or neglect of Torah, which has been a common feature of traditional Christian teachings. In conclusion to this section and chapter, we discover again that while Jewish and Christian theology shares common terms, images, and texts, their meaning, interpretation and application differ according to whether 64

Viviano, 86.

194

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

the primary mediating figure is the Torah or Jesus Christ. Both traditions offer the possibility for deep relationship with God flowing from creation in the divine image to divine revelation to identification as children of God. There is a tight link between creation and revelation via a mediating agent that provides people the means to be the children of God.

CHAPTER FOUR

Avot 4:1 Ben Zoma said: “Who is wise? The one who learns from every man, as it is said, ‘From all my teachers have I gained understanding’ (Ps. 119:99). Who is mighty? The one who conquers his evil inclination, as it is said: ‘He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city’ (Prov. 16:32). Who is wealthy? The one who rejoices in his portion, as it is said, ‘You shall enjoy the fruit of your labors; you shall be happy and it shall be well with you’ (Ps. 128:2). ‘You shall be happy’ – in this world, ‘and it shall be well with you’ – in the world to come. Who is honored? The one who honors others, as it is written: ‘for those who honor me I will honor and those who despise me will be lightly esteemed’ (I Sam. 2:30). Jewish Interpretations Like chapter three, the fourth chapter of Mishnah Avot lacks a clear structure. Again Sforno offers advice for making sense of these sayings. He writes that the fourth chapter concerns “pure sayings which teach the ways of uprightness, [that one may] acquire and attain ‘watchfulness and zeal’ through good counsel and understanding. This is accomplished when man sets out to honor God through all his deeds, and is careful to guard against that which diminishes His honor, or contains an element of desecration of His Holy Name, heaven forbid.”1 The reference to the attainment of “watchfulness and zeal” refers to a teaching from the Talmud concerning these qualities as fruits of Torah study. In turn, from these qualities come others in order – cleanliness (in relation to sin), asceticism, moral purity, piety, humility, fear of sin, holiness, the Divine Presence, culminating in the resurrection of the dead.2 Sforno discerns in this chapter prescriptions through Torah study for the development of the virtues of zeal and watchfulness that will set one on a path that culminates in holiness and eternal life.

1 2

Sforno, xiv. BT Avodah Zarah 20b, BT Sotah 49b.

196

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Ben Zoma, or Shimeon ben Zoma, was a younger contemporary of Akiva. It is said that he was not given the title “Rabbi” since he had not received ordination. Rather, he spent his entire life as a student of others. Ben Zoma reportedly belonged to a school of mystics that included Akiva, Ben Azzai, and Elisha ben Abuyah. Together they entered Paradise via contemplation. Only Akiva returned unscathed, while Ben Zoma went insane, Ben Azzai died, and Elisha ben Abuyah became a heretic.3 As this first saying shows, Ben Zoma’s life spent as a student of others made him attuned to the deep qualities necessary to make one wise, mighty, wealthy, and honorable. Regarding wisdom, the truly wise one learns from all, illustrating an egalitarian aspect of the community of sages in the early rabbinic movement.4 Later commentators interpreted Ben Zoma to mean that one is truly wise who learns from all, even those who know less than him. To do this is to let go of the importance of the prestige and pride found in one’s own learning, creating a wider circle of mutuality.5 Ben Zoma takes up the question of who is mighty and transforms it from a physical quality to a spiritual one: “Who is mighty? The one who conquers his evil inclination, as it is said: ‘He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city’ (Prov. 16:32).” Rather than making strength and might a quality proven in battle, Ben Zoma reinterprets the proof text from Proverbs 16 to show that control of the inner passions proves one’s strength. Conquering the evil inclination means to conquer the base impulses that pursue physical desire alone or gives in to readily to anger or sin. According to ARN A, it is through Torah study that one gains this inner strength to conquer the evil inclination. Rabbeinu Yonah explains that “mastering one’s passions is an even greater accomplishment than staying one’s anger. The man who masters his passions will be able to forgive the offender even while he is still angry, due to his inherent fear of God. This is a greater victory than the conquest of a city.”6 Ben Zoma’s saying, offered in a context of the Roman occupation of the land of Israel and destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, can also be read as a rejection of physical responses to coercion, offering instead a path of Torah, selfdenial, and asceticism as a way forward for Jewish identity. 3 4 5 6

Taylor, 63; Kehati, 102; BT Hagigah 14b. Heszer, Social Structure, 134. Rashi on Avot 4:1; Tosafot Yom Tov on Avot 4:1. Schofer, Making of Sages, 99-100; ARN A, 23; Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 4:1, 195.

CHAPTER FOUR

197

Ben Zoma’s final teaching concerning honor causes commentators to point out that, on the one hand, this saying illustrates the way in which giving and receiving honor works in human affairs. It costs one nothing to give honor and in turn the one who receives honor returns it to the one who offered it. This dynamic also speaks to human-divine relations. Rabbeinu Yonah explains that God created all living things so they might honor him even though God gains nothing from this. By giving honor to God, including the honoring of others, God also honors people. Honoring others is praiseworthy because it also involves honoring the One in whose image they were made. This reinforces the teaching from Akiva in Avot 3:14 that humans have an intimate relationship with God based on this shared image, rooted in the intellect, that must be honored in order to truly advance in wisdom and virtue. Indeed, the Talmud teaches that honoring a neighbor is so highly regarded that it can supersede the observance of a negative precept of Torah in order to achieve it.7 Christian Resonances The cultivation of the virtues praised by Ben Zoma are also important in early Christian literature. Ben Zoma’s teaching on the importance of learning from all as a mark of wisdom and humility is also found in Christian desert literature. For example, Abba Matoes offers the following counsel to a disciple in a list of practices to pursue: “and if someone speaks about some topic, do not argue with him but if he is right, say, ‘yes;’ if he is wrong, say, ‘You know what you are saying,’ and do not argue with him about what he has said. That is humility.”8 There is an epistemological humility at play in the sayings of both Ben Zoma and Abba Matoes. True wisdom is to learn from all. There is a difference here as well in that Abba Matoes also instructs on how to engage when one disagrees with a teaching – to simply rescind from engaging in the matter. These stances of learning and avoiding conflict when engaged with others are also reflected in the comparative theology methodology. The comparative theologian must be able to learn from different voices when engaging with another tradition, even if it seems that the teachings investigated have little to offer. This has been my experience on occasion when writing this commentary. At times a saying appears insignificant but a deeper investigation of the commentarial tradition reveals complexity or nuanced interpretation that had not been obvious to me, creating a 7 8

BT Berachot 19b. Sayings of the Desert Fathers, Abba Matoes, 11, 145.

198

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

richer reading and interpretive process for myself as a reader and author. There have also been moments where I have had to encounter basic divergences between the teaching of Avot and my own Christian convictions. This has been most obvious when grappling with the revelatory and redemptive roles of Torah and Jesus Christ. At these moments I have sought deep engagement and learning from Avot and its commentaries but at times have also had to say with Abba Matoes, “You know what you are saying.” The metaphor of controlling the passions as a conquest of a city also appears in desert literature. Abba John the Dwarf taught, “If a king wanted to take possession of his enemy’s city, he would begin by cutting off the water and the food and so his enemies, dying of hunger, would submit to him. It is the same with the passions of the flesh: if a man goes about fasting and hungry the enemies of his soul grow weak.”9 This teachings conveys the sense of Ben Zoma’s use of Proverbs 16:32 to illustrate control of the inner passions, indicating the influence of Hebrew wisdom literature on both movements. There is a greater emphasis on ascetical practices in desert literature. Yet asceticism was practiced in rabbinic Judaism, a quality that Sforno places in the process of cultivating watchfulness and zeal in Torah study. But in Judaism asceticism involves merely renouncing physical pleasures that one may enjoy. It is the mitzvot that serve as the primary regulating principle in the life of Jews. The desert monks, in contrast, embraced practices of asceticism as the supererogatory practices that offer a surer path to salvation. In distinction, the daily practice of mitzvot, as seen throughout this commentary, is understood to be the path to the world to come in Judaism. Asceticism is a good quality for a few, but not a necessary one in rabbinic Judaism. The link between honoring others and honoring God can also be found in the teachings of John the Dwarf. He taught a disciple, “Let us honor one only, and everyone will honor us; for if we despise one, that is God, everyone will despise us, and we will be lost.”10 John the Dwarf ’s focus is on the honor due God, from that, honor is bestowed on the monk, which others in turn will recognize. The desert monks were notorious for shunning human contact and yet large crowds came to visit them. John the Dwarf indicates the charismatic pull of a life focused exclusively on God – all comes from it, including the esteem of others. 9 10

Sayings of the Desert Fathers, Abba John the Dwarf, 3, 86. Sayings of the Desert Fathers, Abba John the Dwarf, 24, 90.

CHAPTER FOUR

199

By extension, one cannot truly enjoy the honor of others without living a life exclusively dedicated to God. In contrast, Ben Zoma indicates the more social dynamic of the rabbinic movement with his teaching illustrating how a life of comity and mutual respect can exist among people and between people and God. Avot 4:2 Ben Azzai said: “Run to fulfill a light mitzvah as if it were a weighty one and flee from transgression; for one mitzvah draws another mitzvah and one transgression draws another transgression, and the reward of a mitzvah is a mitzvah and the reward of a transgression is a transgression.” Avot 4:3 He also used to say: “Do not despise any person and do not disregard anything. For there is not a person who does not have his moment and there is not anything that does not have its place.” Avot 4:4 Rabbi Levitas of Yavneh said: “Be extremely humble in spirit, for the hope of humanity is the worm.” Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka said: “All who desecrate the Name of Heaven in secret are punished publicly, whether they desecrated the Name accidently or deliberately.” Jewish Interpretations Shimeon ben Azzai was like Ben Zoma a disciple of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah and also never was ordained, remaining a student his whole life. He was one of the four mystics who entered Paradise, as mentioned above, dying while on this mystical journey. It is said that while he was secretly married to the daughter of the great rabbi Akiva, he never consummated this marriage in favor of pursuing Torah study.11 Ben Azzai’s teaching in 4:2 about the fulfillment of mitzvot resonates with Rabbi Yehudah’s saying in 2:1 to “be careful with a light commandment as with a weighty one, because you do not know the reward given for the commandments.” Azzai’s saying does not promise a material reward but rather the continued obedience of fulfilling mitzvot as a reward in itself. In this way the saying is consonant with Judah’s and amplifies the rabbinic focus on the performance of mitzvot. 11

Taylor, 65; Herford, 97.

200

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

The medieval rabbi Obadiah ben Abraham Bartenura explains that this saying illustrates that when one performs a mitzvah one receives grace to do another one. It is in this sense that one receives a reward. This in turn brings one closer to God. Tosafot Yom Tov clarifies that a light mitzvah does not mean an insignificant commandment, but whether the fulfillment of this particular commandment comes easily. Yet no distinction is made between types of transgressions because all sins come to people easily. Rabbeinu Yonah expands on this saying further to illustrate the cooperation between human choice and divine assistance. “God does not make man good or bad; He only gives him the freedom to choose between the good and bad.…If man makes the right choices, God will help him carry them out.” Similarly, if one chooses to sin, God will allow that person to remain in sin. Rabbeinu Yonah cites an expansion of this teaching in the Babylonian Talmud: “One who comes to purify himself will be assisted, and one who comes to defile himself will have the door opened for him.”12 Ben Azzai’s saying in 4:3 also echoes a prior one. Ben Azzai teaches, “Do not despise any person and do not disregard anything. For there is not a person who does not have his moment and there is not anything that does not have its place.” Shammai in Avot 1:15 says “Make your Torah regular, say little and do much, and receive everyone with a friendly countenance.” We can see Ben Azzai’s saying as a negative formulation of Shammai’s final clause. One ought not to dismiss anyone too readily for every person has some sort of intrinsic value.13 In Shammai’s teaching this intrinsic openness to all is so that Torah learning might spread to as many people as possible, even hypothetically to Gentiles. Commentators see in Ben Azzai’s words a reference back to the act of divine creation. One ought to treat all people well since God made all things and God intends for all aspects of creation to serve the good. To demean a person is to demean God who made that person to do good. Pinhas Kehati shows that Ben Azzai offers a parallel teaching found in the Jerusalem Talmud. In a discussion on the verse “you shall love your neighbor as yourself ” (Lev. 19:18), Rabbi Akiva argues this is one of the highest teachings in Torah. Ben Azzai responds that the teaching that humans were made in the likeness of God is an even higher one (Gen. 5:1). The implication is that the command to love one’s neighbor as oneself is implied in the creation of humanity in God’s 12 13

Yonah on Avot 4:2, 201-2; BT Yoma 38b. Goldin, Or Hadash, 268.

CHAPTER FOUR

201

image. One might be able to degrade oneself, but one should not degrade another because of the image of God all bear.14 Here we see that a rabbinic ethic begins with the doctrine of divine creation. The commonality of all created beings to serve the good God informs the social ethics of the rabbis. The observance of all commandments flows from creation as all these actions are meant to serve the divine purpose contained within creation. Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka’s saying in Avot 4:4 concerning the desecration of the Name of Heaven ties in to the doctrine of creation and the nature of divinity discussed in 4:3. Leviticus 22:32 taught that the name of God should not be profaned but instead blessed in the same way that God blessed the Israelites by bringing them out of Egypt. The rabbis consider the desecration of the name of God (termed hillul haShem) a sin even greater than idolatry. To desecrate the name of God is to deny God’s place in the world as the creator of all things. Every sin, even idolatry, fundamentally makes this denial. How then does the private desecration of the name of God that Rabbi Yochanan describes map onto public desecration? Rashi explains that the stature of a Torah scholar is such that if he privately desecrates God’s name then divine punishment will be meted out in a public way so that the community becomes aware of the sin. Such a person essentially sought to deny God’s sovereignty by trying to sin privately. This attempt to deny God’s status requires the public loss of the sage’s honor. To permit anything else means the community the sage teaches will eventually be led astray. Here we see the internal logic of the two parts of Avot 4:4. According to Rabbi Yochanan, to punish private desecrations of the Name of God as a means of maintaining God’s sovereignty is a means of guarding against the sin of pride that Rabbi Levitas warns against. The avoidance of pride and the cultivation of God’s honor are means of affirming the relationship between the human person and God. For Israel this relationship is particularized in the redemption experienced in the Exodus and the revelation of the Torah by which this people came to know the particular identity of God as expressed in the divine Name (the Tetragrammaton). Thus to bless and not profane the divine Name is not only to preserve the relationship between Creator and creature but to daily maintain the special covenanted relationship between God and Israel. To take away from this, even privately, requires public correction and return to right relationship. 14

Kehati, 107; YT Nedarim 9:4.

202

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Christian Resonances Many of the themes sounded in these sayings have already been investigated in this commentary. Returning to Sforno’s interpretation that this chapter concerns the development of a good character, it is worth considering how this idea as developed in this section resonates with Christian views. What is most notable about the sayings in this section of chapter four is the notion that recognizing the sovereignty of God is the basis for ethical characteristics. We can return to Matthew 5:19 in which Jesus warns against breaking one of the least of the commandments of Torah and teaching others to do the same. As punishment, one will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. As a coda, Jesus in Matthew 5:20 chides his disciples that “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” These verses return us to the importance of keeping Torah for Jesus and his early followers. In Avot 4:2 the reward is for keeping Torah, here the reward is eschatological. Both rewards point away from material gain towards a reward that is expressed in terms of continued relationship with God. The teaching and commentary on Avot 4:3 that to love one’s neighbor as oneself is implied in the creation of humanity in God’s image also finds resonance in Matthew 5:43-48. In this passage Jesus teaches that his followers are to love not only one’s neighbor, but also one’s enemies. To do this makes one children of the Father who is in heaven for, it is explained “he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45). Jesus locates the explanatory force of his teaching with the sovereignty of God who as creator of all graciously provides for all, whether deserving or not. The call to love others is a call to imitate God who loves graciously (Matt. 5:48). But this requires not confusing one’s role with God’s role. A follower of Jesus imitates God’s love first by recognizing God’s sovereign role in the created order. By choosing to imitate this love, one also places oneself into the divinely desired covenanted life that Jesus called people to when expanding upon the call to love neighbor first voiced in Torah in Leviticus 19:18. Avot 4:5 Rabbi Yishmael his son said: “One who learns in order to teach is given the ability to learn and to teach; and one who learns in order to practice is given the ability to learn and to teach, and to observe and to practice.”

CHAPTER FOUR

203

Rabbi Zadok said: “Do not make them into a crown to be glorified by them nor a spade with which to dig.” And so also Hillel said: “And one who makes use of the crown will perish.” From this you learn: Whoever profits from the words of Torah removes his life from the world. Avot 4:6 Rabbi Yose said: “One who honors the Torah himself is honored by people; and one who dishonors the Torah himself is dishonored by people.” Avot 4:7 Rabbi Yishmael his son said: “One who withholds himself from judgment rids himself from enmity, theft, and false swearing; and one who gives decisions haughtily is foolish and arrogant in spirit.” Avot 4:8 He used to say: “Do not judge by yourself, for no one may judge alone except God. And do not say “Accept my opinion!” – for they are permitted to decide, but not you.” Avot 4:9 Rabbi Yonatan said: “One who fulfills the Torah amid poverty in the end will fulfill it amid wealth, and one who neglects the Torah amid wealth in the end will neglect it in poverty.” Avot 4:10 Rabbi Meir said: “Limit your business and occupy yourself with Torah, and be of humble spirit before all people. And if you neglect Torah you will have many idlers in your presence. And if you labor in the Torah, he has ample reward for you.” Jewish Interpretations These six sayings revolve around questions of livelihood, status, and reward relating to the activities of the sages. Most pressing for teachers of Torah is the question raised in Avot 4:5 about the nature of temporal rewards for their instruction. This saying begins with Rabbi Yishmael warning about deriving status from one’s role as a Torah teacher. Commentators point to a passage of the Talmud: “One should not say, ‘I will

204

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

study the Scriptures so that I may be called a sage; I will study Mishnah to have the title Rabbi; I will teach so I may gain the rank of an elder and have a seat in the assembly. Instead, learn out of love and honor will come.”15 Rashi explains that Yishmael refers to one who wants to study and teach Torah but does not intend to do deeds that benefit others. That is, he is only willing to keep what is required of him in Torah but is not transformed by this study to live a higher ethical life. In Rabbeinu Yonah’s eyes, one ought to study Torah to gain as much understanding of it as possible. As a result, God will help one achieve this goal. This aid will also make one able to guide others in their own knowledge of Torah, including the performance of mitzvot. Rabbis Zadok and Hillel offer warnings about profiting from teaching Torah to others. The crown that both refer to has been interpreted either as Torah or the disciples that one gains – either way one ought not to exploit this crown for personal gain. The Machzor Vitry agrees that in general one should not reap financial gain from Torah instruction since the Talmud teaches (with reference to Deuteronomy 4:5) that just as God taught Israel the Torah without requiring payment, so should no one expect payment for teaching Torah. Rav illuminates Hillel’s warning about misuse of the crown also with reference to tractate Nedarim in the Talmud where Zadok’s saying is quoted. In this context, Zadok’s teaching warns that to misuse the Torah is equivalent to misusing the holy vessels of the Temple. This is illustrated by the story of the Babylonian king Belshazzar whose misuse of the vessels from the first Temple ultimately led to the downfall of his kingdom.16 God gave the precious instrument of Torah to Israel at Sinai at no cost. In turn, no one ought to be charged to learn from it. Maimonides in his own context was very concerned about scholars pressuring communities to support them and their students. In his mind this made Torah instruction seem like a business transaction. He argued that the earliest sages taught and lived in great poverty or held low paying jobs. Rabbeinu Yonah clarified that one may receive a gift as a teacher, but only if the giver and the recipient both intend this gift to honor Torah and not the teacher. Although there was a consensus around this teaching, by the early modern period other halakhic opinions emerged, notably in the legal code Shulchan Aruch, that argued that students of Torah and their teachers need some kind of financial support 15 16

BT Nedarim 62a. BT Nedarim 62a; Daniel 5.

CHAPTER FOUR

205

both so the necessary level of study can be maintained and so that the community might profit from their study. These arguments derived in part from Talmudic opinions that permitted a Torah scholar to receive some financial benefits in the community, such as having money managed without charge or be free from competitors if selling goods on market day.17 Sforno summarizes what emerged as the consensus concerning the acceptability of receiving payment for instruction: “However, when a person utilizes his Torah knowledge to sustain himself in this transitory world, his goal being to add to his knowledge and understanding, and to be able to perform more good deeds, either on behalf of himself or in order to teach others, then it is considered as though he used a holy item for a legitimate, sacred purpose.” We see here again the use of Temple vessels as a metaphor for Torah study. But in this case, Sforno argues that a Torah scholar is like a priest in the Temple and so may receive compensation for work done properly, just as priests received meat from the sacrifices offered to sustain them and their family.18 To honor Torah in Avot 4:6 is first to show honor by listening carefully to its public reading, to not place a Torah scroll on the ground or a bench, or put one scroll on another. The physical words of the Torah are to be honored as much as its hearing. This physical honoring extends to how to teach it honorably. Thus, Rashi teaches that honor is also shown by only teaching students who behave well and honor Torah by practicing its teachings properly. Maimonides interprets that to honor Torah is also to personally perform its mitzvot, to respect the sages who have passed Torah on, and to show respect to their own written works. The honor shown to Torah thus also extends to teachers of Torah. The honor due teachers and their books is meant to be a referent back to God. As Rabbeinu Yonah teaches, since Torah is from God the honor shown it (and its teachers) is honor given to God. Honor extended to teachers of Torah, however, should not make a teacher become arrogant or haughty, especially when exercising communal roles. Thus Rabbi Yishmael in Avot 4:7 warns against too eagerly exercising the role of a judge. Judging means taking great risks. Bartenura interprets the three dangers of enmity, theft, and false swearing to refer to the enmity incurred when a losing party holds a grudge against a judge; robbery to refer to an erroneous ruling that grants property to the 17

Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 246:5; BT Berachot 34b; BT Ketubot 111b. Sforno on Avot 4:5, 111; cf. BT Ketubot 105a, II Chronicles 31:4; Numbers 18:8-32. 18

206

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

wrong party; and false swearing to refer to require one to unnecessarily swear a vow, thus running the risk of perjury. In light of this, Yishmael declares that only a fool would want to be a judge. Human nature being what it is, this happens too often. Rashi explains that a foolish judge is exactly the kind of person that the prior Rabbi Yishmael warned about in 4:5 concerning one who studies Torah to seek his own honor. To Yonah, this person is not only foolish but wicked since only a wicked person would eagerly take on a job in which errors in judgment are frequently possible. For this reason, Yishmael continues in Avot 4:8 by warning judges to not judge alone but to have other rabbis serve as a panel of judges in order to guard against erroneous judgments. Rabbeinu Yonah explains that even when one serves on such a panel, one must not force an opinion on the other judges since only God can have certain judgment. Rather, the judges must humbly come to a ruling that approximates the ideal form of justice. These three sayings illustrate the ethical considerations of rabbinic leadership and its perceived dangers. Specifically, rabbis and later commentators were concerned that abuses of authority not bring discredit to Torah nor harm the authority of Torah teachers. Just as a Torah teacher should not seek self-aggrandizement, so should they not become so distracted by seeking pleasures that this takes away from their pursuit of Torah. This is the sense of Avot 4:9-10 in which Rabbis Yonatan and Meir each warn about not pursuing wealth and business affairs to the detriment of Torah study. ARN B adds to Yonatan’s teaching that “He who studies Torah for his own needs will in the end forget it.” Torah study should not be conducted for one’s own pleasure but rather to pusue God’s will. Wealth and business affairs distract one from this pursuit because, as Maimonides explains, to neglect Torah study in favor of gaining wealth indicates that one’s focus is the pursuit of pleasure. Likewise, prioritizing one’s business affairs at the expense of Torah study means that one’s own personal and material gains matter more than orienting oneself to the divine will.19 Implicit in both sayings is the view that to neglect Torah for anything else is to dishonor Torah, to build on Rabbi Yose’s saying in 4:6. To focus on anything else beyond Torah is to abandon the wisdom God has made available.20 Poverty can be a desirable state, since physical and temporal rewards and pleasures pale in comparison to the divine reward Torah study guarantees. While 19 20

ARN B 35, 208. Viviano, 97-98.

CHAPTER FOUR

207

there is a hint that these rewards might be felt in this world, based on prior passages in Avot, the expectation of reward most likely is for the world to come. Christian Resonances Early Christian texts also display a concern with questions of wealth as it related to those who led early Christian communities. In Matthew 10:8-9, Jesus sends his disciples out on a mission to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” to proclaim the gospel, heal, and exorcise. In doing so, they are to receive no payment for their work since the disciples received the ability to do these things without payment. Yet, Jesus allows them to receive food and drink as a worthy reward for laborers (Matt. 10:10; cf. Luke 10:7). In the Didache, a second century catechetical manual, community members are taught that if either a wandering apostle or prophet asks for money in exchange for their teachings, that person is to be regarded as a false apostle or false prophet. In I Corinthians 9, Paul argues that as an apostle he has he right to expect some sort of compensation from the Corinthian congregation in the form of food and a wife, yet for the sake of not burdening them he has not made this request. We find then in early Christianity a tension between whether or not one ought to receive compensation. Both Jesus in Matthew and the Didache replicate the ethos expressed in Nedarim concerning payment (Avot 4:5). Just as a Torah scholar should not expect payment for teaching since Torah is a gift from God to Israel, so one should not expect payment for healing, exorcism, prophecy or proclamation of the gospel because the ability to do this is also a gift. Lying behind the Didache’s condemnation of paying wandering prophets or apostles is the notion that their offices arise as a gift of the Holy Spirit (cf. I Cor. 12:1-11). Acceptance of payment for a divine gift would imply that the prophet or apostle was in some way responsible for the power they exercised, that it came from within their own person rather than from God. There is an assumption that God’s own generosity, whether by the person of Jesus or the Holy Spirit, activates power for certain disciples of Jesus who can then act for the benefit of others, whether it is the people of Israel (Matthew) or a local community of followers of Jesus (Didache). The rejection of payment applies in Christian teaching to charismatic gifts, but Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians 9 leads to a complimentary view that one may be paid if one is the leader of a stable local community. The payment of an individual who can sustain a group of disciples

208

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

is legitimate in Paul’s view and he employs the Hebrew Scriptures to support his argument. Yet this payment is not to be extensive or exorbitant but revolves around ensuring a leader can be sustained with minimal goods. Paul uses the example of the Temple service and the teachings of Jesus to cement his point: “Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is sacrificed on the altar? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel” (I Cor. 10:13-14). Paul references the practice of priests who offered sacrifices to the God of Israel receiving their food from these offerings. Paul’s argument here for how apostles ought to be supported is similar to Sforno’s regarding the sustenance of teachers. There is not only a precedent in the temple service but Paul also appeals to the words of Jesus that “those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.” To live by the proclamation of the gospel is not to profit off of it but to get a minimal level of sustenance. Augustine in writing on the monastic life underlines that those pursuing the apostolic life (teaching and preaching) deserve a minimal amount of support for food and drink, but nothing beyond that.21 We find here similar impulses between rabbinic and Christian perspectives. Any movement needs some way of sustaining its leadership. Often the idealism from the beginning of a movement is channeled into institutional realities. Jesus sends out disciples with the barest things to sustain themselves. A generation later, Paul recognizes the need for some clearer means of support for apostles. Augustine writes as a bishop who oversees a larger infrastructure and yet still wants the ideal that support for ministry will only go to the most basic needs. In the thirteenth century, Francis sought to restore the clerical leadership of the medieval western church back to these early gospel ideals of poverty and complete dedication to preaching the gospel. Francis’s rejection of a well-compensated clergy resonates with Maimonides’s own objection about a century earlier concerning the compulsory compensation of rabbis. Francis, like rabbinic counterparts and earlier Christian writes, insisted on the pure gift that the word of God is, whether conceptualized as Gospel or Torah. If the words contained in them contain the paths of life, can any price be put on them? This dynamic between precious teachings that ought to 21 Augustine, The Work of Monks 10, CSEL 41:546-47. For further Christian comments on this passage, see I Corinthians: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators, trans. and ed. Judith L. Kovacs (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 144-54.

CHAPTER FOUR

209

be shared widely and freely and the need for the teachers and proclaimers of these words to find some means of material support point both to ongoing communal realities but also to the theological conviction that God choses to communicate graciously utilizing human vessels. Early Christian leaders, notably bishops in the fourth and fifth centuries, also displayed a concern with the proper exercise of their authority in a way that resonates with rabbinic concerns about self-aggrandizement and proper judgments. Augustine of Hippo delivered a sermon on the anniversary of his ordination to his congregation. In it, he reflects on the dangers of seeking the office of leadership. “What kind of bishop is called, but isn’t one really? The one who enjoys his status more than the welfare and salvation of God’s flock – who at this pinnacle of ministry ‘seeks his own advantage, not that of Jesus Christ’ (Phil. 2:21). He is called a bishop but he isn’t a bishop.”22 Augustine’s words resonates with Avot 4:5 and its commentaries concerning one who seeks to teach Torah in order to have the title of rabbi and the status associated with it but is not interested in leading others to a deeper level of Torah practice. Augustine warns against the terrible effects on Christian communities by people who come to the office of bishop out of self-interest instead of a commitment to be the servant of all as bishop. For Augustine, the servant leadership of Jesus Christ is the standard for how bishops ought to perform their duties. Maimonides, commenting on Avot 4:5, calls his audience back to the early rabbis like Hillel who lived a life of poverty, not profiting off the community in the course of their teaching and leadership. Ambrose of Milan, Augustine’s teacher, also wrote concerning ideal behavior of Christian leaders in On the Duties of the Clergy. He warns about the perils of offering judgment, similar to the warnings found in Avot 4:7-8. Like Rabbi Yishmael he cautions that clergy should comport themselves very carefully when called upon to hear a case and to take care not to issue a faulty judgment. In particular, Ambrose is concerned that one not rule in favor of a rich person against the just claims of the poor because this would give scandal to the church in the eyes of others. It is best to avoid giving judgments at all, especially in the question of financial disputes. Yet, one must render judgment when it comes to doctrine and discipline of the church: “But in the cause of God, where there is danger to the whole church, it is no small sin to act as though 22 Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 340A, Sermons 306-340, trans. Edmund Hill (Brooklyn, NY: New City Press, 1994), 293.

210

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

one saw nothing.”23 Judgment is a perilous business because so often vested interests in a community can lead to distortions of justice in which the powerful exploit the weak. And yet, both Christian and Jewish leaders recognized the need for judgment to be exercised properly and well. The solution lies in a concern not for one’s own status as a judge but rather in the well-being of the community as either the people of Israel or the Church of God. The concern for appropriate forms of leadership and authority in Avot resonates with similar concerns in early Christian communities. The long-term health and well-being of both communities depended upon the quality of its leadership, especially as it related to the members of the wider community. Although study of Torah and discipleship according to the Gospel of Jesus animated the concerns of these respective leadership groups the trajectory of their concerns concerning the ethics of leadership remained resonant. Avot 4:11 Rabbi Eliezer son of Jacob said: “He who performs one mitzvah, acquires for himself an advocate; and he who commits one sin, he acquires for himself a prosecutor. Repentance and good deeds are a shield in the face of punishment.” Rabbi Yochanan ha-Sandelar said: “Every assembly that is for the sake of Heaven will in the end be established, and what is not for the sake of heaven will not in the end be established.” Avot 4:12 Rabbi Eleazar ben Shamua said: “Let the honor of your students be as dear to you as your own, the honor of your colleague as the fear of your teacher, and the fear of your teacher as the fear of Heaven.” Avot 4:13 Rabbi Yehudah said: “Be cautious in study for inadvertent error is considered equal to intentional sin.” Rabbi Shimon said: “There are three crowns: a crown of Torah, and a crown of priesthood, and a crown of kingship, but the crown of a good name surpasses them all.” 23 Ambrose of Milan, On the Duties of the Clergy II.24. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaf and Henry Wace, vol. 10 (Edinburgh and Grand Rapids: T&T Clark / Eerdmans, 1989), 62.

CHAPTER FOUR

211

Avot 4:14 Rabbi Nehorai: “Exile yourself to a place of Torah, and do not say that it will come after you, that your neighbors will preserve it for you, and do not rely on your own understanding.” Jewish Interpretations In Avot 4:11 we encounter a discussion of the judgment of individuals based on their actions. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob (likely a disciple of Akiva) teaches that one either receives an advocate or a prosecutor in this life and in the world to come depending on whether one fulfills the mitzvot or commits a sin. Even if one is guilty of a sin, repentance and good deeds (mitzvot) can reverse one’s punishment. Eliezer uses the word praklit to describe this defender, derived from the Greek word for an advocate in court, while he uses the word qateygor, derived from the Greek word for a court prosecutor.24 Rabbeinu Yonah and Meiri explain that this teaching shows the importance of doing even the most insignificant of the mitzvot because by them one gains an advocate in the heavenly courts as a guardian. In rabbinic literature it is taught that God appoints angels as advocates for individuals when they appear in the court of heaven for their judgment before God. Building on Eliezer’s teaching about the value of repentance and good deeds, the Talmud declares, “even if nine hundred and ninety-nine argue for his guilt, while one argues in his favor, he is saved, for it is said, ‘If he has a representative, one advocate against a thousand, to declare the man’s uprightness, then he has mercy on him and decrees, ‘Redeem him from descending to the Pit.’”25 Commentators like Meiri and Maimonides understand that God offers a merciful disposition towards people – even a small effort at performing mitzvot accompanied by repentance can assure that one will have a heavenly advocate who will deliver one from a multitude of angelic prosecutors. The saying of Rabbi Yochanan Ha-Sandelar (the shoe-maker), another student of Akiva, serves as a corollary. According to Rabbeinu Yonah, an assembly for the sake of heaven that will endure is one in that is a “a gathering convened for Torah and good deeds.” In contrast, according to Meiri, a gathering that will not last is “when in any group victory is the motive, one person does not listen to the other one, and controversy takes place.” ARN A identifies the gathering of Israel at Sinai when it 24

Taylor, 69; Schofer, 127. Goldin, Or Hadash, 269; BT Shabbat 32a quoting Job 33:23-24; cf. Exodus Rabbah 32:6. 25

212

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

accepted Torah as the first kind of gathering while the second type is typified by those who sought to build the Tower of Babel but descended into strife and confusion.26 This assessment of groups suggests that in aggregate collections of humans can attain much good or great evil. While an individual might win an advocate based on effort to do good, groups are held to a higher standard of judgment. It is easier to discern what is good or bad in society while it is more ambiguous on the individual level. In Avot 4:12 Eleazar of Shamua, another disciple of Akiva, offers a striking statement concerning the relationships bound up in the teaching of Torah: “Let the honor of your students be as dear to you as your own, the honor of your colleague as the fear of your teacher, and the fear of your teacher as the fear of Heaven.” Sforno observes that this saying shows an ascending scale of the types of honor a sage should show to those who are equals, to those who are below him, and to those who are above. God (“Heaven” is the reverent circumlocution used in this mishnah) rests at the top of this scale because God is the ultimate teacher of Torah. Indeed, the Talmud teaches that God divides each day into four parts, the first of which is given over to three hours of daily Torah study.27 Rashi explains Eleazar’s saying in terms of the mutuality and interpersonal connections involved in learning Torah. A teacher is glorified by the accomplishments of his students, and so their honor becomes the teacher’s honor. But since one has no share in the honor of a colleague, their honor should be treated like the fear given to one’s own teacher. Here fear can be also read as reverence and implies the acknowledgment of someone who has a rightfully superior status than one’s own. Likewise, the fear shown one’s teacher is to be like the fear of God. Rashi explains this final assertion based on a Talmudic exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:13 which reads, “You shall fear the LORD your God.” The Hebrew uses a particle (et) to indicate the accusative. The Talmud argues that when this particle is not grammatically necessary, such as in this verse, then this instruction applies not only to God but also to teachers of Torah. Yonah explains why Torah teachers can have such status: “This teacher loves Torah and Torah scholars, and fears the word of God, and instructs you in the fear of Heaven and how to follow the proper path. This is why the Mishnah uses the word ‘fear’ concerning a teacher.”28 Reverence and 26 27 28

Yonah on Avot 4:11, 226; Meiri on Avot 4:11, 181. Sforno on Avot 4:12; BT Avodah Zerah 3b; Taylor, 71. Rashi on Avot 4:12, citing BT Pesahim 22b; Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 4:12, 229.

CHAPTER FOUR

213

fear shown to a teacher is like that shown to God in so far as the teacher conveys the Torah God originally offered Israel. All are caught up in a web of honor, fear and reverence, from the student to God. Because of the web that Eleazar presents, it matters greatly how one studies Torah. Following his words are several sayings by other students of Akiva concerning the ethics of pursuing Torah study. In Avot 4:13, Rabbi Yehudah bar Ilai counsels scrupulous attention to the study of Torah lest by inattentiveness one inadvertently offers a wrong interpretation. If because of one’s erroneous interpretation others are led to transgression of a commandment, then one is held liable for committing an intentional sin.29 That a teacher of Torah needs to cultivate virtues and ethics is key to Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai’s teaching about the crowns. As Rabbeinu Yonah teaches, the three crowns of Torah, priesthood and kingship are pinnacles of accomplishments, but no one of them is perfected until one also attains the crown of a good name. The crown of a good name is to possess the best of virtue and character. According to ARN A while one is born to priesthood or royalty, all can come to the crown of Torah, for as Isaiah 55:1 teaches, “all who are thirsty, come for water.” Indeed, the crown of Torah is the path towards other crowns. As ARN B writes, “The crown of a good name must accompany them all. Let everyone who merited Torah come and take it.” Maimonides adds that the crown of Torah is the condition for the crowns of priesthood and royalty, citing Proverbs 8:15-16: “Through me kings reign… Through me princes rule.”30 At times attaining the crown of Torah requires leaving one’s home and going into exile to find a teacher, as Rabbi Nehorai teaches in Avot 4:14. Maimonides and Sforno both counsel that one ought not assume that one can learn Torah by oneself. Instead, one needs a teacher and other students to help one fully grasp its content. Torah study is never a solitary task and one does not become a master of it except in a community. We find then in this cluster of teachings a vision of the ethics of learning – a communal path requiring both the pursuit of the highest human capacities to grasp the depths of divine revelation but also to be carried out in a spirit and mutuality. The honors that might accrue to an individual are always sublimated for the greater good of the community so that even more might come to know and practice Torah in its fullness.

29 30

See Bartenura and Rashi and Avot 4:13. ARN B 48, 297.

214

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Christian Resonances The mention of an advocate or paraclete in Avot 4:11 resonates with the Gospel of John in which Jesus promises the gift of the Holy Spirit as an advocate/paraclete to his disciples. John 14:15-17 reads, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.” Augustine teaches that it is crucial to view the identification of the coming of another advocate in light of the imminent departure of Jesus from his disciples. The Spirit of truth will serve in the place of Jesus who up to this point has been the advocate for the disciples. The disciples cannot receive this new advocate unless they have already been in a loving relationship with Jesus and have done his commandments, especially the command to love one another (cf. John 15:12).31 We can find a further affirmation of Jesus as an advocate in another passage of Johannine literature: “But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (I John 2:1b-2). Jesus serves as an advocate protecting the disciples during his earthly ministry (John 14) but also intercedes for all who believe in him for the atonement of their sins once he has ascended to the Father after his resurrection. The advocate who is to come after the departure of Jesus will be sent by him from the Father. Jesus states this advocate is “the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf. You also are to testify because you have been with me from the beginning” (John 15:26b-27). A dominant theme in the Gospel of John is the role of testimony and witness about the true identity of Jesus as the glorified Son of God whose death redeems the world. Jesus spent his ministry teaching about his identity but when he departs, this work will continue through the testimony of the advocate, the Spirit of truth, and the disciples. Indeed, the disciples will testify to Jesus is by the aid of the advocate: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify 31 Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaf, vol. 7 (Edinburgh and Grand Rapids: T&T Clark / Eerdmans, 1989), 74.4.

CHAPTER FOUR

215

me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you” (John 16:13-14).” The advocate works as one who mediates the presence of Jesus after his departure; it is the advocate who will ensure the vitality of the work and witness of the disciples concerning Jesus.32 As a witness, the advocate will prosecute the world that stands in opposition to the testimony concerning Jesus. “And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about  sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned” (John 16:8-11). In the Gospel of John the great sin of the world is the rejection of Jesus; the advocate will prosecute the world for this sin. This notion of a spirit of truth who will testify and accuse one is found in other Jewish writings from the period, such as the Testimony of Judah. Here the role of prosecuting spirit focuses specifically on the problem of those who reject the testimony concerning Jesus.33 While in Avot there exist heavenly advocates assigned to each individual to intercede for one before God, in Johannine literature there are two singular advocates – Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. According to the First Letter of John, Jesus serves as an advocate who intercedes for all his followers before the Father. In this regard, Jesus as an advocate plays a role that shares something in common with what is envisioned in Avot 4:11. The difference is that Jesus alone possesses this role and serves not only as someone who pleads the case for one based on their good deeds but who himself is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of others. This view again illustrates the central role that fidelity to Jesus Christ has and the subordination of Torah faithfulness to him for the Johannine community. The other advocate is identified with the Spirit of truth or the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John. If Jesus Christ atones for one’s sins then the role of the Spirit is closer to that of a courtroom agent. The Spirit works through the disciples to enable them to witness to the work of Jesus Christ. The power of this testimony delivers judgment on the world that has rejected this testimony. In this sense the Spirit might be termed an advocate but operates much like the prosecutor in the second half of Rabbi Eliezer’s saying. But how precisely is judgment against the 32 George T. Montague, The Holy Spirit: Growth of a Biblical Tradition (New York: Paulist Press, 1976), 354. 33 Montague, 356-590.

216

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

world rendered? One cannot escape that the Gospel of John is built upon a conflict that pits Jewish followers of Jesus against other Jewish communities. The term “world” to describe opponents of the disciples most likely means a group of unidentified Jewish opponents from the first century.34 This theme of worldly opposition as Jewish opposition was prominent in the Christian theological tradition. Augustine connects the work of the Spirit as an advocate to testimony about the unjust slaying of Jesus which he blames on Jews. Augustine then identifies the event of Pentecost, when the promised Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples gathered in Jerusalem after the resurrection of Jesus. Immediately after this the disciple Peter addresses the inhabitants of Jerusalem in which he portrays them as responsible for handing Jesus over to the Romans for execution (Acts 2:23). After narrating the account of the death and resurrection of Jesus as a sign of the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel, the assembled Jews ask what they must do. Peter instructs them to repent and accept baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins so that they may receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:22-38). In response, it is recorded that three thousand were baptized that day and took part in the common life of the disciples of Jesus (Acts 2:41-42). Concerning the conversion of those who had been the enemies of Jesus, Augustine writes about both Christ and the Spirit as kinds of advocates. Concerning Jesus he states, “For the blood of Christ was shed so efficaciously for the remission of all sins, that it could wipe out the very sin of shedding it.” This leans heavily on the idea from the First Letter of John that Jesus Christ is the sole advocate who alone can eliminate sins. And, using the voice of Jesus, Augustine also identifies the work of the Holy Spirit as an advocate: “They hated me, and slew me when I stood visibly before their eyes; but such shall be the testimony borne in my behalf by the Comforter, that He will bring them to believe in me when I am no longer visible to their sight.” The power of the Spirit of the advocate bearing witness to the identity of Jesus is manifested in the conversion of many former enemies (in the thinking of Augustine) to become disciples of Jesus via the preaching of his chief disciple, Peter.35 34 The literature on this question is broad. A helpful point of departure is Adele Reinhartz, Befriending the Beloved Disciple: A Jewish Reading of the Gospel of John (New York: Bloomsbury, 2002). 35 Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John 92.1, 363.

CHAPTER FOUR

217

For a Christian theologian writing after the Shoah, there is much in Augustine’s exegesis that is troubling, starting with the acceptance that any Jewish resident of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’s crucifixion was naturally complicit in his death. We can hear both in Avot 4:11 and in Augustine’s view of the work of the Spirit as advocate the important role of divine mercy. Eliezer and his interpreters note that even a small effort at performing mitzvot accompanied by repentance means that one will have a heavenly advocate who will deliver one from divine judgment. Similarly, while enemies of the gospel, the world, might exist in the rhetoric of the Gospel of John, Augustine’s exegesis, problematic as aspects of it are, shows that mercy is an outcome of the work of the advocate. Fundamental to the Christian worldview that Augustine expresses is that by divine grace through the Spirit, anyone can be reconciled to God. The question that now stands from a post-Shoah perspective is how to articulate the reconciling power of God active in the Holy Spirit without also embracing a logic of redemption that assumes a fundamental gulf between disciples of Jesus and the rest of the non-Christian world. Avot 4:15 Rabbi Yannai said: “It is not in our hands to explain either the tranquility of the wicked or the suffering of the righteous.” Rabbi Matya ben Charash said: “Be the first to greet every person, and be a tail to lions and not a head to foxes.” Avot 4:16 Rabbi Yaakov said: “This world is like a foyer before the world to come; prepare yourself in the foyer so that you might enter the main hall.” Avot 4:17 He used to say: “Better is one moment of repentance and good deeds in this world than an entire life in the world to come. And better is one moment of tranquility in the world to come than an entire lifetime in this world.” Avot 4:18 Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: “Do not appease your colleague at the time of his anger and do not comfort him when his dead are laid out before him, and do not question him at the time of his vow, and do not try to see him at the time of his disgrace.”

218

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Avot 4:19 Shmuel ha-Qatan said: “If your enemy falls, do not exult; if he trips, let your heart not rejoice” (Prov. 24:17). Jewish Interpretations The sayings in Avot 4:15-19 concern elements of ethical discernment in this world and the world to come. Avot 4:15 joins together two separate sayings that concern the assessment of the character of others. In the first part, Rabbi Yannai, a disciple of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus, addresses the timeless problem of the prospering of the wicked and the suffering of the righteous by declaring that discerning the meaning of this paradox is out of the hands of rabbinic authorities. Commentators see in this stance wisdom: it is not possible to say why the wicked seem to flourish and the righteous suffer. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch summarizes this when he writes, “We cannot know for sure if what befalls him is indeed a blessing or a calamity. It therefore behooves us to abstain from passing judgment in either case, and not to permit our own shortsighted view of the events we witness to influence our decisions.”36 In the face of this troubling situation, one is to remember that God renders judgment in this world and deeper things might be at work than what humans alone can discern. Sforno writes that it is clear that Torah neither promises rewards to the wicked nor sufferings to the righteous. The truly righteous sometimes welcome punishment for the accidental omission of certain halakhic deeds for which no punishment typically exists. But this marks a high degree of piety rather than a punishment of the righteous. And, Sfrono opines, one can only assume that the prosperity of the wicked in this world is designed to make their punishment and eventual fall even greater. Yet the ultimate discernment about the fate of all rests with God alone. Rabbi Matya ben Charash’s saying in Avot 4:15 is more straightforward. By it he means that it is better to associate with great teachers and be considered least among them (a tail to lions) than to be considered a leader among less capable people (a head to foxes). In this choice of association are involved two forms of discernment. First, one is called to discern who in their circle is worthy of association. Second, one is also called to a certain form of humility. One is never to determine that he is alone the greatest person among peers, but always should seek out one 36 Samson Raphael Hirsch, Chapters of the Fathers (Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, 1967), 70.

CHAPTER FOUR

219

greater. By inference from Avot 4:14, if necessary, one should even go in exile and find one who is greater elsewhere. The sayings in Avot 4:16-17 concern how to prepare oneself for the world to come. Of necessity, one must discern now how to live in order to be ready for the world to come. Rabbi Yaakov’s teaching that this world is a foyer to prepare to enter the main hall brings to mind the preparation a guest makes before entering into a banquet, a process that would have been a common feature of life in the Mediterranean world. As Maimonides explains, “It is in this world that we acquire the virtues that enable one to attain the life of the world to come. This world is merely a path and a passageway there.”37 A common image used to illuminate this teaching is taken from a midrash on Ecclesiastes: “this world is like Shabbat and the world you came from is like the evening before Shabbat. If one does not prepare on the evening before Shabbat, what will one eat on Shabbat? And do you not understand that the world you came from is like dry land and this world is like the sea? If one does not prepare while on dry land, what will he eat on the sea?”38 Just as prior to every Shabbat or prior to a long journey by sea one prepares to make sure there are enough provisions to sustain oneself for the period of time when food preparation is not possible (since one cannot cook on Shabbat or make meals well at sea), so too one must set about acquiring all necessary virtues and repent of all sins in this world for in the world to come there is no possibility of doing this. Thus in this life one must know the good way to walk in and discern the proper path. Rabbi Yaakov amplifies this idea in Avot 4:17: “Better is one moment of repentance and good deeds in this world than an entire life in the world to come. And better is one moment of tranquility in the world to come than an entire lifetime in this world.” As the Machzor Vitry explains, one should not only focus on the life of the world to come. This earthly life matters because it is only during this time that one can determine the rewards that one will receive in the world to come. Once one has arrived in the world to come, there is no possibility to amend or repent of the behaviors for which one will be judged. Each will receive a reward commensurate with the virtues one developed, the mitzvot fulfilled, and the repentance done in this world. And the rewards received in the world to come will be incomparable to anything in this world. 37

Maimonides on Avot 4:16, 119. Midrash Rabbah Ecclesiastes, trans. A. Cohen (New York: Soncino 1983), 43. Rashi, Meir and other authorities cite this midrash on Ecclesiastes 1:15. 38

220

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

This is why Rabbi Yaakov teaches that a single moment of tranquility in the world to come will surpass anything in this world. This is because there is no tranquility this world can offer that could possibly compare to what the world to come will afford. The final two sayings in this section concern how to respond when one’s colleagues have come upon hardship. Although these words are said concerning fellow Torah scholars, the counsel here has little to do with principles of halakhah. In Avot 4:18, Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar teaches not to try to offer soothing words to an angry colleague because in the moment he will not be able to hear them. Similarly, it is impossible to truly comfort someone at the height of their mourning. Sometimes because of a serious transgression that causes shame or out of great anger a colleague might swear a stringent oath. Rabbeinu Yonah explains that at such a moment one should not inquire if such a vow has been taken on hastily, because it might prompt one’s colleague to make an even rasher vow. And whenever a colleague has been disgraced, do not rush to see him since often at such times privacy is needed. Rabbi Shimon’s final teaching connects to Shmuel ha-Qatan (or, Samuel the Lesser’s) saying which is simply a verbatim quote from Proverbs 24:17. Some contemporary scholars have argued that Shmuel, who survived the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., offered this saying as an oblique way of warning not to say anything either positive or negative about Rome out of fear of betrayal by Jewish collaborators. But over time this coded warning was lost to later readers.39 Even if the original political meaning was lost, traditional commentators did see a natural connection to Shimon’s teaching. In particular, one should not rejoice in the downfall of the wicked. Rabbeinu Yonah teaches that out of humility one should not consider oneself better than anyone else and equally deserving of divine judgment. It might be possible to rejoice at the downfall of the notoriously wicked, but not out of a sense of personal vindictiveness but only to rejoice in seeing God’s honor magnified in the downfall of the wicked and the vindication of the righteous. We can see Shmuel Ha-Qatan’s saying as a bookend to Rabbi Yannai’s teaching in Avot 4:15 that it is not within the purview of scholars to explain either the contentment of the wicked or the suffering of the righteous in this world. While this is the case, one can at times discern God’s judgment in this world. But just as one must acknowledge the 39 Jeffrey M. Cohen, “Shmuel HaKatan and the Political Background to Avot 4:19,” Judaism 44.2 (1995): 171-80.

CHAPTER FOUR

221

inscrutability of what God permits, one must can observe God’s visible judgments while affirming that one is also deserving of judgment. It is for this reason that one must take to heart Rabbi Yaakov’s teaching in Avot 4:16 to take advantage of the opportunities in this world to repent and fulfill the commandments in preparation for the world to come. Christian Resonances Rabbi Yaakov’s teaching in Avot 4:16 and 17 that this world is a place to develop virtues, do mitzvot and repent from sins in preparation for the world to come resonates with Christian teaching about how to live in anticipation of eternal life. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus responds to a young man about what one must do to enter eternal life by teaching, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” After further probing by the young man, who claims to have the core precepts of Torah, Jesus responds, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me” (Matt. 19:17, 21). There are two aspects of what Jesus teaches here. One is that fulfilling the commandments alone can be sufficient for meriting eternal life. Yet there is a sense that the reward associated with this basic level of observance is only a beginning point and that other rewards are possible. Thus Jesus teaches that there are other virtuous or supererogatory deeds that one can undertake as a disciple that can merit even greater rewards associated with eternal life. In a sermon, Augustine of Hippo preaches on this passage of Matthew. Augustine’s focus is on the conclusion of this story when the young man departs Jesus disappointed because he has much wealth and is not willing to depart with it (Matt. 19:22). Augustine marvels that people are so willing to focus on the material goods one acquires in this life, despite the great costs associated with it and the inevitability that all material things decay and disintegrate. Augustine encourages his audience to instead labor for eternal life where the rewards received will not decay. Concerning eternal life he says, “it is the reward of some work or other. If we love the reward, then, let us not fall down on the work; and then we shall reign with Christ for ever.”40 In a later sermon on the same passage, Augustine focuses on the importance of the wealthy Christians of his community to share their goods with the poor and for the poor to not make excessive demands of the wealthy. The command to dispense 40 Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 84, Sermons III (51-94) on the New Testament, trans. Edmund Hill, OP (Brooklyn: New City Press, 1991), 389.

222

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

of wealth is to be realized in the Christian community. For the rich, the kingdom of heaven is gained by sharing part of their wealth with others, for the poor is it hindered by becoming overly demanding of the distribution of goods. Both must seek a balance where each group equally shares in the resources of the community and all live together equally devoted to worship and service to God.41 In yet another sermon on the same text, Augustine counsels almsgiving and the care of the poor as a necessary activity for any Christian to do in order to stand before the judgment seat of God with confidence. “Don’t spare your treasures, spend as much as you can. This used to be the voice of extravagance, it has become the voice of the Lord. Spend as much as you can, treat your soul well, or it may be taken away from you this night.”42 Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 19 and Augustine’s elaborations on it resonates with Rabbi Yaakov and his commentators. This life is a necessary period of preparation for the world to come. There is a bare minimum that one ought to do in terms of charity, good deeds and repentance. But Jesus provides two different points of teaching. One is that there is a simple path of righteousness in fulfilling the commandments. This is similar to what Rabbi Yaakov initially teaches. But Jesus also counsels that a higher path consists of renouncing all of one’s possessions and becoming his disciple. This theme of discipleship and renunciation is revised by Augustine to speak to his congregation of everyday Christians who seek to live by the ideals of Jesus as parents, spouses, shopkeepers, and farmers. While Jesus counsels renunciation of all things, two tiers emerge, as discussed in chapter two, where some renounce all (such as monks) whereas most are asked to take on what they can. Augustine counsels a form of sharing within the Christian community and this activity is made equivalent to the renunciation of possessions. This activity constitutes part of a pattern of life that God will deem righteous at the last judgment. What is worth observing is that while the saying of Jesus counsels a heroic form of self-renunciation, Augustine tempers this in his own preaching. This places the pursuit of good deeds in preparation for judgment more as a part of necessary daily activity. This stance resonates more with Rabbi Yaakov’s approach and the views taken by his commentators. While Rabbi Yaakov likely offered his saying to fellow Torah sages, commentators interpreted these teachings for the sake of their wider community, much 41 42

Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 85, Sermons III. Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 86, Sermons III, 404.

CHAPTER FOUR

223

as Augustine did. For both Christian and Jewish communities then we have a sense that teachings that might have originally been intended for the most committed members of a community gradually become applicable to others, but the force of the teaching can also be modulated so that all can come within reach of living according to it. Avot 4:20 Elisha ben Avuyah said: “One who learns as a child, what is he like? Like ink written on new paper. And one who learns as an old man, what is he like? Like ink written on used paper.” Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah of Kefar HaBavli said: “One who learns from children, what is he like? Like one who eats unripe grapes and drinks wine from the wine-press. And one who learns from elders, what is he like? Like one who eats ripe grapes and drinks aged wine.” Rabbi said: “Do not look at the vessel but what is in it, because there can be a new vessel that is full of old wine and an old vessel that is full of new wine.” Avot 4:21 Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar said: “Jealousy and lust and ambition remove a person from the world.” Avot 4:22 He used to say: “The born are to die, the dead are to be resurrected, and the living are to be judged. To know, to make known, and to understand that He is God, that He is the Maker, that He is the Creator, that He is the Discerner, that he is the Judge, that He is the Witness, that He is the Litigant, that He is the one who will pass judgment. Blessed is He before whom there is neither iniquity nor forgetfulness nor partiality nor acceptance of bribes, for everything is his. And know that all is according to the reckoning. And let not your nature assure you that the grave is your refuge for against your will you are formed and against your will you live, and against your will you die, and against your will you are to give an account and a reckoning before the King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed is He.” Jewish Interpretations The final group of sayings in chapter four begins with a cluster of teachings returning once again to the rabbinic scholastic concern about learning. Elisha ben Avuyah compares one who begins learning Torah as a child to ink written on fresh paper that captures the impressions of the

224

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

writing implement well. In a similar way, youth easily absorb the Torah and its interpretations taught to them. One who only begins to learn Torah in later years is like a used piece paper, or a parchment that is now mottled and the ink scraped off from earlier use. Here it is harder for the ink to take or for the teachings from Torah to be learned. Following this are two sayings by Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah and Rabbi (that is, Yehudah Ha-Nasi) about the relative benefits of learning from those with new perspectives or those who have life experience. Rabbi Yose compares learning from young Torah scholars to be like eating unripened grapes and drinking new wine. One can easily reject immature teachings as one can reject sour grapes because the taste of the grapes or the quality of the teaching is immediately off-putting. Or, like new wine, a teaching from a young scholar might initially seem enticing, like the sweetness of new wine, but soon the flaws are revealed, just as new wine quickly causes stomach pain. One is best off in consulting experienced teachers who will offer sound and trustworthy teachings. In contrast, Rabbi argues that one should not regard the age of the teacher but instead consider the quality of the teaching offered. Rashi expands on this by observing that one should not attend to the stature or reputation of a teacher alone but consider also the quality of the teaching offered. Thus a new vessel can have old wine in it and a young teacher can offer sound teachings. Sforno further seeks to synthesize the teachings of Yose and Rabbi by arguing that the “criticism of learning from the young, and praise of learning from the old, does not refer to those who are young or old in years. Rather, ‘the young’ refers to those who are intellectually immature despite their advanced age, while the expression ‘the old’ refers to those who have acquired wisdom, even though they may be young in years.”43 Here we see the commentary tradition, while cautioning against the perils of immature teaching, takes a more egalitarian stance that affirms the value of teaching over the stature of the teacher. Rabbi Eliezer Ha-Kappar, an associate of Yehudah Ha-Nasi, offers the final two sayings of this chapter. The first rephrases Avot 2:11 in which Rabbi Yehoshua describes what drives one out from the world. Yehoshua describes those things as the evil eye, the evil inclination, and hatred of others but Rabbi Eliezer identifies them as jealousy, lust, and ambition.44 43

Sforno on Avot 4:20, 136-37. Lerner, 271. Another parallel exists in Avot 3:10 in which morning sleep, mid-day wine, and idle talk are the things that take one out of the world. But 2:11 seems to be a closer parallel. 44

CHAPTER FOUR

225

Maimonides argues that the qualities Eliezer names drives one out of this world because they cause one to lose faith and fail to attain the necessary virtues that one must attain in this world. Rabbeinu Yonah likewise concurs with Maimonides and offers a lengthy discussion on the hazards of these individual character flaws. In the final saying, Eliezer offers an extended meditation on the fate of humanity and the sovereignty of God. All humans exist because of God’s creative will and all are destined for judgment because of God’s authority over all. In this saying is a vision of God’s judgment of those who have been resurrected. Here God has the roles of judge, accuser, and prosecutor. He is above reproach since nothing humans do can alter God’s just decrees. Rav and Maimonides both underline that not even the performance of mitzvot that earn a reward can influence how God the impartial judge renders judgment. In the end, one is compelled to acknowledge that the divine judge is not at all like human judges who are susceptible to influence, persuasion, and corruption. The final judgment will make one encounter the truth of all that one has done.45 Acknowledging God as Creator and Judge is part of the fruits of Torah study. Through learning, one accepts the truth that one must always account for God’s sovereignty from birth to death to life after death. The study of Torah not only enables one to perform mitzvot, develop character and earns rewards but it also keeps one mindful of transgression and presumptuousness in light of God who is the Creator and Judge. Christian Resonances The sayings concerning new and old wine by Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Judah in Avot 4:20 resonates with Jesus’s teaching about new and old wine in the gospels. This teaching appears in all of the synoptic gospels. Responding to a question about why his disciples do not fast like those of either John the Baptist or the Pharisees, Jesus responds by comparing these days to the coming of the Bridegroom who heralds the messianic age. He concludes by declaring, “And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the wine will burst the wineskins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins” (Mark 2:22). As Viviano has shown, although both texts use the image of old and new wine, the teachings are not parallel. Avot focuses on the

45

Herford, 123; Schofer, 127.

226

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

quality of teachers and the Gospels focus on the differing content of the teachings of Jesus.46 The differing meanings of wine are worth considering. For Avot, wine symbolizes the quality of teachings a sage can offer. For Rabbi Yose, young scholars are less trustworthy, being like new wine, while older scholars should be listened to, since like old wine they are superior. Rabbi Yehudah cautions that new wine may appear in old vessels and old wine in new vessels. It is the relative compatibility of wine and their containers that finds resonance in the gospel passages. The focus of the saying of Jesus is on whether new wine can go into old wineskins or must be put into new ones. Early Christian commentaries saw this teaching of Jesus as a repudiation of Judaism, the old wineskins. To them, the words of Jesus were new wine which would burst open the now useless tradition that preceded. Tertullian wrote, “Everything has been changed from carnal to spiritual by the new grace of God which, with the coming of the gospel, has wiped out the old era completely.” Jerome, writing on Matthew 9:17, writes that the teaching about the incompatibility of new wine and old wineskins shows that one must be converted to the gospel and one cannot observe these gospel teachings as a Jew, for to do so is to burst the wineskins.47 Here the gospel, symbolized as new wine, is deemed incompatible with the Jewish tradition out of which Jesus taught. The sense is that Christianity is a new tradition meant to replace Judaism and it needs appropriate vessels, ones that can have no markers of Jewish identity. Modern commentators have located this saying in the eschatological context of the Jesus movement. With the expectation among his followers that with the coming of Jesus a new order was emerging for Israel, there was an expectation that some aspects of their contemporary religious life would take on new forms. Thus the language of the passage from Mark does not say that the old wineskins are worthless but rather that if they are to be maintained, they must not be paired with new wines that would harm them. Similarly, the teaching from Matthew 46 Viviano, 101-102. A stronger parallel to Avot 4:20, according to Viviano would be Matthew 11:25. However, in this commentary I am more interested in the differing uses of the image of wine. 47 Tertullian, On Prayer I in Mark, ed. Thomas C. Oden & Christopher A. Hall, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. 2 (Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1998), 35; Jerome, Commentary on Matthew I.9.17 in Matthew 1-13, ed. Manlio Simonetti in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. 1a (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 181.

CHAPTER FOUR

227

notes that one does not pair new wine with old wineskins in part to ensure that the old wineskins are preserved. Both gospel texts show a concern among early Jewish followers of Jesus to acknowledge the transformative power of the teachings of Jesus and the new era he has inaugurated while gesturing towards the value of preserving aspects of contemporaneous Jewish life.48 Between Avot 4:20 and the gospels we encounter the polyvalence of the symbol of wine. For Rabbis Yose and Yehudah it represents the quality of Torah teaching while for Jesus it concerns not the quality but the transformative capacity of his teachings. While traditional Christian commentaries have used Jesus on new wine to critically assess the Judaism of his era, one might also ask how Avot 4:20 and its commentaries can be employed to assess Mark 2:22 and Matthew 9:17. If wine is a symbol for the veracity of a teaching, would the teachings of Jesus be considered new wine or old wine by scholars of Torah? From a Christian perspective they could be both new wine, in the rabbinic sense, since they represent a new iteration in Jewish life, and also old wine, because the Christian experience is one in which the truth of the teachings of Jesus have been born out in experience. From a Jewish perspective though, the teachings of Jesus might be considered new wine for although making a compelling claim among some Jews, the teachings of Jesus lead to later interpretations that caused harm to collective Jewish life, born out not only in the negative comments about old wineskins from Tertullian and Jerome found above but also in sustained negative Christian rhetoric and actions taken against Jews through history. In light of Avot 4:20, if a Christian wants to affirm the new wine of the gospel, it is imperative to express its teachings in ways that allow a discernment of its value. This would include communicating the gospel regarding its transformative capacity but also maintaining and honoring the vessels that held the wine of prior teachings derived from Torah. This is not to argue that the Jewish perspective must validate Christian teachings but to recognize the intent of Jesus’s teaching that the new wine he offers must be judiciously paired with the appropriate vessels. It is fitting to note that the teachings of Jesus represent a departure from aspects of prior forms of Judaism, notably in the interpretation of his death and resurrection and the development of doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. Yet this departure, symbolized by new wine in new wineskins 48 M. Eugene Boring, Mark: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 87; Harrington, Matthew, 129.

228

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

(the Christian tradition) ought not to entail an outright dismissal of Jewish traditions. Rather, the Christian tradition ought to maintain a stance towards Judaism that seeks its conservation and even, in light of Avot 4:20, the ability to acknowledge what can be learned from both new wine and old wine. Christians should recognize that Judaism continues to generate its own new wine and learn from the dynamism of a tradition founded upon the cultivation of wisdom and ethics derived from the study and performance of Torah.

CHAPTER FIVE

Avot 5:1 By ten sayings was the world created. And what does this teach us? Could one saying not have created it all? But it was to hold accountable the wicked who destroy the world that was created by ten sayings and to give a good reward to the righteous who sustain the world that it was created by ten sayings. Avot 5:2 There were ten generations from Adam until Noah to make known how much patience God has, for all those generations continually provoked Him until he brought the waters of the flood upon them. There were ten generations from Noah until Abraham to make known how much patience God has, for all those generations continually provoked Him until Abraham came and took upon himself the reward of them all. Avot 5:3 With ten trials was our father Abraham, peace be upon him, tested and he withstood them all. This is to make known how great was the love of our father Abraham, peace be upon him. Avot 5:4 Ten miracles were performed for our fathers in Egypt and ten by the sea. Ten plagues the Holy One, blessed is He, brought upon the Egyptians in Egypt and ten by the sea. With ten trials did our fathers test God in the wilderness, for it is said, “they have tested me ten times and have not listened to my voice” (Numbers 14:22). Avot 5:5 Ten miracles were performed for our fathers in the Temple: No woman miscarried because of the smell of sacrificed meat; and none of the sacrificed meat ever rotted; and a fly never appeared where the meat was

230

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

butchered; and the high priest on Yom Kippur never had a nocturnal emission; and rain never extinguished the fire of the wood pile of the altar; and wind never dispersed the column of smoke; and no blemish was ever found on the omer, the two loaves, or the show-bread; and those who stood there were pressed together but prostrated themselves with enough room; and no snake or scorpion ever caused harm in Jerusalem; and no one ever said to his neighbor: “In Jerusalem, this place is too narrow to sleep.” Avot 5:6 Ten things were created at twilight on the evening of the first Shabbat, and these were: the mouth of the earth, the mouth of the well, the mouth of the she-ass, the rainbow, the manna, the rod, the shamir, the writing, the writing instrument, and the tablets. And some also say: the demons, the grave of Moses, and the ram of Abraham our father. And some also say: the tongs from which tongs were made. Jewish Interpretations The fifth chapter of Mishnah Avot introduces a new literary style for this tractate. The majority of this chapter features enumerative sayings: lists of ten, seven and four things that describe Scripture, character types, and ethical behavior. While many of the same themes from prior chapters are present, the teachings in this chapter are generally anonymous and only at the end of the chapter do the names of rabbis appear again. Anthony Saldarini observes that these sorts of sayings share a common form. They “begin with an interpretive remark stating the number of items in the list and describing the nature of those items.” These sayings describe something about Scripture or nature but in a way that describes their essential nature rather than offering an interpretation. Generally these sayings show an interest in creation and the foundational aspects of Judaism such as Abraham, Exodus, Jerusalem, and the Temple, along with observations about human nature and qualities.1 When we turn to the first group of sayings in this chapter, Avot 5:1-6, we can observe a coherence to them. There is narrative arc that moves from creation to the worship of God at the Temple in Jerusalem in the first five sayings. The sixth saying returns back to the time of creation, considering especially miraculous events that were embedded in the 1

Saldarini, Scholastic Rabbinism, 109.

CHAPTER FIVE

231

fabric of creation. Jonathan Schofer, speaking of the parallel text found in ARN A, observes that this presentation of Jewish history is one that foregrounds the role of rabbis. “The emphasis on creation and Jerusalem complements the opening genealogy [Avot 1:1] that excludes priests and centers on revelation, the sages, and Torah.”2 The use of enumerative sayings in this chapter continues the project of Avot to emphasize the teaching authority of the rabbis as a replacement for the priesthood that no longer had a Temple in which to lead Israel in the worship of God. The “ten sayings” in the opening words of this chapter refer to the ten utterances God made in the process of creation. Commentators explain that these ten sayings are the nine times in Genesis 1 where “and God said” is recorded. The other utterance is the first words of Genesis in Hebrew, “In the beginning” since the creation narrative assumes the preexistence of material aspects of the cosmos which God must have created at a prior time.3 Concerning why this saying highlights the ten utterances of God, Sforno explains that all things could as well have been created from one utterance as from ten since all was created out of nothing. Thus ten utterances are found in Genesis 1 “to tell us that in order to bring into existence a being ‘in his form and image’ (Gen. 1:26) who would meet the standard of good, it was perforce necessary to do so through ten progressive utterances through which all of Creation came into existence.”4 Since God deems all which is created good, creating a being in the image and likeness of God that is good requires progressive acts of creation. To make plants that are good is one thing. To make a being that possesses intellect and reason like God’s is another. Since humanity is the pinnacle of creation, mirroring something of the Creator, it is possible for humans to either destroy or sustain creation. Sforno envisions humanity as capable of either helping God sustain the good that is the divine goal for creation or to hinder this, meriting either reward or punishment in the process. The created order is not a static reality but something that requires effort to sustain. Human beings are meant to be God’s partner in this process, but they can also willfully diverge from the intended order of creation and instead harm it. Individual human actions matter a great deal in this view of creation. ARN teaches that “he who puts one commandment into practice and he who keeps one Sabbath and he who sustains one soul is accounted by Scripture 2 3 4

Schofer, The Making of Sages, 46. Maimonides on Avot 5:1; Herford, 124. Cf. BT Rosh Hashanah 32a. Sforno on Avot 5:1, 147.

232

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

as though he had sustained a whole world which was created by ten words.”5 The identification of Torah, Sabbath, and the soul with sustaining creation is notable. Torah is often understood as the blueprint by which the world was created and it is the model for sustaining human life. The divine act of creation culminates with God resting on the seventh day, the Sabbath. Thus when Jews keep Sabbath they both mirror the cessation of divine activity (just as keeping Torah is a generative act like creation) and provide a pausing in the natural world that allows it to restore itself from human activity within it. In the same way, the wicked by their individual actions can have widespread negative effects. In this same passage from ARN A, it is taught that the cry of the blood of Abel from the earth after Cain’s act of murder shows that one person’s life is considered equal to all the works of creation. The wicked collectively can cause the destruction of the world if God considers their deeds to be so sinful that whole world is considered sinful.6 This contaminating effect of human sin is a theme in the next several sayings. In Avot 5:2 two separate series of ten generations are listed, one going from Adam to Noah (Gen. 5:3-29) and the other encompassing Noah to Abraham (Gen. 10:1; 11:1-26). It is taught that in the first ten generations from Adam, God did not destroy the world because of one righteous person in each generation, a line that culminates in Noah. Additionally, given the extraordinary ages attributed to people in these generations, God’s patience was indeed great. This teaches both God’s willingness to have people repent of their sins and the certain, if delayed, nature of divine judgment. Ultimately, the sins of these generations culminated in the destruction of the flood. The presence of a righteous person in each generation could not stem this punishment.7 Commentators view Abraham’s relationship to the generations that preceded him in a different light. The ten generations that preceded Abraham each merited punishment, but God chose to delay this punishment because of the merit that Abraham would display. As Rabbeinu Yonah says, “Abraham made up for all their shortcomings and did enough good to counteract their evil, saving them from punishment.”8 While the merits of Abraham were able to spare others from their just 5 6 7 8

ARN A 31, 125. Ibid. ARN A 32; Meiri on Avot 5:1. Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 5:2; cf. Tosafot Yom Tov on Avot 5:2.

CHAPTER FIVE

233

punishment, Avot 5:2 also adds that in this way Abraham also “took upon himself the reward of them all.” Rashi explains that he earned this merit because Abraham taught others in his generation how to be righteous. The merit he earns reflects not only his own righteousness but of all those in his generation. Rabbeinu Yonah explains Abraham’s merit from the perspective that all are required to do good. “If one man does not fulfill God’s commandments, while another does enough for them both, it is only right that the latter should receive both their shares in paradise. This is why Abraham received the reward of them all; his contemporaries failed to do their part, while he did enough for them all.”9 These comments on the merit of Abraham help us see the connection between Avot 5:1 and 5:2. Humans created in the image and likeness of God stand at the pinnacle of the created order. They have great potential to either work with God to sustain creation or they can diverge from God’s plan for creation and harm it. One is either reckoned as righteousness or wicked. The history of humanity in the early chapters of Genesis illustrates that most generations tended towards wickedness. Abraham emerges as a transitional figure, one whose commitment to righteousness (and thus the sustaining of creation) also leads others into righteousness. Abraham succeeds where others, such as Noah, had not. In his exemplary role as a teacher of righteousness to his generation, and sparing others from punishment, Abraham emerges as something of a redemptive figure. The theme of Abraham’s exemplary status continues in Avot 5:3. This saying serves as a pivot from considering the story of humanity in general to the more specific narrative of the people of Israel that culminates in the worship of God at the Temple in Jerusalem. The ten trials that this saying refers to are not explicitly enumerated in Genesis but can be derived from the Abraham narrative.10 This saying highlights the character of Abraham as exemplary for Israel. The nuances of the portions of the saying bear this out. The phrase “the love of our father Abraham” is interpreted in reference to the trials he endured. Rashi argues that this love can be understood as either the love 9

Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 5:2, 264. ARN A 33 offers a list: “Twice, when ordered to move (Gen 12:1,10); Twice, in connection with his two sons (Gen 21:10; Gen 22:1ff); Twice in connection with his two wives (Gen 12:11ff; 22;10); Once, on the occasion of his war with the kings (Gen 14:13ff); Once, as the covenant between the pieces (Gen. 15); Once, in Ur of the Chaldeans (Gen 15:7); And once at the covenant of circumcision (Gen. 17:9ff).” Other commentators such as Rashi, Maimonides, and Rabbeinu Yonah offer variants on this list. 10

234

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Abraham shows towards God because of the trials he endured out of faithful love to God or as the love God has towards Abraham because of this same fidelity. Either way, the endurance of these trials creates a deep bond between the two. Out of this endurance and demonstration of love, Abraham serves as an exemplary figure to others. Sforno writes, “Abraham demonstrated the degree of his love for his Creator by constantly proclaiming his name and bringing many under [God’s] wings even though he was tested with many trials. This is to teach his children that they should do likewise, as it is written, “Look back to Abraham your father” (Is. 51:2).”11 Abraham’s exemplary endurance and love is so great that the merit he displays has the effect of drawing others into relationship with God. This is a universalist message – not only Israel but others can find a place under the wings of God according the example of Abraham. The endurance of Abraham is beneficial for Israel and the world. The ten miracles God performed for Israel during the Exodus and the ten ways in which Israel tested God in the wilderness recounted in Avot 5:4 both relate to Abraham’s merit derived from his trials. As Rashi comments, God delivers Israel because of the merit of Abraham (cf. Ex. 2:24) and God does not destroy Israel even though they test God because of Abraham’s merits. Further, the Machzor Vitry notes that the ten trials of Abraham correspond to the ten sayings by which the world was created in Avot 5:1. Thus, Abraham’s fidelity is an additional exemplary act of sustaining the world. Taken as a whole, Abraham is a unique and pivotal figure in this set of sayings. He is an exemplar for how Israel ought to be in relationship with God. In addition he serves as a figure for drawing all into a relationship with God, not only the children of Israel. In addition, his deeds become not just paradigmatic for ethical behavior but take on an intercessory or redemptive quality. Avot 5:5 shifts from the account of Abraham and the Exodus to the Temple in Jerusalem, which serves as the sign of God’s abiding presence among the people of Israel. Although this saying speaks to the significance of the Temple and the worship there, it is not focused on the authority of the priesthood but rather the miracles encountered at this site. This is in keeping with vision of Mishnah Avot where rabbinic teachers are the authorities replacing the Temple leadership in a post-70 CE context. The ten miracles recounted in this saying have no parallel in the biblical text. Rather these ten miracles are offered as a “quantitative 11

Sforno on Avot 5:3, 149.

CHAPTER FIVE

235

expression of the holiness of the Temple in terms of miracle.”12 The point of worship at the Temple was to praise the one who made the universe, entered into covenant with Abraham, delivered Israel from Egypt, and secured Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount in particular, as the proper site for worship of him. These miracles emphasize the ways in which both the sacrifices were always offered in their purest forms and that those gathered for worship there never experienced discomfort or distractions that kept them from offering the highest form of prayer to the God. To say a woman never miscarried because of the smell of sacrificed meat means that a woman in hunger pangs was not driven to miscarriage when smelling the sacrificed meat, which was not permitted for any but the priests to eat. The next several miracles, referring to the ritual purity of the meat and the high priests and the stability of the fire for the altar, speak to the enduring nature of the sacrifices offered in worship of God. Similarly the omer (a first fruit offering of grain during Passover), the two loaves (offered during the festival of Shavuot / Pentecost), and the show-bread (twelve loaves placed weekly before the altar) represented the gifts of the community and the land in worship of God – all offered constantly without blemish. The final three miracles concern the worship of the people in the Temple precincts and their comfort when they came to Jerusalem on pilgrimage. ARN A emphasizes that the greatest miracle of all was that when all gathered in the Temple courtyard, sometimes even as much as 40,000 people, all had space to prostrate themselves and worship God, all were kept free from harm, and no one had to be urged to make space for others. Moreover, even with so many thousands streaming to Jerusalem during the pilgrimage festivals (Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot), all had ample space to sleep in Jerusalem. The very gathering of the people to worship God itself was the occasion for the miraculous. In a way, this saying suggests, the assembling of all in corporate worship of God is the miracle. The final saying about the creation of ten things prior to the first evening of Shabbat returns the reader back to the theme of creation in Avot 5:1. Several different lists exist in rabbinic literature concerning the things made right before the first Sabbath at the end of God’s creative activity, indicating a broad interest in this theme.13 The ten items named concern miraculous acts or special objects that benefitted Israel. 12

Herford, 128. BT Nedarim 39b and Sanhedrin 110a list seven things created at this moment. BT Pesachim 54a and ARN B 37 have variants of the list presented here in Avot 5:6. 13

236

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

The mouth of the earth refers to when the earth opened and swallowed Korach and those who rebelled against Moses (Num. 16:30-33). The mouth of the well refers to the water that sprang forth from rock after Moses struck it with his staff (Num. 20:11). The third item is the donkey upon which the Moabite prophet Balaam rode that rebuked him (Num. 22:28-30). The rainbow that appeared after the flood to Noah is the fourth item (Gen. 9:13). The fifth thing created is the manna that fed Israel in the wilderness after the Exodus. The sixth item is the staff of Moses by which he performed many miracles on behalf of Israel. According to Rashi, the staff’s power derived from the fact that the name of God was engraved upon it. The shamir was a mythical worm that was able to split apart the hardest stones. Rashi explained that Moses used the shamir to engrave the jewels that went on the ephod worn by the high priest. Maimonides adds that Solomon used this same creature to carve the massive stones for the Temple. The two items rendered here as the writing and the writing instrument have a contested interpretation. It could be a reference to the Hebrew characters on the tablets of the Ten Commandments and the writing instrument is better read as “the reading” and refers to the ability to read the letters from any angle. Rashi agrees about the Hebrew characters but that the other item is the writing instrument God used to write on the tablets. Maimonides holds that the writing refers to the Torah that pre-existed creation and the other item refers to the inscription of Torah in material form on the tablets, which is the tenth item created at this time.14 Why was it necessary for the creation of these things at the very end of the act of creation when God also intervened miraculously elsewhere in the biblical record? Maimonides offers the most thorough explanation: “At the very beginning of creation of all the entities, the potential for everything that they would do was invested in their nature. This applies whether the matter concerned is a natural event that repeats itself frequently, or it is a wonder that happens only on one occasion. Therefore, it states that on the sixth day the earth was granted the potential to swallow Korach and his company, the well to provide water, the donkey to speak. The same applies to the other examples.” In other words, it is not like these entities were simply present in creation, like a donkey waiting millennia to speak, but the potential for Balaam’s donkey was set into the pattern of creation as evening approached on the sixth day of creation. Maimonides argues that all miraculous events recorded in 14

Taylor, 83-86; Herford, 129-131.

CHAPTER FIVE

237

Torah have their potential to happen when various elements were formed at Creation. Thus, the miracle of the Red Sea was made possible when water was created on the second day, since the potential for this miracle was embedded within the waters. The difference between these other potential miracles and what was created on evening of the sixth day is that “the intent is that only these were made on twilight on Friday, while the others were invested in nature at the time the article was formed.”15 The focus of the creative activity in this saying is on events and items that touch on the life of Israel. The end of the list singles out items that relate to Temple worship and Torah. The shamir was instrumental in creating the ephod worn by the high priests and aiding in the construction of the Temple. The writing, the writing instrument, and the tablets refer to the Torah, its composition and the essence of it engraved on the tablets of the Ten Commandments given at Mount Sinai. These items represent the covenantal bond between God and Israel. That they were created at the end of the sixth day indicates the deep bond between creation and God’s covenant with Israel, underlining how observance of Torah is an essential aspect for the preservation of creation. We find here again the theme of the keeper of Torah as a sustainer of creation with God. Christian Resonances There are a series of resonances within these sayings concerning how Jews and Christians imagine the sequencing of sacred history. Much of this is due to the fact that Christians also hold the Torah as the source of their own story. Thus Christians have an understanding of an ideal creation in which humanity was created to be the stewards of creation. And Christians also acknowledge the failure of humanity to serve in this role, resulting in punishment instead of reward. Following from that, Christian narrations of history also see the need for an ideal, exemplary figure who can reverse the course of divine punishment and restore humanity to the purposes God has designed for it. Likewise for each tradition, an elect group, either Israel or the Church, is the primary beneficiary of the work of this exemplar and the group that participates in God’s desire to restore the world to its original ideal condition. In the rabbinic pattern of history presented in Avot 5:1-6 the cycle moves from creation, to the disruption of the created order with transgressions, to the divine plan for its restoration through Abraham, to the creation of the people of Israel through his descendants, to Moses and 15

Maimonides on Avot 5:6, 130-31.

238

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

the giving of Torah, culminating with the true worship of God and keeping of Torah in the Temple and life in the land of Israel. Ideally the holiness of Israel will lead to the blessing of other nations. For Christians this pattern involves creation, Abraham, and Moses, but the exemplary figure is now Jesus Christ whose work takes on cosmically restorative significance. We can see how this pattern unfolds in the central portion of Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Paul opens the letter with a vision of creation, but he glosses over the goodness inherent in it to emphasize how it has fallen away from God’s original intentions for it. He declares: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.  Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.  Claiming to be wise, they became fools;  and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. (Rom. 1:18-23)

This resonates with the sense in Avot 5:1-2 of the wicked who destroy the world and who continually provoke God. To deny God as creator involves the practice of idolatry. Idolatry, in the thinking of both the rabbis and Paul, signals a disregard for God who created all things and indicates the selfishness of the wicked. For Paul and the rabbis this is the fundamental pattern for sin; its only reward is divine punishment. Like the rabbis, Paul looks to Abraham as a key figure who begins the process of setting things right and who inspires others to turn away from sin towards God’s design for the created order. In Paul’s vision Abraham serves as an exemplary figure whose faithfulness can be a model for others seeking a right relationship with God as a way out of the problem of sin. We say, ‘Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.’ How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them,  and likewise the ancestor of the circumcised who are not only circumcised but who also follow the example of the faith that our ancestor Abraham had before he was circumcised. (Rom. 4:9b-12)

CHAPTER FIVE

239

Here Paul’s argument diverges significantly from one we might find in rabbinic literature. The historical trajectory in Avot 5:2-3 sets Abraham forth as an exemplar primarily for Jews. This is obvious in so far as the trajectory moves towards the Exodus, the Temple, and Jerusalem. Paul anticipates the suggestion in the commentary on Avot 5:3 by Sforno that Abraham’s exemplary status was great enough to bring in all people into relationship with God. While Sforno states this as an ideal possibility, Paul makes this the primary role Abraham plays. Arguing that God deemed Abraham as righteous prior to his circumcision, Paul declares that all who have faith in the God of Israel can also be deemed righteous, regardless of circumcision. That is, since circumcision is a sign of physically being a member of the people of Israel and Abraham lacked this when God deemed him righteous, Paul declares that Gentiles need not convert in order to fully participate in God’s covenant. They need only have faith like Abraham’s. However, for Paul the focus of this faith for Gentiles is not on the Torah, as it is for Jews, but rather on the person and saving work of Jesus Christ. Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand; and we boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God… For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.  Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God.  For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life. But more than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Rom. 5:1-2, 6-11)

This passage encapsulates Paul’s understanding of the significance of Jesus Christ – he offers a path of salvation for those who have fallen away from God. Paul holds forth Jesus as the path of redemption not only for Israel but for all the people. Avot hints at the possibility of the redemption of others through the example of Abraham’s righteousness. For Paul, Gentiles can have faithfulness like Abraham’s but in order for it to be efficacious, it has to be located in faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ that leads to reconciliation with God the Father. Abraham’s role is important but it is also preparatory for the primary salvific moment is in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

240

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Paul links the salvific work of Jesus Christ with the process of the redemption of creation from the destructive force of sin unleashed within it by humanity. I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. (Rom. 8:18-23)

Referring to ARN A 31 on Avot 5:2, we recall that one who performs a single commandment contributes to sustaining the created world, helping to restore that which has been distorted by human wickedness. Paul also takes the view that creation itself suffers because of the distortions introduced into it by human. While ARN emphasizes that through the revelation of Torah Jews can reverse the negative effects brought upon creation, Paul argues humans are bound with the rest of creation awaiting divine redemption. Christ alone serves as the agent for the redemption of creation. As humans are redeemed, so will creation be restored. While there has been an initial encounter with this redemption in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, a “first fruit of the Spirit,” the fullness of this redemption will only be fully realized in the eschaton. In this same chapter of Romans, Paul links this cosmic process of redemption back to the election of the righteous. We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Rom. 8:28-30)

Paul reframes the possibilities concerning who might be included within the people of God. As we see in Avot, commonly Jews understood themselves as members of the family of “our father Abraham” (Avot 5:3). Belonging to an elect nation based on kinship was cemented at Sinai when God gave the Torah to Israel to keep as a sign of their election and mission to fulfill God’s will in the world. Paul declares that God calls people who are not part of the nation of Israel to enter into relationship

CHAPTER FIVE

241

with him as well. They too, following a way patterned after Jesus are also brought into a “large family.” The way of belonging to this family of God is the path of Abraham, having a faithfulness that leads to justification (Rom. 8:30). The end of Romans 8 leaves the reader wondering what is to become of Israel. Is the covenant made with Abraham and re-affirmed at Sinai set aside? If Gentiles can be considered elect and justified by the precedent of Abraham’s faithfulness prior to the covenant of circumcision in light of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, what need is there for Israel? In Romans 9-11, as explained before in this commentary, Paul argues for the simultaneous validity of God’s on-going covenant with Israel while advancing the new realities of the covenant with the nations that Jesus Christ makes possible. As Paul declares in Romans 15:8-9, “For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of the truth of God in order that he might confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy.” Christ does not revoke the covenantal promises made to Abraham nor do those promises make impossible the expansion of God’s covenant to include non-Jews who confess Jesus Christ and imitate Abraham’s faithfulness. What Paul desires is that Gentiles and Jews participate in the worship of God. Immediately following his defense of the validity of Israel’s covenant, Paul reiterates the theme of worshiping God and participating in the renewal of creation: I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Rom. 12:1-2)

The transformation of the world by the renewing of one’s mind expressed through worship of God is another way of conceptualizing the human participation in worship of God as the beginning of reversing sin within the created order taught in Avot 5:5-6. This restoration of creation, although perhaps an ultimately eschatological reality, is a shared goal between Jews and Christians. The recognition of the covenantal relationship in which both Jews and Christians dwell as a precondition for the healing of creation is found in official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. For instance, the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews declares: “Christians are therefore also convinced that though the New Covenant the Abrahamic

242

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

covenant has obtained that universality for all peoples which was originally intended in the call of Abram. This recourse to the Abrahamic covenant is so essentially constitutive of the Christian faith that the Church without Israel would be in danger of losing its locus in the history of salvation.”16 This statement illustrates how Christian thinking can take up the pattern of salvation history Paul sets forth in Romans in a constructive mode that locates Christian salvation alongside a prior pattern of covenant making that began with Abraham. This allows for overlapping, non-competitive covenantal relationships between God, Israel, and the Church. A similar argument emerged around the same time as this Vatican document from a group of Orthodox rabbis. Following the opinion of Maimonides, Yehuda Halevi and Raphael Samson Hirsch, they declared that “Both Jews and Christians have a common covenantal mission to perfect the world under the sovereignty of the Almighty, so that all humanity will call on His name and abominations will be removed from the earth.”17 This passage resonates strongly with the first quotation from Romans 1:18-23 above. Turning away from God (the broadest meaning of idolatry) has distorted human relationships with God and creation. Both Jews and Christians alike are on a common covenantal mission to participate in the restoration of creation. Yet this statement places the covenantal activity of Christians in a separate category. While the Vatican statement speaks of a shared Abrahamic covenant, this statement attenuates this, following ancient rabbinic tradition and locating Christians within the family of Abraham but as Esau, the brother of Jacob (Israel), another son of Isaac and a grandson of Abraham. Placing Christians at a slight remove from the Abrahamic covenant is rooted in the rabbinic understanding that although Esau and Jacob are brothers, the Abrahamic covenant was only inherited by Jacob and not Esau. The covenantal mission for both communities has its locus in the redemption of this world. We see how the rabbinic document already speaks to this vision. Pope Francis, speaking at the Great Synagogue of Rome, further expanded on the Vatican document. He explicitly linked 16 Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, “The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable” (Rom 11:29): A Reflection on Theological Questions Pertaining to CatholicJewish Relations on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of “Nostra Aetate” (No. 4), 2015, 33. 17 Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation, “To Do the Will of Our Father in Heaven: Toward a Partnership between Jews and Christians,” December 3, 2015, sec. 4. http://cjcuc.com/site/2015/12/03/orthodox-rabbinic-statement-on-christianity/. Accessed March 4, 2016.

CHAPTER FIVE

243

the notion of a shared covenant with care for creation and the human condition: “That of an integral ecology is now a priority, and us Christians and Jews can and must offer humanity the message of the Bible regarding the care of creation. Conflicts, wars, violence and injustices open deep wounds in humanity and call us to strengthen a commitment for peace and justice.”18 While one could read this quote out of context as an optimistic desire for the future, Pope Francis’s address reveals an eschatological orientation: Christians and Jews working together to reverse environmental destruction and for the flourishing of justice and peace is part of the covenantal partnership that exists for the purpose of the redemption of the world. Noticing that the purpose of these covenanted missions is to participate in the redemption of the world returns us again to the pattern of salvation history that begins this fifth chapter of Avot. The purpose here is not to merely to show a similarity between Jews and Christians regarding covenantal thinking. Rather it is to illustrate how a deep-seated covenantal thinking exists within the Christian tradition that makes space for the covenanted mission of Jews. The specially covenanted mission of Jews challenges Christian thinking with its emphasis on the unique salvific work of Jesus Christ. While we can observe an emerging shift in a positive Christian articulation of the status of the Jewish people in regard to the question of salvation, this only raises further questions. Do other people also exist in covenanted relationships with God that makes the covenant offered to the nations through Jesus Christ unnecessary? Or does the work of Jesus Christ herald a new covenanted reality for all nations but only through the medium of the church? Avot 5:7 Seven things characterize a crude person and seven things a wise person. The wise person does not speak before one who is greater than him in wisdom; and he does not interrupt the words of his colleague; and he does not answer hastily; he asks relevant questions and answers appropriately; and he speaks to the first point first and to the last point last; and about that which he has not heard he says, “I have not heard;” and he acknowledges the truth. And the opposite characterizes a crude person. 18 Pope Francis, “Visit to the Synagogue of Rome: Address of His Holiness Pope Francis,” January 17, 2016. https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2016/ january/documents/papa-francesco_20160117_sinagoga.html. Accessed March 7, 2016.

244

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Avot 5:8 Seven punishments come upon the world because of seven main transgressions. If some give tithes and some do not give tithes, a famine from drought comes in which some are hungry and some have their fill. If all decide not to tithe, a famine due to turmoil and drought comes. If they decide not to set aside the challah, a drought of destruction comes. Pestilence comes to the world because of executions stated in the Torah that are not handed over to the court; and for the fruits of the seventh year. The sword comes to the world for delaying justice, and for perverting justice, and for not teaching the Torah according to the halakhah. Avot 5:9 Wild beasts come upon the world because of false oaths and desecration of the Name of God. Exile comes upon the world because of idolaters, and incest, and bloodshed, and neglect of release of the land. At four times pestilence is increased: In the fourth year, in the seventh year, after the seventh year, and at the end of Sukkot each year. In the fourth year because of the tithe for the poor in the third year; in the seventh year because of the tithe for the poor in the sixth year; after the seventh year because of the fruits of the seventh year; and at the end of Sukkot each year because of robbing the gifts of the poor. Jewish Interpretations This next set of sayings is organized around groups of seven that concern ethical practices of Torah students and the people of Israel in general. Avot 5:7 sets forth the ideal characteristics of a wise person, in contrast to a crude person. In his commentary, Maimonides explains that there are five general types of people: the boor, am ha’aretz, golem, chacham, and chasid. The boor (for which the same English word can be used) is a person “who possesses neither intellectual nor moral virtues, neither knowledge or ethics.” Lacking any clearly positive qualities, this person is like a fallow field, ripe for further development. The am ha’aretz (literally a person of the land) is one “who possesses ethical virtues, but does not possess intellectual virtue.” This is a common person who has moral qualities but lacks knowledge of Torah. Although lacking this knowledge, such a person is fit to establish societies and populate the earth. A golem, or a crude person, is one “who has ethical and intellectual virtues, but they are not perfected, nor are they structured as they should be. Instead, they are confused and mixed up, and are somewhat lacking.” Such a person is deemed crude because although having been shaped in

CHAPTER FIVE

245

some ways in Torah, this person lacks a final, fitting form. A chacham, a wise person, is one “who has acquired both intellectual and ethical virtues in a consummate and proper degree.” The final type is the chasid, or pious one, who is “wise but increases his piety – i.e., with regard to his ethical virtues he tends slightly to one extreme.” A chasid labors to make sure his ethical deeds are more excellent than his intellectual knowledge, while remaining grounded in deep knowledge of Torah.19 While Avot 5:7 speaks to types of learning in Torah academies, Maimonides’s typology begins with more general qualities of humans and their apprehension of knowledge and ethics. For Maimonides it is possible to have moral qualities while lacking knowledge of Torah, as found in the example of the am ha’aretz. The golem, or crude person, is a transitional figure who marks the shift from ignorance of Torah to a beginning, but not fully developed, knowledge of Torah. All students of Torah ought to aspire to be a wise person, displaying the intellectual virtues gained in Torah study that will further contribute to one’s ethical character. Some may develop so far to be regarded as pious, but this is not a necessary state to attain. Wisdom is the goal, to become pious is a movement that builds upon the acquisition of wisdom. For both Maimonides and Rabbeinu Yonah, the seven qualities listed in this mishnah represent a blend of ethical and intellectual virtues. It is a sign of intellectual depth that one not answer hastily, asks relevant questions and answers appropriately, and speaks to the first point first and the last point last. This indicates a careful disposition of the mind that is not confused by arguments but is able to carefully unravel them in order to get to the essence of the issue at hand. Likewise, one shows a good character by not speaking before one who is wiser, not interrupting colleagues, admitting what he has not learned, and conceding the truth of the argument that another advances. Studying Torah with colleagues in the house of study yields this blend of wisdom and character. The pursuit of wisdom is a benefit to each person, but the ideal sage imagined in this saying will only truly attain wisdom within a community. The importance of this communal development of wisdom is found in the last two qualities described: “about that which he has not heard he says, “I have not heard;” and he acknowledges the truth.” Tzvi Novick shows that these qualities refer to how debate about interpretation of Torah ought to be carried out in the house of study. It would have been possible that as rabbinic Judaism developed that the received tradition 19

Maimonides on Avot 5:7, 132.

246

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

of the Oral Torah transmitted from one’s elders and teachers could have become absolutely binding. The potential for this lies within the first quality of the wise person, he does not speak before those who are wiser. In the context of argumentation and interpretation of the Written Torah via the Oral Torah, the penultimate statement “about that which he has not heard he says, ‘I have not heard,’” refers to deference to received traditions. But in this statement is also the possibility of flexibility about the received tradition. One might not have a teaching on a point of interpretation from one’s own teachers. But if one is truly wise, one will recognize the validity of the teaching on this point from another tradition or teacher of Torah. Hence the importance of the final quality of the wise person, “he acknowledges the truth.” That is, he allows for the validity of the interpretation of another school or strand if it is superior to the interpretation he advances or receives. As Novick writes, this saying seeks to “suppress the traditionalist notion of concession to inherited teachings and to highlight instead admission to the truth, understood as the truth of another’s argument.”20 The issue at play here is the question of how to interpret Scripture itself and what counts as authoritative interpretation. The argument embedded in this saying ensures a dynamism within rabbinic thought. Received tradition is not the final word on a point of interpretation but rather the point of departure. A superior but novel argument may be accepted if its reasoning is sound and operates within the parameters of halakhic argumentation. This indicates a fluidity concerning authoritative interpretations that operate within the boundaries of the Oral Torah. Avot 5:8-9 describes seven types of punishments that God sends to the world due to lack of observance of mitzvot. Leviticus 26, which sets out parameters for how Israel ought to fulfill its covenantal relationship with God when it enters the Promised Land, and the punishments that will occur if it does not, serves as the primary scriptural point of reference.21 Examining the seven categories listed, these transgressions concern a failure to recognize God, maintain healthy social relationships, exercise justice, and properly tend to the created order. As Rashi notes, a condition of the gift of living in the land of Israel was to avoid open and public sins. The transgressions outlined here are of a corporate nature, thus all Israel is held responsible for them. In turn, the punishment 20 Tzvi Novick, “Tradition and Truth: The Ethics of Lawmaking in Tannaitic Literature,” Jewish Quarterly Review 110.2 (2010): 237. 21 Herford, 132.

CHAPTER FIVE

247

for these sins do not only harm Israel but their effects can spread to the whole world.22 We see this principle at play in the first sin, which regards the offering of tithes from the harvest of the land. Agricultural tithes as required by Torah were a chief means for Israel to express its gratitude for living in the land given to them by God. The lack of gratitude is the underlying offense. Rabbeinu Yonah observes that the punishments for withholding tithes are measure for measure. If only some withhold it, a drought comes in which those who withheld suffer but not others. But if all choose to withhold the tithe, then a drought ensues that has broader social effects, since this drought is caused by social upheavals such as war and other conflicts that make planting and harvesting impossible. A failure to include the challah tithe, the portion of bread dough set aside for the priest in the Temple (cf. Lev. 15:17-21), and in the absence of the Temple also burnt offerings, means that the practicing of tithing has been completely abandoned by all the people. As a result, a famine of complete destruction will come on all the people and devastate the entire population.23 This sort of destruction reflects the type of punishment outlined in Leviticus 26. The rest of Avot 5:8 concerns transgressions related to violations of principles of justice. The punishment by pestilence for executions not performed according to Torah can refer either to courts unwilling to carry out these penalties before the destruction of the Temple or people who evaded these penalties because of the absence of Jewish courts after the destruction of the Temple. Either way, those who escape punishment by human hands receive it from God via pestilence.24 The coming of the sword for delaying justice, perverting justice or not teaching Torah according to the halakhah of the rabbis also refers back to the notion that Torah itself serves as God’s standards for justice and right human relationships. For leaders to distort this standard is to make themselves worthy of death by the sword. The possibility of inadvertently violating these principles of justice was deeply felt by the rabbis. ARN A offers a story of Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel and Rabbi Ishmael who are being led to execution by the Romans in the 130s, the era of the Bar Kokhba revolt. Simeon wondered what transgressions he might have committed to be led to this point. Ishmael poses questions that make him realize 22 23 24

Rashi on Avot 5:8; Rashi on Deuteronomy 29:28. Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 5:8. Rav on Avot 5:8; Rashi on Avot 5:8.

248

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

that when he taught in the Temple before great crowds, he was filled with pride. This alone made him deserving of the sword, he realizes, because this sort of pride could have led him to render justice and halakhah incorrectly. Leadership comes with a great ethical burden from this perspective since the error of leaders can lead entire nations astray. Avot 5:9 concludes the list of the three other major transgressions that bring punishments. Rabbeinu Yonah explains that attacks by wild animals for the sins of false oaths and desecrating the Name of God (cf. Deut. 32:24) is fitting. Just as speech is what elevates humans above animals, so animal bites are a fitting penalty for swearing false oaths. Since the desecration of God’s name is a public sin that disregards God and Torah it also shows disregard for the divine elevation of humans above animals. Hence, animal attacks are a fitting punishment. Sforno explains that the punishment of exile from the land for sin, incest, and bloodshed is fitting since these are sins that undermine society. Likewise, Torah itself clearly warns about exile from the land of Israel for these sins. The final sin that invokes the penalty of exile is neglect of release of the land. Following this is the final category of transgressions, which involves neglect again of agricultural tithes. These categories show that for the rabbis care for the land of Israel was integral to care for others and creation. The law of release of the land refers to the seventh, or sabbatical, year when the land was to lie fallow. During this time all produce that naturally grew was to be made available to all. To act as if one exerts greater control over the earth than God is a sin.25 Observing the sabbatical year serves as a reminder of God’s role as creator and providential caregiver and reinforces humanity’s role as a steward of creation and a recipient of God’s blessings. Avot 5:9 ends by teaching that pestilence increases when tithes from the harvest designated at various points in the seven-year sabbatical cycle are not given for the poor. If tithes have not been given for the poor at these designated times, then they also have not been regularly offered in general. Neglect of tithes designated for the poor means that the poor have not been cared for in other situations, in violation of Torah principles. Thus this mishnah notes that pestilence increases, implying that punishments have already been given for a lack of tithing in general. The punishments increase in the form of pestilence because of the additional neglect of the poor, for whom Torah instructed tithes from the harvest should be given to sustain them.26 25 26

Rashi on Avot 5:9. Tosafot Yom Tov on Avot 5:9.

CHAPTER FIVE

249

Two themes emerge from an investigation of Avot 5:8-9. The first is the importance of the preservation and care the land of Israel, expressed in the offering of agricultural tithes and the keeping of the sabbatical year. This concern is an expression of the care for the created order that we saw emphasized in Avot 5:1-6 and the linking of creation with salvation history and God’s covenant with Israel. Stewardship of creation is intensified and localized in the stewardship of the Land of Israel. This care of the created order begins with the land but also extends to other inhabitants of the created order such as the priests in the Temple (regarding the tithe of challah) and the poor who are recipients of tithes at designated times. Disruptions in the stewardship of the land of Israel is as much a disruption in Israel’s covenanted life with God as any of the other sins mentioned here and in some ways it is fundamental to the basic patterns of the life of Israel. In the offering of tithes we see an idealized interaction of fulfilling mitzvot, ethical behavior, and stewardship of creation. The integration of these qualities is a sign of being a wise person according to Maimonides’s definition: one “who has acquired both intellectual and ethical virtues in a consummate and proper degree” situated in the study and fulfillment of Torah. The second theme is an articulation for why Israel suffered so greatly under the Roman Empire, especially in the period between 70 C.E. with the destruction of the Second Temple and the devastation of Jerusalem and the expulsion of Jews from it in 135 C.E. An implication of this saying is that the sins of the people brought exile and other devastations brought upon Israel. The rhetorical presentation of this saying presents an implicit argument that the rabbinic path of Torah observance will bring Jews to a restored covenantal life with God. While the rabbis built their understanding of the penalties for sins listed in this teaching from Leviticus 26 and its list of punishments for breaking the observance of the covenant between God and Israel, it is important to remember how this chapter ends. Once the final punishment of exile and removal from the land of Israel is envisioned, God declares: “Yet, even then, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or spurn them so as to destroy them, annulling my covenant with them; for I the Lord am their God. I will remember in their favor the covenant with the ancients, whom I freed from the land of Egypt in the sights of the nations to be their God: I, the Lord” (Lev. 26:44-45). Just as God promises to remember the covenant with Israel and restore them even when they are exiled from the land, so the rabbis, active in the wake of the loss of Jerusalem, present their path as the best means

250

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

for restoring covenant fidelity by means of fulfilling Torah on the part of Israel. Christian Resonances Maimonides’s interpretation of the crude person versus the wise one provides an opportunity to note resonances with Christian theological anthropology. If we recall, Maimonides places the crude person as a midpoint figure on a continuum between the boor and the am ha’aretz on the one hand and the wise one and the pious person on the other hand. Ignoring the end points of the continuum, Maimonides teaches that while the am ha’aretz might attain ethical virtues, he cannot gain intellectual ones since he lacks grounding in Torah. The crude person has acquired both kinds of virtue but they are not well developed, while the wise person displays these virtues well due to a depth of Torah study. Humans are capable of acquiring virtues on their own but need the assistance of Torah to fully attain all that is possible for humans. This anthropology resonates with classical Christian approaches to the understanding of the interplay between natural law and divine revelation as aids in the human acquisition of virtue. Writing from within an Anglican theological tradition, I would identify Richard Hooker’s approach of particular interest. The question Hooker grappled with concerning the human person was what sort of good could humans accomplish following the insights of natural law and human reason in contrast to what is capable only with the assistance of divine revelation. Richard Hooker, as a sixteenth-century humanist, saw no conflict between nature and divinity. God had given to humanity the possibility to discern how to follow the good within the realm of natural law, which could be discerned by the gift of reason. Humans were created with the capacity to fulfill both the natural law and the divine law. Even more, humans have the capacity to ascend to divine perfection through the process of learning, acquired via human education, and instruction, gained through divinely revealed precepts.27 Despite Hooker’s optimism regarding what humans can attain, the reality of human limitations, in particular the existence of sin, makes attaining the goal of human life (union and participation in God) impossible via the efforts of human reason and will alone. Here we hear a resonance with Maimonides’s definition of the am ha’aretz, who has 27 Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity: A Critical Edition with Modern Spelling, ed. Arthur Stephen McGrade (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), I.4-7.

CHAPTER FIVE

251

some ethical virtues but has not acquired the intellectual virtues, which would provide deeper knowledge of God and the divine will for humans. For Hooker, there is a triple perfection that all seek – sensual, intellectual, and spiritual. To attain supernatural perfection, humans need supernatural assistance because human sin presents too great of an obstacle. This assistance comes in the form of the revelation of the Scriptures, beginning with the Old Testament and culminating with the revelation of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Hooker holds that to attain spiritual perfection humans need the classic theological virtues of faith, hope, and love. These cannot be discovered by reason alone but are revealed within the Scriptures. Furthermore, these three virtues find their focus in the works and person of Jesus Christ.28 Echoing Maimonides’s typology, the one who begins to realize their full potential by attending to the development of these virtues begins the movement towards wisdom that takes one from being a beginner as a crude person, still seeking wisdom, to a wise one, who has fully learned of Scripture. As Hooker writes, “Capable we are of God both by understanding and will, by understanding as he is that sovereign truth, which comprehends the rich treasures of all wisdom; by will, as he is that sea of goodness, whereof whoso tastes shall thirst no more.”29 In other words, the gift of reason, aided by the revelation of Scripture, allows the attainment of both intellectual and ethical virtues, the knowledge of truth and goodness that fully reside in God. We see in Hooker a combination of realism and optimism that is a shared characteristic with Maimonides’s theology. This is not entirely surprising given that both synthesized insights from Aristotelian philosophy into their respective theological systems. The pursuit of wisdom is an activity that humans aspire to but the full attainment of it requires divine assistance. The strong resonance between Hooker and Maimonides stems from their shared assumptions about the nature of humanity, divine activity, and revelation. Obviously, the major distinction between the two is that for Hooker the pursuit of wisdom through natural law and revelation culminates in the person and teachings of Jesus Christ while for Maimonides this pursuit is carried out through the rabbinic approaches to the interpretation and preservation of Torah. This means there is still supersessionism in Hooker’s work, in so far as he believes that Torah itself is a preparatory step in the process of revelation. On  the  relationship 28 29

Hooker, Laws I.11. Ibid., I.11.3, 82.

252

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

between the two testaments, Hooker writes: “So that the general end both of old and new is one, the difference between them consisting in this, that the old did make wise by teaching salvation through Christ that should come, the new by teaching that Christ the Saviour is come, and the Jesus whom the Jews did crucify, and whom God did raise again from the dead is he.”30 This quote is a reminder that while we might identify significant resonances between Jewish and Christian theological approaches in such a lofty area as the intellect and the virtues, the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Jewish people remains a strong point of division and dissonance between the two, especially as viewed from within traditional articulations of the Christian tradition. The focus on the types of punishments one is liable for regarding care for the land of Israel in Avot 5:7-8 highlights a significant point of division between Jewish and Christian theologies. While Avot and its commentaries emphasize the penalties for not preserving the commandments concerning the land, it is important to remember that the Land of Israel is first understood as a physical sign of redemption for Israel. It is the place of rest, blessing, and refuge after the exodus from Egypt and the years of wandering in the wilderness. To dwell in the land and enjoy its fruits is to tangibly experience God’s blessings and the fulfillment of promises. It is also the locus where the agricultural and Templebased ritual commandments of Torah may be fulfilled. Living according to Torah is most possible in the Land of Israel. Within Judaism, Israel itself operates as a theological concept on three levels: as the people, the land, and the state. Here we are interested primarily in the latter two categories. There is no parallel cluster of concepts in Christian theology. Indeed, early theologians sought to dehistoricize and decontextualize the redemptive significance of the Land of Israel, shifting its meanings away from a sign of Jewish blessing. Christian statements about the land of Israel occur in the aftermath of Jewish loss of the land and residence in Jerusalem following the failed Bar Kokhba revolt of the 130s CE. Justin Martyr, writing in the mid-second century, in his Dialogue with Trypho argues that it is not Jews at all who will receive a restored Land of Israel upon the return of the Messiah but only Christians. Developing a supersessionist theology, Justin deprives the Jews of their land just as he deprived them of their covenant in light of their refusal to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. The de-Judaizing of the land is further developed 30

Hooker, Laws I.14.4, 92.

CHAPTER FIVE

253

when Constantine becomes emperor of the Roman world and endorses a building campaign in Jerusalem, led by his mother Helena that emphasizes the land of Israel as a Christian holy land, sanctified by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It is in the fourth and fifth centuries that the Christian idea of pilgrimage to the holy land emerges. While the land is viewed as a Christian possession, it is not a place to dwell in or cultivate. Rather it is a physical site for spiritual contemplation of the mysteries of the life, death and resurrection of Christ and a site embodying the eschatological expectation of his return. A Christian theology of the land of Israel thus has a supersessionist foundation that emphasizes Jewish loss of the land as a divine punishment that is replaced by a Christian custodianship of the land until the return of Jesus.31 For some Jews, especially those inclined to religious Zionism, the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 meant that the land that was promised to them as part of their covenantal relationship with God was returned to them. Christian theology has been largely unable to positively account for the Jewish return to the land represented in the establishment of the State of Israel even in the wake of deepening JewishChristian relations. Within Roman Catholicism, magisterial documents make a careful distinction between an affirmation of God’s on-going covenant with the Jewish people and the existence of the State of Israel. This political reality is only discussed according to international legal principles, not theological ones. Similarly, other Christian groups involved in Jewish-Christian dialogue have had difficulty engaging with the existence of the State of Israel in anything but political terms.32 Yet in the Jewish tradition, living in the Land of Israel is one of the most tangible expressions of the covenant between God and the people of Israel. We find this in the tenth blessing of the Amidah, the core prayer of the synagogue liturgy. A prayer for the ingathering of the exiles, it reads: “Sound a great shofar for our freedom, and lift up a banner for the gathering of our exiles. Blessed are You, Adonai, who gathers the 31 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 113, 119; Robert L. Wilken, The Land Called Holy: Palestine in Christian History and Thought (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992). 32 Philip A. Cunningham, “Biblical Land Promises and the State of Israel: A Challenge for Catholic (and Jewish) Theology” in Seeking Shalom: The Journey to Right Relationship between Christians and Jews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 220-33; Ruth Langer, “Theologies of the Land and State of Israel: The Role of the Secular in Christian and Jewish Understandings,” Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations 3 (2008): http://[email protected]/scjr/vol3. Accessed March 10, 2016.

254

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

dispersed among his people Israel.”33 The hope of ingathering exiles into the promised land of Israel was declared fulfilled in the Declaration of the State of Israel of 1948: “The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the ingathering of the exiles… We appeal to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally around the Jews the Land of Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream – the redemption of Israel.” Redemption is bound to the establishment of Jewish sovereignty as expressed in the state of Israel. The Declaration of 1948 also sounds a note of eschatological, prophetic hope in the founding of this new state which is envisioned to be “based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.” Furthermore, in the official Prayer for the State of Israel, God is asked to bless this state, “the first manifestation of the approach of our redemption.” While the term “Messiah” or “messianic” is studiously avoided in these statements, the language of the beginning of a process of redemption invites an inference that some viewed the establishment of the State of Israel to have messianic implications. This was not a universal view, however. Many of the early founders of the State of Israel were socialist Zionists with little religious sensibility while many in the Orthodox world held that only God could reestablish the true nation of Israel, complete with a Davidic ruler. Nonetheless, there remains a sense in these documents of the beginning of a new era with promises for both Jews and non-Jews alike in this restored land of Jewish sovereignty. The debate among more religiously observant Jews in the new State of Israel regarding its religious significance is important. While many accepted that humans could not force the messianic age by establishing a modern nation-state, a consensus emerged that this new state did have religious significance for Jews. The Orthodox intellectual David Hartman put it this way: “From my perspective, the religious meaning one gives to events relates not to their divine origin but to their possible influence on the life of Torah. If an event in history… widens the range of halakhic action and responsibility… then this already suffices to endow the event with religious significance… One can religiously embrace modern Israel not through a judgment about God’s actions in history but through an 33 My People’s Prayer Book: Traditional Prayers, Modern Commentaries. Vol. 2 – The Amidah. Ed. Lawrence A. Hoffman (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 1998), 40.

CHAPTER FIVE

255

understanding of the centrality of Israel for the fullest actualization of the world of mitzvot.”34 The State of Israel is religiously significant for Jews, whether or not it signals a new age of redemption, because it allows for a fuller observance of Torah, such as the laws of agricultural tithing and sabbatical years that Avot 5:8-9 discusses. This returns us to the theological significance of the land of Israel for Christianity. Here the categories of the universal and particular are relevant. Christian theology tends to emphasize the universal: Jesus Christ is a universal savior – a life of discipleship in the way of Jesus and the worship of God can be exercised anywhere and by anyone. In contrast, Jewish life has a particularity to it; it is ideally practiced in the land of Israel. While the covenant life of Israel is designed to have benefit for the whole world, the focus remains on the distinctive bond between God and Israel, especially as exercised in the land of Israel. In soteriological categories, while Christians experience redemption in the person of Jesus, Jews historically understood redemption to include restoration to national life in the land of Israel. This means that any Christian comparative theological engagement with Jewish notions of redemption must attend to the categories of land and state. Similarly, when the category of land emerges in Jewish discourse, this ought not to be put by Christians into categories of historicized biblical narratives or contemporary secular politics with the assumption that the category has little theological significance. Rather, the Christian theologian must stop and readjust perspectives to discern the theological categories, such as Torah and redemption, which the category of land contains within Judaism. A non-supersessionist Christian theological accounting for the theological significance of the land of Israel would have at least three aspects. First, it would recognize the significance of the land of Israel for realizing Israel’s status as a covenanted people of God. To live out their identity as a people means to dwell with political sovereignty in the land of Israel that was promised to them as part of the covenant. Second, the land of Israel is significant because dwelling in it affords Jews the opportunity to fulfill aspects of Torah linked to the cultivation and stewardship of the land. Third, dwelling in the land of Israel is part of the prophetic vision of the restoration and redemption of Israel, which is the necessary prelude for the rest of the people of the earth to participate in the worship of God and the blessings that accompany this worship (cf. Is. 60). In other words, 34 David Hartman, A Living Covenant: The Innovative Spirit in Traditional Judaism, 281, quoted in Cunningham, Seeking Shalom, 232.

256

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

the scriptural narratives that frame the Jewish experience of redemption are closely linked to dwelling in the land of Israel. These theological markers are important in light of Christian critiques of the contemporary State of Israel and its handling of the occupation of the Palestinian Territories. There are real ethical and humanitarian issues to attend to in this regard but it is also important to not conflate legitimate critique of the policies of the State of Israel with a shift into anti-Jewish theologies, including a denigration of the redemptive significance of the land of Israel. Here a stance of theological humility is necessary. Some Christians might be tempted to declare that the theological and redemptive significance of the land and state is annulled due to the policies and behaviors of the State of Israel. However, a similar critique might be leveled against Christianity itself regarding its redemptive claims. If Christ is truly the Messiah, then why has the messianic age not commenced, accompanied by its biblical signs of worldwide peace? And are not the redemptive claims about Christ rendered meaningless given the violent behavior of Christians and Christian nation states over the millennia? If Christians can find ways to attenuate these criticisms, then they also ought to find a space by which they can both seriously attend to the significance of the land of Israel for Jews even while affirming that a contemporary State of Israel does not completely embody the fullness of Israel’s redemption (or the blessing of the other nations of the earth) as experienced in the land. Put another way, neither Christians nor Jews yet fully live in the messianic era. Instead, both religions live in a suspended middle space in which both have received a foretaste of what the fullness of redemption will be like while also recognizing all that still must be reconciled and transformed in order for the promises to be fulfilled. Avot 5:10 There are four types of people: The one who says, “What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours” – this is an average character; and some say this is the character of Sodom. The one who says, “What is mine is yours and what is yours is mine” – this is an am ha-aretz. The one who says, “What is mine is yours and what is yours is yours” – this is a pious person. The one who says, “What is mine is mine and what is yours is mine” – this is a wicked person. Avot 5:11 There are four types of dispositions: Easy to provoke and easy to appease – his gain is offset by his loss. Difficult to provoke and difficult

CHAPTER FIVE

257

to appease – his loss is offset by his gain. Difficult to provoke and easy to appease – this is a pious person. Easy to provoke and difficult to appease – this is a wicked person. Avot 5:12 There are four types of students: Quick to learn and quick to forget – his gain is offset by his loss. Slow to learn and slow to forget – his loss is offset by his gain. Quick to learn and slow to forget – this is a wise person. Slow to learn and quick to forget – this is a bad lot. Avot 5:13 There are four types of those who give charity: One who is willing to give but does not want others to give – he is jealous towards the things of others. The one who thinks others should give but he does not give – he is jealous of his own things. One who desires to give and that others give – this is a pious person. One who does not give and does not think others should give – this is a wicked person. Avot 5:14 There are four types who go to the house of study: One who goes but does not act – he has a reward for going. One who acts but does not go – he has a reward for acting. One who goes and acts – this is a pious person. One who does not go and does not act – this is a wicked person. Avot 5:15 There are four types who sit before sages: A sponge, a funnel, a strainer, and a sieve. A sponge, who absorbs everything. A funnel, who takes in at one end and lets out at the other end. A strainer, who lets out the wine and retains the sediment. A sieve, who lets out the coarse meal and retains the fine flour. Jewish Interpretations This cluster of sayings concerns four types of people and their characteristics. While not tied exclusively to matters of character or virtue, the identification of character traits is nonetheless important for the development of the disciple of sages. As Sforno notes, the sages offer “a few negative natural traits which a person must attempt to correct, for only through the development of positive spiritual traits, which are directed toward the performance of good deeds will man’s spirit be prepared to find eternal approval (in God’s eyes), for it is then that one has imitated

258

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

these ways of His Creator, of whom it is said, ‘The Lord is good to all’ (Ps 145:90).”35 A negative natural trait does not mean one always remains in this state; self-awareness of one’s condition and effort can lead to positive change. The types of people characterized in Avot 5:10-11 and 13 illustrate well Sforno’s position. Avot 5:10 concerns how one views basic social relationships and collaboration within them. Avot 5:11 presents a selfexplanatory view on personality types and social interactions. Avot 5:13 concerns different attitudes towards charity. In each of these sayings, the first two character types are appropriate, the third type marks the quality of a pious person and the final type is a wicked person. Borrowing from Aristotle, Maimonides explains that these qualities are described in terms of an ideal mean that is typically found in the second trait. The pious and wicked each illustrate a type of deviation from that mean. Avot 5:10 illustrates both Sforno’s and Maimonides’s view. Meiri stipulates that this saying does not just involve charity, which is the topic of 5:13, but rather the whole scope of social interactions regarding what people want to receive from others and what they want to give to others. As such the first type who does not want to give to others or receive anything from them reflects their own integrity – nothing is expected and nothing is given. While this stance is not wrong, there can be an extreme display of this view that is wicked. The second type is called an am ha-‘aretz, that is the type of person who goes about building up society. Such a one wants goods to flow equally among all people but often does not have much discernment about how to go about doing this. Meiri commends this type of person since it reinforces the common bonds in society. Yet such people lack the wisdom which the disciples of sages seek. The third and fourth types represent deviations from the mean. Maimonides explains that a pious person refers to one who increases his “positive activity” so that “he leans slightly to one of the extremes.”36 Here this extreme is, as Rabbeinu Yonah notes, to give and not expect anything in return. The wicked one is the opposite deviation from the mean. As Maimonides states, this is one who might have some personal shortcoming but goes to an extreme with them, engaging in such a degree of self-indulgence that this person not only wants everything for himself but also that of his neighbors. In this case, as with the related 35 36

Sforno on Avot 5:10, 161. Maimonides on Avot 5:10, 136.

CHAPTER FIVE

259

sayings in this section, the pious stand as stalwart examples of what life is like if one attends to the fulfillment of mitzvot with the intention of benefiting others more than oneself.37 Avot 5:12 and 5:14-15 concern types of learners and their ideal qualities. The first saying concerning retention of what is learned does not speak to moral qualities but rather about innate academic ability. Commentators agree that those in each category should strive to the best of their ability, while recognizing some types have more capacities than others. Thus, one who is both quick to learn and quick to forget will not be as useful a teacher as one who might take time to learn something but then will never forget it. Even one who is slow to learn and quick to forget ought to persevere because, as Rabbeinu Yonah teaches, “Constant learning will also improve him to a greater or lesser degree, depending on his nature.”38 Even though one might be naturally limited in academic capacities, there is still a capacity for growth and improvement, especially when this effort is exercised in a communal context. Avot 5:14 describes the types who avail themselves of the teaching of Torah found in the house of study. Commentators explain that these are not students of the sages but rather ordinary members of the community who need instruction in fulfilling mitzvot. The first type, who goes but does not act, means he does not go out of his way to fulfill mitzvot but only the ones that come across his path. Thus he has a reward for learning the basics of fulfilling mitzvot but does not gain rewards from a life of full observance of them. The second type, who fulfills mitzvot but does not go to the study house, loses the benefits of studying Torah with others and hence gaining deeper insights into Torah and its fulfillment. As seen throughout Avot, one gains more by studying with others and having companions in the path of Torah than by studying and observing on one’s own. The pious one who goes to the house of study does so in order to grow in virtue. We may deduce that these virtues in part derive from the rewards gained by both studying about and doing mitzvot. And the behavior of the wicked person is that of one who has no interest at all in developing virtue. Avot 5:15 presents the four types of students who sit before a sage: the sponge, the funnel, the strainer and the sieve. ARN A explains that students sit before sages when they study Scripture, Mishnah, Midrash, halakhah, and aggadah. These areas encompass the foundational aspects 37 38

Heszer, 290. Rabbeinu Yonah on Avot 5:12, 306.

260

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

of Torah, its interpretation, and its application. The sponge is one who soaks up all that is taught but is unable to discern between what is essential and what is incidental or tangential in it. Moreover, such a person cannot discern when a sage has offered an erroneous teaching and so might mistakenly transmit it to others. In contrast, the funnel does not remember much of what is taught. The strainer is called a wicked disciple because “he lets pass the good and retains the bad,” only retaining distorted information and poor reasoning but not attending to proper interpretations of halakhah. The sifter is the ideal disciple because he discards the poor aspects of what is taught and retains only the best of what the sages have to offer.39 While at first this saying seems to imply that students are mere vessels that passively receive what the sages teach, the ideal disciple is one who exercises a degree of discernment. No sage is perfect; all teaching must be evaluated and only the best parts retained. It is through this exercise over the course of years that the disciple in turn becomes a sage. Christian Resonances In several of these sayings, the behavior of the pious is held up as a path that exceeds expectations. One can live according to Torah and earn a reward without being considered pious. The pious occupy a higher plane of Torah living that stands as an ideal, yet not a necessary goal, for the observant Jew. This tension between fulfilling the requirements of Torah versus exceeding its spirit is a dynamic that is also embedded within New Testament teachings. A passage from the Sermon on the Mount illustrates well this relationship between fulfilling Torah and exceeding it in pious behavior. As we have discussed in previous chapters, Matthew 5 contains a series of six teachings in which Jesus comments on a passage from Torah and offers his own expansion on fulfilling it. The fifth teaching in this series is particularly illustrative: You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’  But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. (Matt. 5:38-42)

39

ARNA A 40, 165-66; cf. Maimonides on Avot 5:15.

CHAPTER FIVE

261

In this passage, Jesus cites Exodus 21:23-25, which summarizes standards of repayment for those injured in disputes. In offering a teaching that expands and seemingly amends this passage from Torah, Jesus mirrors a revision offered by the rabbis in the Mishnah who taught that compensation should be financial, not physical, loss.40 In this teaching, Jesus offers a vision of pious behavior that goes beyond what is required in Torah. Rather than demanding compensation from a fellow Jew for harm done, one should offer even more to one’s persecutor. This is a confounding form of behavior – who would willingly submit oneself to more harm, whether physical or financial? Yet for Jesus, this signals a deeper, and we can say pious, path in fulfilling Torah. It gets to the essence of how God desires people to relate to one another. This view is engrained in Paul’s teachings to early Christian communities. He teaches to those in Corinth, “Do not seek your own advantage but that of the other” (I Cor. 10:24) and to Christian in Philippi he counsels, “Let each of you look not to your own interests, but the interests of others” (Phil. 2:4). This disinterest regarding the self in favor of serving others or deferring to others is a difficult ideal to obtain. In the New Testament this pattern is not commanded as necessary but presented as an ideal pattern to aspire to. A typical Christian trope regarding Judaism is that Judaism as a system is predisposed to be concerned only about fulfilling the letter of the law while Christianity attends to the spirit of the law. Typically our passage from Matthew 5 is offered as an example of this pattern. Yet we can recognize now in Jesus’ teaching a pattern that is in itself Jewish. There exists an ordinary and acceptable path for fulfilling Torah. Alongside it stands a path that the pious can also pursue, which goes above and beyond this. While Jewish teachings make this distinction clear, it is more obscured in Christianity. Our New Testament teachings seem to indicate that the path of the pious ought to be the normative one. And yet this presents serious pastoral issues as it is often harder to fulfill this path. Recognizing this difficulty bring us to the question in chapter four of whether there ought to be categories of Christians, some who are called to higher paths than others. While there has been traditionally classes of ascetics and clergy who do pursue these higher paths, the question of what each Christian can reasonably expect to attain in a life of following Jesus is one that has received varied answers. Looking to the 40 See Mishnah Bava Qamma 8; Nahum Sarna, Exodus, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 126.

262

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

teachings set forth in this portion of Avot offers a means of providing a perspective on a variety of possible paths. The theme of types of disciples resonates within early Christian literature. In the fifth century, John Cassian composed a lengthy treatise on monastic life, The Conferences, that presented major themes in ascetical spirituality centered around interviews with a variety of monastic teachers. In the eighteenth chapter of this work, Cassian takes up the issue of kinds of monks. In the form of a discourse with Abba Piamum, Cassian presents four types of monks: the cenobites, the anchorites, the sarabaites, and the lukewarm. The first two represent a positive trajectory in the monastic life whereas the latter two represent forms of monastic life that ought to be avoided. According to Abba Piamum, cenobites, monks who live together in community, represent the original and pure form of the church (cf. Acts 2:45; 4:35). According to Abba Piamum while the entire early church followed the common life of monks, much of the church had since fallen away. Since many had converted from paganism, the early apostles loosened the requirements of Christian morality. Piamum locates the loosening of these standards in Acts 15:29. This is a passage we have examined before; it is taken from the account of the Council of Jerusalem when Gentiles were brought into the church, required to not follow all aspects of Torah but only core practices of monotheism and sexual morality. To Abba Piamum, those who retained the “apostolic fervor” withdrew from cities and towns in favor of the desert and established what became separate monastic communities. This origin myth is fascinating because it makes the Jewish origins of Christianity, prior to the incorporation of Gentiles, the purest moment of the church. While by no means a halakhic movement, Piamum identifies cenobitic monasticism as a set of practices engaged in communally that follows the teachings of designated elders who claim an apostolic origin to their way of life.41 In the voice of Abba Piamen, Cassian presents the anchoritic, or solitary, form of monasticism as the higher form of practice. He says of the anchorites, “They sought out the recesses of the desert not, indeed, because of faintheartedness or an unhealthy impatience but from a desire for higher progress and divine contemplation.”42 The path of the anchorite is not merely a struggle with the self in solitude but also with the demons who live in the waste places. Piamen calls upon the examples of 41 John Cassian, The Conferences, trans. Boniface Ramsey. Ancient Christian Writers 57 (New York: Newman Press, 1997), XVIII.V. 42 Cassian, Conferences XVIII.VI.1.

CHAPTER FIVE

263

John the Baptist, Elijah, Elisha, and Jeremiah as biblical examples of solitaries who penetrated the mysteries of God and confronted evil.43 These biblical exemplars from the Hebrew Bible are not deployed in a supersessionist way but are portrayed as natural predecessors in a long line of solitary contemplation of God. We also have here a hierarchy of the monastic life. Just as some rabbinic disciples were more adept or at a more advanced state than others, so too with the comparison between the cenobitic and anchoritic life. The anchorite plays a role similar to the pious in our sayings from Avot while the cenobite is regarded as pursuing an appropriate form of life, much as the wise person does. In contrast to these two types of monks, the sarabaite and lukewarm stands as negative examples of the monastic life. “Sarabaite” was a derogatory term given to a class of monks who lived in their own homes or close to non-ascetics in towns or cities, living with no particular rule or under the authority of any elder. As with the prior monastic types, Abba Piamum identifies the sarabaites with Ananias and Sapphira, a couple found in the Acts of the Apostles who, refusing to share their goods with the other followers of Jesus, are struck down dead after being found guilty by Peter (Acts 5:1-11). The sarabaite is faithless since he refuses to submit to the authority of any elder, thus rejecting the apostolic life that grounds the monastic community. This lack of discipline reveals an absence of true renunciation and commitment to the way of Jesus. The sarabaites are accused of unduly accumulating wealth and possessions when they ought to live a life of complete material renunciation.44 The lukewarm are another problematic group. They begin the monastic life with great fervor but slide from the rigors of discipline into lassitude and then deeper and deeper into vices. As such, they present temptations and troubles for their fellow monks.45 Abba Piamun counsels that one should not be surprised to find wayward monks mixed into the company of faithful monks. After all, he notes, Satan fell from heaven and Judas was one of the apostles. Temptations ought to be expected to rise up among such a company of holy ones who strive against evil and seek the perfection of the good.46 While monks might become holy, they are not definitively holy and always seek a life of progress, aware of the temptations that are constantly present. 43 44 45 46

Cassian, Conferences XVIII.V.2-4. Ibid., XVIII.VII. Ibid., XVIII.VIII. Ibid., XVIII.XVI.5.

264

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Comparing Cassian’s typology of monks in light of the rabbinic typology of students is useful. In Avot we discover a continuum of character types and dispositions. While there is always a disposition that is clearly negative, there is also the sense that even the worst sort can improve through effort. The stakes are higher in Cassian. Granted, one can progress from the cenobitic to anchoritic life, but there is little sense that the sarabaite or lukewarm monk has much hope. Although amendment of life might be a theoretical possibility, there is a larger sense of determinism in our monastic texts. Here the Christian perspective can benefit from the practical wisdom of the rabbinic literature. Often Christian discourses focus on a binary of righteous/wicked, saved/damned, or good/evil. While recognizing the value and importance of these categories, many Christians can find themselves somewhere on the continuum of struggling towards the good. The charitable rabbinic model found in Avot regarding the diagnosis of dispositions and the possibility of improvement on them represents a useful piece of pastoral insight for the Christian tradition. Avot 5:16 All love that depends on some thing, when that thing ceases, the love ceases; but a love that does not depend on any thing, it will never cease. What love depends on some thing? This is the love of Amnon and Tamar. And what love does not depend on any thing? This is the love of David and Jonathan. Avot 5:17 Any controversy that is for the sake of Heaven will in the end be of lasting value; but one that is not for the sake of Heaven will not in the end be of lasting value. And what is a controversy for the sake of Heaven? This is the controversy between Hillel and Shammai. And what is a controversy that was not for the sake of Heaven? This is the controversy of Korah and his company. Avot 5:18 Whoever brings many to virtue, no sin shall be done through him. But whoever causes many to sin, he will not be given the opportunity to repent. Moses was virtuous and brought many to virtue; the virtue of many is ascribed to him, as it is said: “He executed the Lord’s judgments and His decisions for Israel” (Deut 33:21). Jeroboam sinned and caused many to sin; the sin of many is ascribed to him, as it is said,

CHAPTER FIVE

265

“Because of the sins that Jeroboam committed and led Israel to commit” (I Kings 14:16). Jewish Interpretations This section of chapter five presents three anonymous sayings concerning paired negative and positive principles. The first, concerning love, is interpreted by commentators to be about how the exercise of love in human relationships illuminates orientation to the divine will. A love that is not oriented to the divine will is like the love between Amnon and Tamar. Of course, this is not any kind of love at all. As recounted in 2 Samuel 13, Amnon, the eldest son of David, rapes his half-sister Tamar, the sister of Absalom (another son of David). After raping her, Amnon comes to despise Tamar. In turn, Absalom murders Amnon out of revenge, setting the stage for Absalom’s revolt against David. Self-seeking and self-interested love can lead to disastrous consequences. In contrast, the love between David and Jonathan is an example of a love that does not depend on anything. This is because Jonathan and David were united in a loving friendship even though Jonathan knew David would take the throne that was rightfully his. Because he submitted to the divine will in the context of the loving relationship, this love endured and stood as a mark of virtue. We see in this saying the underlying rabbinic belief that ordinary human actions and relationships can either be cultivated towards the height of virtue or be misdirected towards base and destructive ends.47 Avot 5:18 discusses controversies for the sake of Heaven (a circumlocution for God) which will endure versus controversies that are not which will not last. The ultimate example of controversy for the sake of Heaven is the controversy between Hillel and Shammai. In chapter one, we discussed the debates of Hillel and Shammai and their followers. While in general the rulings of Hillel and his school carry the weight of rabbinic opinion, the views of Shammai and his school are always reckoned with and afforded respect. Indeed, a Talmudic story explains that it was a voice from Heaven that declared during one lengthy debate between Hillel and Shammai that both spoke the words of God (they gave appropriate interpretations of Torah) but that the halakhah (or normative interpretation) was Hillel’s. A controversy for the sake of Heaven concerns a debate that is conducted for the sake of gaining clarity over 47

Rav on Avot 5:16.

266

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

an issue of interpretation of Torah. In contrast, a controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven is like the one instigated by Korah against Moses, the purpose of which was to sow discord among the people of God.48 Reuven Kimeleman argues that the controversy between Hillel and Shammai illustrates how rabbinic Judaism navigated differing interpretive approaches to Torah while not marginalizing opponents. Texts that illustrate the disagreements between these two schools, Kimelman argues, underline the positive interactions and mutual regard that Hillel and Shammai held for each other. When each side assumes that the other is working for the same goal of ascertaining truth, it is allowable to permit differing interpretations to stand, even when the majority stands with one school of interpretation. “Mutual regard can be maintained even in the face of the most fundamental disagreements as long as both parties entertain the possibility of the other acting for the sake of Heaven.”49 The final saying from this set compares Moses and Jeroboam are compared in terms of bringing others to virtue. Moses, the great teacher of Torah, led Israel to virtue through keeping Torah. Hence, no sin is ascribed to him. In contrast, King Jeroboam led Israel into idolatry. By causing so many to sin, the possibility to repent was not available to Jeroboam. Rashi explains that the example of Moses means that a teacher of Torah is protected from sinning since it would be impossible that students might come to merit rewards for their righteousness in fulfilling Torah but that their teacher would not. Underlying this interpretation are teachings in the Talmud that if one causes a person to fulfill a mitzvah it is as if that person did it himself. Indeed, the one who causes another to fulfill a mitzvah can even be held in greater regard than the one who actually fulfilled it. Following this logic, if one causes many to fulfill mitzvot, as Moses did, then that person can rightly be considered protected from sin.50 The teaching in this saying is similar to what we have found throughout Avot – divine reward depends on the study and fulfillment of Torah. For exemplary teachers, great rewards may accumulate for them. Christian Resonances The topic of controversies for the sake of heaven provide a moment of reflection on how Christians have historically dealt with sharp 48 49 50

BT Eruvin 13b. Reuven Kimelman, “Judaism and Pluralism,” Modern Judaism 7:2 (1987): 135. BT Sanhedrin 99b, BT Bava Batra 9a.

CHAPTER FIVE

267

disagreements over weighty matters. If one reviews the history of doctrinal development, especially in the late antique era, one notes that doctrinal controversies between Christian factions, while often carried out for the purpose of determining divine truth, left little room for holding opposing views in creative tensions. While one might argue that the teaching about the schools of Hillel and Shammai offer an idealized view of resolving disputes in the Jewish tradition, it is fair to say that no analogue existed within the development of Christian traditions. At times Christian ecclesial leaders have attempted to enforce unity after the development of a doctrinal position but with the effect of creating schism. For instance, after the conclusion of the Council of Chalcedon in 425 CE, attempted unity over the council’s teaching on the nature of the union of the divine and human persons in Jesus Christ led to a tripartite fracturing of Christianity in the eastern Mediterranean between the catholic, myaphysite, and dyaphysite schools. The current division of global Christianity between Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy (and the varied ecclesiastical permutations within) reveals that often disagreements among Christians are not for the sake of Heaven. If they were, a greater degree of reconciliation would exist within these communities. Here it is important to not romanticize the Jewish tradition. Significant divisions among Jewish communities exist, just as they do in Christianity. However, in Judaism, the divisions tend to be along the lines of halakhic practice rather than in belief itself. Perhaps the issue for Christianity is not whether divisions ought to exist but what sense ought to be made of ecclesial divisions. Are they accidents of history? The results of erroneous views? Or various attempts at the approximation of truth? The last position, while the most generous, also offers challenges to authority within various communities. A hallmark of the past century has been a growing ecumenical movement within Christianity. While not all divisions have been healed by it, this ecumenism gets closer to the rabbinic view that differing traditions might represent “conflicting views equally committed to the truth.”51 To hold this assumption about Christians that appear markedly differ from oneself in worldview, practices, or commitments potentially opens one to a re-examination of one’s own tradition. Indeed, this insight from rabbinic Judaism might generate an inwardly-focused comparative theology among Christians.

51

Kimelman, 138.

268

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

Avot 5:19 Anyone who has these three things is among the students of our father Abraham, and anyone who has these three other things is among the students of the wicked Balaam. A good eye, a lowly spirit, and a humble soul belong to the students of our father Abraham. An evil eye, a haughty spirit, and a greedy soul belong to the students of the wicked Balaam. What is the difference between the students of our father Abraham and the students of the wicked Balaam? The students of our father Abraham enjoy this world and inherit the world to come, as it is said: “I endow those who love me with substance; I will fill their treasuries” (Prov. 8:21). But the students of the wicked Balaam inherit Gehinnom and descend to the pit of destruction, as it is said: “For You, O God, will bring them down to the nethermost pit – those murderous, treacherous men; they shall not live out half their days; but I trust in You” (Ps. 55:24). Avot 5:20 Yehudah ben Tema said: “Be bold as a leopard, and light as an eagle, and swift like a gazelle, and strong as a lion to do the will of your father who is in heaven.” He used to say: “The arrogant to Gehinnom and the shame-faced to the Garden of Eden. May it be the will before you, O Lord our God, that you rebuild speedily your city in our days and grant us our share in Your Torah.” Avot 5:21 He used to say: “At five years old for Scripture, at ten years old for Mishnah, at thirteen years old for mitzvot, at fifteen years old for Talmud, at eighteen years old for the marriage canopy, at twenty years old to pursue, at thirty years old for power, at forty years old for understanding, at fifty years old for counsel, at sixty years old for old age, at seventy years old for grey hair, at eighty years old for strength, at ninety years old to be bent over, at one hundred-years old as if dead and passed away and gone from the world.” Jewish Interpretations These three teachings again return to theme of orienting all of one’s being around the study of Torah. Avot 5:19 offers a contrast between being students of Abraham and students of Balaam. The patriarch of Israel stands in contrast to Balaam, who in rabbinic literature stands in for teachers who lead Israel astray (cf. Num. 22-24). Typically, Moses is

CHAPTER FIVE

269

held up as the teacher of Israel, but here it is “our father Abraham” who takes on this role. Judah Goldin notes that the emphasis on Abraham over Moses is because “it is not enough to be a biological descendant; genealogy is insufficient. Rather, one must be a student and follower of the individual, emulating his qualities.” Although Jewish identity is predicated on a peoplehood that traces itself back to Abraham, it was the virtues of Abraham that allowed him to merit the gift of God’s eternal covenant with him and all his descendants. Writing in the context of navigating modernity in nineteenth century Germany, Israel Lipschutz also notes this distinction, arguing in his context that the mishnah does not highlight following the example of “our rabbi Moses” since only Jews can follow his example of keeping the 613 commandments given to them in Torah. On the other hand, all people can imitate “our father Abraham” since he showed all people how to follow God in his dealings with others throughout the narrative found in Genesis. Thus, even Gentiles can gain merit by emulating the virtues of Abraham. The logic of this argument rests in the divine promise to Abraham that all the nations will be blessed through him (Gen. 12:3).52 The development of virtues expected of a disciple of Abraham (a good eye, a lowly spirit, and a humble soul) according to Maimonides refers to contentment, the restraint of desires, and an extreme expression of humility when dealing with God and others. For Rabbeinu Yonah these qualities imply generosity, a humility expressed towards all whether of greater or lower station, and the absence of a desire to sin. The development of such virtues leads to a foretaste of heavenly world in this life. The two sayings by Yehudah ben Tema also concern pursuit of Torah and the qualities needed to succeed in its study. Little is known about this rabbi; this is one of the few places where he appears in all of rabbinic literature. As well, a number of commentators have speculated that Mishnah Avot originally ended at the conclusion of the phrase “your father who is in heaven” since not all of the subsequent sayings are found in the earliest manuscripts.53 For Yehudah ben Tema the four animals are meant to represent forms of devotion to God and Torah study. Rashi interpreted being bold as a leopard to mean using all of one’s ability in studying Torah since this path is mentally and physically demanding. Alternately, Rabbeinu Yonah argued that having the boldness of a leopard meant having the courage to rebuke sinners while also intensively 52 53

Herford, 142; Goldin, Or Hadash, 276. Herford, 143-44.

270

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

studying Torah and never flagging in effort. To him, the swiftness of an eagle referred to a diligence in studying in Torah and returning to it often. Being as fast as a deer alluded to being ready to fulfill all that the 613 commandments of Torah required. Finally, to be as strong as lion meant for Rashi the strength needed to fulfill all these commandments while Rabbeinu Yonah interpreted this to mean focusing all of one’s thoughts and actions towards service of God. All of these traits (boldness, swiftness, speed, strength) can be used for good or ill. It is only when they are oriented towards doing the will of God as found in Torah that they lead to reward (the Garden of Eden) and not punishment (Gehinnom). In the following saying, the stages of life as they relate to study of Torah are outlined. While the text implies that this saying is also by Yehudah ben Tema by the phrase “He used to say,” other sources link this teaching to Shmuel ha-Qatan (already cited in Avot 4:19).54 Regardless, there is a tripartite division to the stages of life. Up to age twenty, one is to focus on study and preparing to fulfill Torah. From age twenty to seventy the focus of one’s life ought to be on the fulfillment of Torah and guiding others along this same path. For this reason, some commentators interpret the statement “a twenty-year old to pursue” to mean not a pursuit of livelihood but the pursuit of fulfilling Torah. The final stage is from age seventy until death. At seventy, one ought to begin withdrawing from public affairs as one’s capacities begin to decline. The phrase “an eighty-year old for strength” is a reference to Psalm 90:10: “The span of our life is seventy years, or, given the strength, eighty years.” Sforno interprets this mishnah to teach that one must be diligent in all phases of life, beginning from one’s youth. The diligence of study, fulfilling commandments, and cultivating virtues must be attended to at all times since one’s powers to do so begin to decline around age 60. If one delays, it might be too late to attain the rewards of eternal life. Extrapolating from Sforno’s point, if one can only prepare for the rewards in the world to come when one is at the height of one’s powers, then the fourfold qualities of the leopard, eagle, deer, and lion are especially important. Whether or not Yehudah ben Tema uttered this saying, it is in keeping with his own contribution to Mishnah Avot. Christian Resonances Commentary on the phrase “our father Abraham” in Avot 5:19 have resonances in Christian traditions concerning this term. Traditional 54

Herford, 144-45.

CHAPTER FIVE

271

Christian perceptions of Judaism have been shaped by a negative dialogue around Abraham as the father of Jews in John 8. In this gospel “the Jews” function as the opponents of Jesus. He declares to the Jews who had believed in them that if they follow his teachings “you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32). In  response the Jews who had believed in Jesus reply that they are the children of Abraham and have never been slaves, thus questioning what Jesus frees them from. From here the conflict escalates: Jesus answered them, “Very truly, I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not have a permanent place in the household; the son has a place there forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you look for an opportunity to kill me, because there is no place in you for my word. I declare what I have seen in the Father’s presence; as for you, you should do what you have heard from the Father.” They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing what Abraham did, but now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are indeed doing what your father does.” They said to him, “We are not illegitimate children; we have one father, God himself.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot accept my word.  You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.  But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.” (John 8:34-45)

As the Jews continue to claim the sufficiency of descent from Abraham, Jesus continues to press the point: freedom and bondage are not about physical descent but concern a spiritual condition of freedom from sin or bondage to it. Jesus teaches that he uniquely mediates spiritual freedom from the authority of God the Father, not father Abraham. Those who resist the authority of Jesus resist the authority of God and hence have the devil as their spiritual father. This is a troubling passage in part because it shows Jews who had believed in Jesus becoming his enemies, condemned to servitude to sin and the devil. Over the centuries, this trope has painted Jews as implacable enemies of the Gospel. And yet, Christian commentators on this passage, such as Augustine of Hippo and John Chrysostom, have not interpreted this passage to mean that Jews are inherently the children of the devil or natural enemies of the Gospel. Rather, they emphasize that

272

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

anyone can fall into the category of being a child of the devil by perpetuating patterns of habitual sin. In preaching on this passage, both Augustine and Chrysostom end their sermons with exhortations to their audience to avoid sin and cultivate Christian virtues.55 While this focus does not mitigate the negative consequences of this passage in light of the history of Jewish-Christian relations, if we place Avot 5:19-21 into the conversation it does offer a way of reconceptualizing the relationship of “the Jews” in the Gospel of John with Jesus. The kernel of the conflict in this passage from John is whether physical descent from Abraham (and membership in the covenant by virtue of it) is sufficient for the salvation of the Jews. Or, is it necessary to have someone liberate them from the sins they commit in this life? The debate here is not a debate between Jesus and the later rabbinic tradition but whatever community of Jews the author of the Gospel of John had in mind. For we see in Avot 5:19 and the commentaries upon it that the rabbinic tradition taught that it was not sufficient to claim ancestry from Abraham. Rather, one had to dedicate oneself to the avoidance of sin and the cultivation of virtue by following the path of Torah, as shown in the exhortation of Avot 5:20. Indeed, being identified as a child of Abraham need not be the exclusive domain of Jews, as Israel Lipschutz declared in commenting upon 5:19. In other words, whether one is a child of Abraham or of the devil might not be about whether or not one is an adherent of Jesus. Rather, it can be construed as a question of whether or not one actively avoids sin and follows the will of God. This of course might not be an entirely satisfactory solution for the Christian tradition if doing the will of God means being a disciple of Jesus. If one ought to do what Jesus hears from the Father, is there any other viable path? This question takes one fundamentally to questions of biblical hermeneutics and whether or not scriptural teaching can be contradicted. While that investigation falls outside the scope of this present commentary, reading the New Testament in light of Mishnah Avot and its commentators introduces new approaches to New Testament interpretation. Avot 5:22 Ben Bag Bag said: “Turn it and turn it for everything is in it. And with it you will see and grow grey and old with it, and do not move from it for there is no greater measure than it.” 55 Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Tractate XLII; John Chrysostom. Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily LIV.

CHAPTER FIVE

273

Avot 5:23 Ben He He said: “According to the labor is the reward.” Jewish Interpretations Our study of Mishnah Avot concludes with sayings by two teachers with unusual epithets, Ben Bag Bag and Ben He He. Some traditions hold that Ben Bag Bag’s real name was Yochanan and he was a disciple of Hillel. Ben Bag Bag was a convert to Judaism, hence his unusual epithet. It is said that his odd name is an acronym for Ben Ger / Bat Ger (the son or daughter of an alien). Thus Yochanan was known as a Gentile, one who had been the child of a ger, an alien or a non-Jew. It is also possible that Ben Bag Bag and Ben He He are the same person. The reasoning is that a convert to Judaism is considered a son of Abraham and Sarah, both of whom had the Hebrew letter he added to their original names (Abram and Sarai).56 The “it” in Ben Bag’s Bag’s saying is of course Torah. As we have seen throughout this commentary, Torah is everything for Israel. Avot 1:2 teaches that Torah has existed from the beginning of creation with God and has been the gift that makes concrete the permanent and on-going relationship between God and Israel. Torah does not fade away for Israel, because that which is so precious to God cannot. Because of Torah’s permanent and foundational value, Torah can be constantly examined, or turned over (as one would do with a scroll). As Rashi explains, to turn over Torah is to consider every part of it. Rabbeinu Yonah emphasizes that learning from Torah should never cease. All knowledge is in Torah and its supply is inexhaustible. Sforno summarizes the extent of wisdom to be found in Torah: “You will find intellectual proof regarding true and authentic opinions of Godly matters, and the immortality of the soul, and similar things, which represent the subject of theological research. This deliberation brings one to love and revere the Almighty, Blessed is He, ‘for that is man’s whole duty’ (Eccl. 12:13), and the basic intent and purpose of Torah.”57 The pursuit of Torah and its knowledge is not for its own sake. Rather, it is what enables one to fulfill one’s highest purpose – to love and honor God. This path unfolds in Torah, its mitzvot, and the depths of wisdom gained by its diligent study. Yet this path is not easy, as Ben He He notes. The reward gained from Torah study is commensurate with the effort expended upon it. Sforno 56 57

Herford, 145-46; BT Kiddushin 10b; Tosafot Hagigah 9b. Sforno on Avot 5:22, 179.

274

DANIEL JOSLYN-SIEMIATKOSKI

notes that a saying from Proverbs illuminates the importance of this effort, “If you seek for it as you do silver and search for it as for treasures, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and attain knowledge of God” (Prov. 2:4-5). Pursuing Torah is costly, but the reward is great. Contemporary scholars have shown that the words of Ben He He’s saying was a commonplace in the Greek-speaking world of that time. In ARN A it is Hillel who utters it and a similar formulation can be found in I Corinthians 3:8.58 The insertion of a proverb common to the eastern Mediterranean world underscores the purpose of Avot. While many possible ways of gaining knowledge exist, for the rabbis the pursuit of wisdom embedded in Torah was the only path that yielded rewards not only in this life but also in the world to come. Indeed, Sforno and others held that it was not necessary to study any other system of knowledge. All other learning from the Gentile world paled in comparison to what could be found by plumbing the depths of Torah. By pursuing Torah and turning it over and over through great efforts, all knowledge and rewards would accrue to the faithful disciples of the rabbis. Christian Resonances It is fitting to end this commentary on Mishnah Avot by considering Ben Bag Bag’s exhortation to turn Torah over and over in a lifetime of study. Throughout this present work, we have seen that the teachings of Jesus emerge out of his own deep knowledge of Torah. But we also discover that while for Christians Torah is a foundation for the teachings of Jesus, it is his life, death and resurrection that make him the path of wisdom and salvation. For Avot and the rabbinic tradition it represents, Torah itself is the path of wisdom and reward in the world to come. Thus the person of Jesus Christ and the Torah have complementary features in Christianity and Judaism. The question that emerges for a Christian reader of Mishnah Avot is what Torah ought to mean in the context of Christian life. While Ben Bag Bag and Ben He He are regarded as converts to Judaism, they are also a final example of a sub-theme present throughout the commentarial tradition on Avot: Gentiles can also benefit from Torah and its study. This present commentary has been an extended meditation on 58 Daniel E. Gershenson, “Greek Proverbs in the Ethics of the Fathers [Aboth],” Grazer Beiträge 19 (1993): 207-19; Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish Palestine in the II-IV Centuries C. E. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942), 160, n. 113.

CHAPTER FIVE

275

what Christians can learn by entering into the stream of rabbinic study of Torah. The general Christian approach to Torah (or, the Old Testament) has been to regard it as essentially fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. But what if Christians imagined Torah as inexhaustible in its meaning, just as the rabbinic tradition did? In one way, we can see inexhaustibility (or fullness) of meaning as another trope that runs in parallel between Torah and Christ. Just as everything is in Torah, Paul writes of Jesus Christ, “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (Col. 1:19). To reconsider the inexhaustibility of Torah, a Christian would have to admit the value of interpretations generated from the rabbinic tradition. An example of what this might mean would include considering the status of Torah beyond a set of five canonical books. In some significant ways, the Torah is hypostasized in the rabbinic tradition, it at times appears as a divine vehicle that mediates God’s salvific activity for Jews. A Christian turn to engaging with a rabbinic view of the fullness of Torah is to ask how the hypostasizing of Torah in some rabbinic conceptions synchronizes with Jesus Christ as a hypostasis of the Triune God. This question is not an attempt to identify Torah in some way with Jesus Christ as the Logos or Word of God incarnated, as was done at times in patristic theology. Rather, is there a way for Christians to identify a salvific path of Torah that is distinct from Christology? This returns us again to the question of covenantal relationships between God, Israel and the Church and the ways in which Torah and Jesus Christ are mediating agents. A Christian return to the inexhaustible fullness of the meaning of Torah would mean moving across the border of covenantal communities and sojourning as a guest hearing interpretations of Torah that, while written in a different key, resonate with the songs of wisdom and salvation they have already heard.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this commentary on Mishnah Avot was to explore how a Christian might comparatively engage in a foundational text of rabbinic Judaism and draw Christian theological insights from it while avoiding supersessionist theological tendencies. In this commentary, three clusters of themes have emerged: the nature of Jesus Christ in light of rabbinic teaching about Torah, the covenanted relationship between Israel and the Church, and the role of Torah for Christians. As well, this commentary also highlights the limits of comparative theological reflection and the difficulty of comparative work. In the course of writing this commentary, I have attempted to avoid offering definitive formulations about the theological matters I surfaced. Rather, I have sought to engage in a patient reading of Avot, waiting for insights to emerge over repeated engagement with it. Likewise, regarding the relevance of Avot and its commentarial tradition for Christian theology, I have largely been content to raise questions that require further development rather than to rush too quickly to definitive formulations. This position is grounded in an awareness that the Jewish tradition itself is much broader than what I can possibly present in this volume, requiring that any insights at this moment are provisional. But I also adopted this stance as a reflection of my own Anglican theological heritage, which itself is more comfortable with raising questions and signaling ambiguities than providing detailed speculative theology that might go beyond scriptural and creedal affirmations. As the twentieth century Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey once described it, Anglicanism is not a system of thought but “a method, a use, a direction.”1 Comparative theology also might be described this way. And so this conclusion seems to be a fitting moment to review the major questions that have surfaced. Who is Jesus in Light of Avot? A significant aspect of the creation of Christian identity in its formative period was the claim that following Jesus Christ replaces fulfillment 1

A. Michael Ramsey, “What is Anglican Theology?” Theology 48 (1945): 6.

278

CONCLUSION

of the commandments found in Torah. As this commentary has shown, within the rabbinic tradition Torah came to represent a mediation of revelation and grace for Israel that resonates strongly with Christian conceptions of Jesus Christ as the unique mediator of revelation and salvation. In chapter one, I explored how the teachings of Jesus recorded in the gospels show both a firm location in contemporaneous Jewish thought while also possessing a distinctive quality compared to other teachers of his era. The important theological claim for the uniqueness of Jesus Christ needs to be articulated in light of his dynamic location in Second Temple Jewish teachings. Despite his distinctiveness, Jesus is a committed teacher of Torah in the gospel accounts. Given this, a key issue is the relationship between Jesus Christ as a teacher of Torah and his role as a divine mediator, including for Gentiles who do not participate in Israel’s covenant with God represented by fidelity to the Torah given at Sinai. The Christian conceptualization of Jesus Christ as a mediator of the divine can also be found in Jewish thought but applied to Torah. As discussed in chapter three, while Jewish and Christian theology shares common terms, images, and texts, their meaning, interpretation, and application differ according to whether the primary mediating figure is the Torah or Jesus Christ. Both traditions offer the possibility for deep relationship with God flowing from creation in the divine image to divine revelation to identification as children of God. There is a tight link between creation and revelation via a mediating agent that provides people the means to be the children of God. This raises the question which was surfaced in chapter two whether Christians can identify in Jesus Christ and Torah two manifestations of divine revelation. In this perspective, the Incarnation of thw Word of God in Jesus Christ does not succeed or replace the revelation of God’s Word at Sinai. Rather these two revelations exist and operate alongside each other, affirming two covenants of Israel and the Church that depend upon the complimentary divine revelations of Torah and Christ. What is the Relationship between Israel and the Church? The affirmation of two covenants manifested in Torah and Jesus Christ brings our attention to the question of the relationship between Israel and the Church. A common supersessionist claim made in Christian teaching is that the Church has replaced the Jewish people as Israel. A common element in justifying this claim was that the Law (Torah) had a punitive dimension meant to constrain the Jewish people’s propensity to sin. In contrast, the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and his redemptive

CONCLUSION

279

death and resurrection lifted the penalties of the Law for those who believed in him while condemning those Jews who continued to observe it. Outward observance of the Law held no redemptive significance for Christians. This commentary has shown that rabbinic Judaism and its successor traditions did not experience keeping Torah as restrictive, punitive or lacking spiritual depth. Rather, a Christian reading Avot and its commentaries can identify the practice of Torah as a graced actvity and identify Judaism as a graced community. This is due to the ongoing validity and vitality of the covenant between God and Israel initiated with Abraham and expanded upon at Sinai. Where historically Christianity identified keeping the works of the Law as a practice that hindered salvation and did not merit reward, Jewish communities consistently experienced Torah observance as a gracious, faith-filled experience that featured collaboration between humanity and God. Keeping Torah merited reward and the effort in doing so included the gracious assistance of God who kept covenant with Israel. This insight means that the Church ought to reconsider its relationship to Israel. To begin with, if the Church is to claim the title of Israel, it ought to do so very carefully with the acknowledgment that it participates in the life of Israel but it does not encompass all of it. Out of humility it might be better if the title was avoided all together, to signal the ongoing covenanted life between God and the Jewish people. It is enough to be the Ecclesia, those who have been gathered from the nations of the earth to join with Israel in praise of the God who has graciously revealed himself in history in both Torah and Jesus Christ. If keeping Torah is a vehicle for revelation, grace, redemption, and merit for Israel, then what is the relationship between Israel’s abiding covenant with God and the one that Jesus Christ made in his life, death, and resurrection? Rather than arguing that this new covenant somehow replaces or cancels an older one, I have argued in this commentary that it is more faithful to the biblical witness and the testimony of Jewish life that a Christian affirms Israel’s covenant with God grounded in Torah and the Church’s with God through Jesus Christ. In light of this, one can affirm that God has made two covenants, one for Israel through Torah and the other for Gentiles through Jesus Christ. These are not covenants that are meant to exist in tension and competition with each other. Rather, Israel and the Church can cooperate together in a shared covenantal mission to create conditions of justice and peace in the places where they dwell.

280

CONCLUSION

To affirm two covenants, though, is to invite further questions that this commentary has not resolved. Two are most pressing. The first is, for whom is Jesus Christ salvific? Is he only redemptive for Gentiles but not Jews? Does affirming two covenants limit his universal significance and does it alter the historic teachings of the Church encapsulated in its ancient creeds and confessions? Can Jesus Christ be fully human and fully divine and not have redemptive meaning for Israel? At this point, I would point back to the question of how the Word of God was present and operated at Sinai. Is there a way to render in a non-supersessionist way via Trinitarian theology the affirmation that Christ’s redemptive significance for Israel rests in the gracious activity of the Word of God that was revealed through God the Father in the Torah at Sinai? In other words, does it do violence to non-supersessionist theological commitments to claim that the pre-existent Son of God who became incarnate as Jesus Christ was present at the giving of Torah at Sinai if this claim is used to affirm a two covenant theology? At the moment this is a tentative theological statement on my part and one which I invite other theologians and faithful Jews and Christians to ponder. Alongside this question lies a second one: Do other people also exist in covenanted relationships with God that makes the covenant offered to the nations through Jesus Christ unnecessary? Or does the work of Jesus Christ herald a new covenanted reality for all nations but only through the medium of the Church? This commentary has not considered the teachings and experiences of other traditions outside of Judaism and Christianity. Does a two covenant theory introduce a relativizing of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ so that one could claim that all religions in some way also have their own covenanted relationships with God? For whom then would Jesus Christ be salvific? Is there a boundary to be drawn? What is the Significance of Torah for Christians? If Jesus Christ is a teacher of Torah and the keeping of Torah is a faithful expression of Israel’s covenant with God, how then ought contemporary Christians regard Torah? Are they obligated to keep more of it than they are accustomed? On the one hand, the gospels indicate that Jesus was concerned for his disciples to keep Torah. On this point the Gospel of Matthew is especially clear. On the other hand, many Gentiles came to follow Jesus. The early church, as shown in Acts and Galatians, ruled that Gentile followers of Jesus did not need to observe all of Torah but only a more limited observance emphasizing morality and avoidance

CONCLUSION

281

of idolatry. It might be fair to say that a Christian would be required to observe the moral teachings of Torah yet not feel an obligation regarding commandments specific to the life of Israel, such as festivals and tithing practices. While a Christian is one who lives as a disciple of Jesus, this does not mean that the path of following Torah ought to be denigrated. It too has redemptive significance and moral value. While a Christian need not observe the laws of tithing or jubilees, a sober study of the significance of these laws and an appreciation for their significance is important. The example of the Apostle Paul and his relationship with Gamliel is useful here. As discussed in chapter one, Paul’s knowledge of Torah via Gamliel enabled him to skillfully communicate the message of Jesus Christ to Gentiles. This commentary has shown how contemporary study of Torah through the lens of rabbinic interpretation can continue to inform Christian life and thought. Knowing Torah and the moral life that has arisen out of it in Judaism can deepen the theological, ethical, and spiritual dimensions of contemporary Christianity. Jews and Christian often already recognize a shared ethical orientation because they share the Scriptures of Israel. Sustained study of Jewish interpretations of Torah can strengthen and sustain the shared covenantal mission of Jews and Christians. As I have argued in chapter five of this commentary, a Christian approach to Torah as a living revelation that contains inexhaustible meaning will lead to greater engagement with Torah itself. In it is a deep reservoir of wisdom and grace. While Christians acknowledge that the teaching of Jesus is new wine that has been poured into new wineskins for the Church, I argue that the wine of Torah is still to be savored. There is nothing to prevent a Christian to drink from both wineskins, honoring the depth and wisdom of one while affirming the call that the other represents. Sustained Christian engagement and study of Torah in light of the teachings of the rabbis and other Jewish teachers will serve to strengthen Christian commitment to the path of discipleship to Jesus while also drawing one into the deep mysteries of the shared covenantal lives of Israel and the Church found in the gracious economy of God. Reflections on Writing a Comparative Theology Commentary Alongside the questions raised above, it is also worth reflecting on the process of writing a comparative theology commentary. One thing I have discovered in this project is that if writing a commentary on a text from one’s own tradition is challenging, it is doubly so for a text from a

282

CONCLUSION

different tradition. The task of writing a commentary is daunting: the commentator is charged with explicating the text, taking into account prior scholarship, synthesizing perspectives, and judiciously deciding what to foreground, what to mention in passing, and what to pass over. To attempt this with a text that is not part of one’s own tradition poses an even greater challenge. In this case, the commentator needs to attempt a depth of knowledge that would require a lifetime of study. Even when one has studied another tradition diligently, gaps in knowledge still arise. To then engage in comparative reflections, never a simple task in itself, adds another layer of complexity to the writing process. In the process of writing this commentary, I often found that humility was a required scholarly disposition. This manifested in three primary ways for me: disciplinary, confessional, and intellectual. Disciplinary humility begins with the fact that writing a comparative theology commentary can be a difficult thing to explain to other scholars. This was especially the case when I approached Jewish Studies scholars in the course of this project. Commentaries on Avot are common in Judaism. These commentaries, because they do not concern matters of halakhah, can have a fluid quality to them. They do not offer normative teachings and the opinions rendered in them are not considered definitive for Jewish life. Rather, these commentaries concern issues of ethics, morality, and spirituality that while vital lend themselves to differing emphases. That a Christian would work on Avot is not in itself unusual, as I showed in the introduction to this book. But that I was writing a commentary that would then compare Avot and its commentators with Christian thought was a project that required more careful explanation and still not often fully grasped. Working as a comparative theologian whose primary training is in historical theology also carried complications. Several scholars informed me that comparing Avot with New Testament texts was not a legitimate move since the redaction of the two texts differs by more than a hundred years. While I would argue that my historical training has helpfully informed my work, this book is not a historical project nor were the resonances I explored meant to establish historical linkages. Rather, the point was comparative theological reflections for the contemporary reader. The lesson I discerned through these interactions was that the comparative theologian ought not only come to the text with humility but also that the navigation across disciplinary boundaries in the academy also requires humility and patience to dialogue with conversation partners outside the discipline of comparative theology. With disciplinary humility I also embraced the humility of an outsider to Judaism. Although I went deeply into the meaning of Avot and its

CONCLUSION

283

commentaries, I encountered the limitations of my own confessional grounding as a theological reader of Avot. Even if attempting to read Avot through Jewish lenses, I ultimately ran up against the fact that I am not Jewish and I could not always capture nuances of Avot or its commentaries that a Jewish reader steeped in the tradition would. During the process of writing this commentary, Jewish readers of drafts would bring nuances of interpretation that I had missed. Sometimes I incorporated these readings, especially when they helped correct my own interpretations. But at other times I did not. I deliberately chose the absence of some of these nuanced readings as a gesture towards the incompleteness of my own knowledge of Avot. At the time of this writing I am probably one of a small handful of Christian scholars who have any deep knowledge of Avot. And yet I present this commentary as incomplete in some way, acknowledging that I stand humbly as an outsider to this tradition who is awed and grateful to have gained some glimpse of the depths of rabbinic Judaism and its heritage. This sense of confessional humility takes me to a third aspect of humility. I had to accept that the depth of commentaries on Avot meant that I could not offer a definitive commentary on it. Centuries of commentaries exist on Avot and I chose to limit myself to a classic set of commentaries that, even with all the wisdom found in them, could only approximate a portion of the spectrum of Jewish interpretations on Avot. To attempt to account for all possible interpretive perspectives and also include my comparative reflections upon them would have resulted in an unwieldy “supercomemntary” that would have undermined the project as a whole. I believe the perspectives I have chosen to include were the best ones to select, but I offer this commentary with the humble acknowledgement that there is still more to study and investigate regarding Avot, its commentaries, and what they have to offer for Christian theological reflections. I link this stance of scholarly, confessional, and intellectual humility with the interpretive stance of my Anglican tradition. Diarmaid MacCulloch, a historian of the English Reformation, argues that “Anglicanism is a trial-and-error form of Christianity… Anglicanism is an approach to God which acknowledges that He is often good at remaining silent and provoking more questions than answers.”2 Over the years I have come to believe that of all the forms of Christianity, Anglicanism comes 2 Diarmaid MacCulloch, All Things Made New: The Reformation and Its Legacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 361-62.

284

CONCLUSION

the closest to Judaism in terms of its willingness to engage with paradox, ambiguity, and multiple perspectives on the interpretation of Scripture and received tradition. The common Jewish image of Torah being a vast sea to which one contributes a drop of interpretation is one that sits comfortably with my own Anglican perspective on the intersection of Scripture, tradition, and living communities of faith. As Rabbi Yose ben Yoezer taught in Avot 1:4, all should seek to drink thirstily from the words of Torah that the sages teach. Over the course of writing this commentary I have indeed drunk deeply from the words of many wise teachers. I offer this commentary in gratitude as my own humble contribution to the sea of wisdom that flows from Torah.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources Aelred of Rievaulx. Spiritual Friendship. Translated by Mary Eugenia Laker. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1977. Albeck, Hanoch. Shishah Sidre Mishnah. 6 vols. Jerusalem/Tel Aviv: Bialik Institute / Dvir, 1952–58. Ambrose of Milan. On the Duties of the Clergy. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, edited by Philip Schaf and Henry Wace, vol.10. Edinburgh and Grand Rapids: T&T Clark / Eerdmans, 1989. Augustine of Hippo. Homilies on the Gospel of John. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, edited by Philip Schaf and Henry Wace, vol. 7. Edinburgh and Grand Rapids: T&T Clark / Eerdmans, 1989. Augustine of Hippo. The Literal Meaning of Genesis. Translated by Edmund Hill, O.P. In On Genesis. The Works of Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century 1/13. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2002. Augustine of Hippo. Sermons III (51-94) on the New Testament. Translated by Edmund Hill, O.P. The Works of Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century 3.3. Brooklyn: New City Press, 1991. Augustine of Hippo. Sermons 94A-147A. Translated by Edmund Hill, O.P. The Works of Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century 3.4. Brooklyn, NY: New City Press, 1992. Augustine of Hippo. Sermon 306-340A. Translated by Edmund Hill, O.P. The Works of Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century 3.9. Brooklyn, NY: New City Press, 1994. Augustine of Hippo, The Work of Monks. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, ed. Joseph Zycha, vol. 41. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1866. Cassian, John. The Conferences. Translated by Boniface Ramsey. Ancient Christian Writers, 57. New York: Newman Press, 1997. CATECHISM of the Catholic Church. Washington D.C.: United States Catholic Conference/Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994. Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation, “To Do the Will of Our Father in Heaven: Toward a Partnership between Jews and Christians,” December 3, 2015. http://cjcuc.com/site/2015/12/03/orthodoxrabbinic-statement-on-christianity/. Accessed March 4, 2016. Clement of Alexandria. The Instructor. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 2. Edinburgh and Grand Rapids: T&T Clark / Eerdmans, 1989. Clement of Alexandria. Stromateis II.18.80. Translated by John Ferguson. The Fathers of the Church, vol. 85. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press of America, 1991.

286

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, “The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable” (Rom 11:29): A Reflection on Theological Questions Pertaining to Catholic-Jewish Relations on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of “Nostra Aetate” (No. 4), 2015. CONFESSIONS and Catechisms of the Reformation. Edited by Mark A. Noll. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1991. I Corinthians: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators. Translated and edited by Judith L. Kovacs. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933. THE Didascalia Apostolorum in English. vol. 1. Translated by Arthur Vööbus. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orienta-lium, vol. 402. Louvain: Secrétariat du Corps SCO, 1979. EPISTLE of Barnabas. Edited by Pierre Prigent. SC 172. Paris: Cerf, 1971. Goldin, Judah, trans. The Fathers According to Nathan. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955. Goldin, Judah, trans. The Living Talmud: The Wisdom of the Fathers. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955. Goldin, Judah. “Pirkei Avot” in Or Hadash: A Commentary on Siddur Sim Shalom for Shabbat and Festivals. Edited by Reuven Hammer. New York: The Rabbinical Assembly, 2005. “Guidelines on Religious Relations with the Jews.” In Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Revised Edition. Edited by Austin Flannery. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1987. Herford, Robert Travers. Pirke Aboth. The Ethics of the Talmud: Sayings of the Fathers. New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1945. Hirsch, Samson Raphael. Chapters of the Fathers. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, 1967. Hoffman, Lawrence A, ed. My People’s Prayer Book: Traditional Prayers, Modern Commentaries: Vol. 2 – The Amidah. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 1998. Homer. The Iliad. Translated by Robert Fagles. New York: Penguin, 1990. Hooker, Richard, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity: A Critical Edition with Modern Spelling. Edited by Arthur Stephen McGrade. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies. The Ante-Nicene Fathers edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 1. Edinburgh and Grand Rapids: T&T Clark / Eerdmans, 1989. John Chrysostom. Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew. Nicene and PostNicene Fathers, edited by Philip Schaf and Henry Wace, vol. 10. Edinburgh and Grand Rapids: T&T Clark / Eermans, 1989. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson vol. 1. Edinburgh and Grand Rapids: T&T Clark / Eerdmans, 1989. Kehati,  Pinhas. Pirkei Avot.  Translated by Abraham J. Erhlich and Avner Tomaschoff. Jerusalem: Eliner Library, 1994.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

287

Lau, Yirael Meir. Rav Lau on Pirkei Avot: A Comprhensive Commentary on the Ethics of the Father, 2 vol. Brooklyn: Mesorah, 2006-2007. Maimonides. The Guide of the Perplexed, Vol. 2. Translated by Shlomo Pines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963. Maimonides. Pirkei Avot with the Rambam’s Commentary. Translated by Eliyahu Touger. New York and Jerusalem: Moznaim Publishing, 1994. MIDRASH Rabbah Ecclesiastes. Translated by A. Cohen. New York: Soncino 1983. MISHNAT Reuven, Masekhet Avot 1-2. Jerusalem: Mosad Ha-Rav Kook, 2004. Oden, Thomas C. and Christopher A. Hall, eds. Mark. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. 2. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1998. Pope Francis, “Visit to the Synagogue of Rome: Address of His Holiness Pope Francis,” January 17, 2016. https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/ speeches/2016/january/documents/papa-francesco_20160117_sinagoga. html. Accessed March 7, 2016. RABBEINU Yonah on Pirkei Avos. Translated by David Sedley. Revised 2nd edition. Brooklyn: Judaica Press, 2008. RABBINIC Stories. Translated by Jeffrey L. Rubenstein. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2002. THE Rule of Saint Benedict: Latin & English. Translated by Luke Dysinger, OSB. Trabuco Canyon, CA: Source Books, 1996. THE Rule of St. Benedict. Translated and Edited by Timothy Fry. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1981. Saldarini, Anthony J. The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (Abot de Rabbi Nathan Version B): A Translation and Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 1975. THE Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection. Translated by Benedicta Ward. Oxford: Mowbray, 1975. Schechter, Solomon. Aspects of Rabbinic Theology. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing, 1993. Sforno, Obadiah. Commentary on Pirkei Avot. Translated by Raphael Pelcovitz. Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah, 1996. Simonetti, Manlio, ed. Matthew 1-13. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. 1a. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001. Secondary Sources Alexander, Peter S. “Jesus and the Golden Rule.” In Hillel and Jesus, edited by James H. Charlesworth and Loren L. Johns, 363-88. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997. Allison, Dale C. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993. Allison, Dale C. The Sermon on the Mount: Inspiring the Moral Imagination. New York: Crossroads, 1999. Alter, Robert. The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. New York: W. W. Norton, 2010.

288

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Becker, Adam and Annette Yoshiko Reed. Introduction to The Ways that Never Parted. Edited by Adam Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2007. Betz, Han Dieter. The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49). Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Bickerman, Elias Joseph. “The Maxim of Antigonus of Socho.” Harvard Theological Review 44.4 (1951): 153-165. Bischoff, Eric. Kritische Geschichte der Thalmud-Übersetzungen. Frankfurt: Kauffmann: 1899. Boyarin, Daniel. Borderlines: The Partition of Judeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Boyarin, Daniel. Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999. Boyarin, Daniel. The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ. New York: The New Press, 2012. Brown, Peter. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982. Charlesworth, James H. and Loren L. Johns, editors. Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997. Chazan, Robert. Medieval Stereotypes and Modern Antisemitism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Clinton, DeWitt. “Sitting at the Buddha with the Tanna’im: Walking Through the Dhammapada and Pirke Avot,” Journal of Interreligious Dialogue 6. (2011). Clooney, Francis X. Theology After Vendata: An Experiment in Comparative Theology. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993. Clooney, Francis X. “Roberto de Nobili’s Dialogue on Eternal Life and an Early Jesuit Evaluation of Religion in South India.” In The Jesuits: Cultures, the Sciences, and the Arts 1540-1773, edited by John W. O’Malley, S.J. and T. Frank Kennedy, S.J., 402-417. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999. Clooney, Francis X. Comparative Theology: Deep Learnings Across Religious Borders. Malden and Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2010. Clooney, Francis X., ed. The New Comparative Theology: Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation. New York and London: T & T Clark, 2010. Cohen, Jeffrey M. “Shmuel HaKatan and the Political Background to Avot 4:19,” Judaism 44.2 (1995): 171-180. Cohen, Jeremy. Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Cohen, Matty. “La maxime des hommes de la Grande Assemblée: une reconsideration,” in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky. Edited by Andre Caquot, Mireille Hadas-Lebel, and Jean Riaud, 281-296. Leuven: Edition Peeters, 1986.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

289

Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians. Sacra Pagina Series, vol. 7. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999. Cornille, Catherine, ed. Many Mansions? Multiple Religious Belonging and Christian Identity. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002. Crenshaw, J. L. “The Acquisition of Knowledge in Israelite Wisdom Literature.” In Word and World 7 (1987): 245-52. Culbertson, Philip. “Herford, R(obert) Travers (1860-1950).” A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations, edited by Edward Kessler and Neil Winborn, 184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Cunningham, Philip A. “Biblical Land Promises and the State of Israel: A Challenge for Catholic (and Jewish) Theology.” In Seeking Shalom: The Journey to Right Relationship between Christians and Jews, 220-33. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Davies, W. D. Jewish and Pauline Studies. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Derrett, J. Duncan M. “Mishnāh, 'Avôt 5: 13 in Early Buddhism.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 67:1 (2004): 79-87. Dibelius, Martin. James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James. Revised by Heinrich Greeven. Translated by Michael A. Williams. Edited by Michael A. Willams. Hermeneia – A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976. Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Eisenbaum, Pamela. Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of the Misunderstood Apostle. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Finkelstein, Louis “Introductory Study to Pirke Abot.” Journal of Biblical Literature 57:1 (1938): 13-50. Finkelstein, Louis. “The Maxim of the Anshe Keneset Ha-Gedolah.” Journal of Biblical Literature 59:4 (1940): 455-57. Fischel, Henry A. “Studies in Cynicism and the Ancient Near East: The Transformation of a Chria.” In Religions in Antiquity. Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, edited by Jacob Neusner, 372-411. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Fischel, Henry A. “The Transformation of Wisdom in the World of Midrash.” In Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Robert L. Wilken, 67-101. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975. Fisher, Cass. “Beyond the Homiletical: Rabbinic Theology as a Discursive and Reflective Practice.” The Journal of Religion 90:2 (2010): 199-236. Fitzmyer, Joseph. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Yale Bible, vol. 32. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Flusser, David. “Hillel’s Self-Awareness and Jesus.” In Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 509-14. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988. Fraade, Steven. “The Early Rabbinic Sage.” In The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, edited by John Gammie and Leo Perdue, 417-436. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

290

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fredriksen, Paula. Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism. New York: Doubleday, 2008. Gammie, John G. “The Sage in Sirach.” In The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, edited by John Gammie and Leo Perdue, 355-372. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Gershenson, Daniel E. “Greek Proverbs in the Ethics of the Fathers [Aboth].” Grazer Beiträge 19 (1993): 207-219. Goldin, Judah. “The First Pair (Yose ben Yoezer and Yose Ben Yohanan) or the Home of a Pharisee.” AJS Review 5 (1980): 41-62. Goldin, Judah. “A Philosophical Session in a Tanaaite Academy.” In Teaching the Ancient World, edited by Douglas M. Astoli, 99-115. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Goldin, Judah. “The Second Pair.” American Academy for Jewish Research 58 (1992): 41-46. Goldin, Judah. “The Third Chapter of Abot De-Rabbi Natan.” Harvard Theological Review 58:4 (1965): 365-386. Goldin, Judah. “The Three Pillars of Simeon the Righteous.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 27 (1958): 54. Goldman, Shalom. “The Rev. Herbert Danby (1889–1953): Hebrew Scholar, Zionist, Christian Missionary.” Modern Judaism 27:2 (2007): 219-245. Goshen-Gottstein, Alon. “Hillel and Jesus: Are Comparisons Possible?” In  Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders, edited by James H. Charlesworth and Loren L. Johns, 31-55. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997. Goshen-Gottstein, Alon. “Jewish-Christian Relations and Rabbinic Literature – Shifting Scholarly and Relational Paradigms: The Case of Two Powers.” In Interaction between Interaction between Judaism and Christianity in History, Religion, Art and Literature, edited by Marcel Poorthuis, Joshua Schwartz, and Joseph Turner, 15-44. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Gottlieb, Isaac B. “Pirqe Abot and Biblical Wisdom.” Vetus Testamentum 40:2 (1990): 152-164. Gould, Graham. The Desert Fathers on Monastic Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Hadot, Pierre. Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault. Translated by Arnold I. Davidson. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995. HEBRAICA Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in the Early Modern Period, Allison P. Coudert and Jeffrey S, Shoulson, eds. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Heschel, Susannah. Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Hezser, Catherine. “Interfaces between Rabbinic Literature and Graeco-Roman Philosophy.” In The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol. 2, edited by Peter Schäfer and Catherine Hezser. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

291

Hezser, Catherine. The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Hirshman, Marcus. A Rivalry of Genius: Jewish and Christian Biblical in Late Antiquity. New York: SUNY Press, 1996. Horbury, William. "Jewish-Christian Relations in Barnabas and Justin Martyr." In Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, edited by James D. G. Dunn, 315-346. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Hultgren, Stephen. “Rabbi Akiba on Divine Providence and Human Freedom: Abot 3:15-16 and Abot De Rabbi Nathan (B) 22:13-15.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 18:2 (2011): 107-143. Jaffee, Martin S. Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE-400 CE. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, Daniel. Christian Memories of the Maccabean Martyrs. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, Daniel. “Comparative Theology and the Status of Judaism: Hegemony and Reversals.” In The New Comparative Theology: Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation, edited by Francis X. Clooney, 89-108. New York: T&T Clark, 2010. Kerferd, George B. “The Sage in Hellenistic Philosophical Literature (399 B.C.E. – 199 B.C.E.)” In The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, edited by John Gammie and Leo Perdue, 319-328. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Kimelman, Reuven. “Judaism and Pluralism,” Modern Judaism 7:2 (1987): 131-150. Kogan, Michael S. Opening the Covenant: A Jewish Theology of Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Langer, Ruth. Cursing the Christians? A History of the Birkhat Haminim. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Langer, Ruth. “Theologies of the Land and State of Israel: The Role of the Secular in Christian and Jewish Understandings.” Studies in ChristianJewish Relations 3 (2008): http://[email protected]/scjr/vol3. Accessed March 10, 2016. Lefebure, Leo D. and Peter Feldmeier. The Path of Wisdom: A Christian Commentary on the Dhammapada. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Lemcio, Eugene E. “Pirke 'Abot 1:2(3) and the Synoptic Redactions of the Commands to Love God and Neighbour.” Asbury Theological Journal 43.1 (1988): 43-53. Lerner, Michael B. ‘The Tractate Avot.’ In The Literature of the Sages: Oral Tora, Halakha, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates, edited by Shmuel Safrai and Peter J. Tomson, 263-276. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. Levenson, Alan. “Missionary Protestants as Defenders and Detractors of Judaism: Franz Delitzsch and Hermann Strack.” Jewish Quarterly Review 92:3/4 (2002), 383-420. Levine, Amy-Jill and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds. The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

292

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lesses, Rebecca. “Eschatological Sorrow, Divine Weeping, and God’s Right Arm.” In Paradise Now: Essays on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism, edited by April D. De Conick, 265-286. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Lieberman, Saul. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E.-IV Century C.E. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942. Locklin, Reid B. and Hugh Nicholson, “The Return of Comparative Theology.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 78.2 (2010): 477-514. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 21-28: A Commentary. Translated by Wilhelm C. Linss. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2005. MacCulloch, Diarmaid. All Things Made New: The Reformation and Its Legacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Marguerat, Daniel. “Paul and the Torah in the Acts of the Apostles.” In The Torah in the New Testament, edited by Michael Tait and Peter Oakes, 98-117. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Meier, John R. Matthew. New Testament Message, vol. 3. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1980. Montague, George T. The Holy Spirit: Growth of a Biblical Tradition. New York: Paulist Press, 1976. Neusner, Jacob. Introduction to Rabbinic Literature. New York: Doubleday, 1994. Nirenberg, David. Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition. New York: Norton, 2013. Novick, Tzvi. “Tradition and Truth: The Ethics of Lawmaking in Tannaitic Literature,” Jewish Quarterly Review 110.2 (2010): 223-243. Pawlikowski, John. Christ in the Light of the Christian-Jewish Dialogue. New York: Paulist Press, 1982. Pies, Ronald. The Ethics of the Sages: An Interfaith Commentary. New York: Jason Aronson, 2000. Plaskow, Judith. Standing at Sinai: Judaism from a Feminist Perspective. New York: Harper, 1991. Rahner, Karl and Herbert Vorgrimler. Theological Dictionary. Edited by Cornelius Ernst. Translated by Richard Strachan. New York: Herder and Herder, 1965. Ramsey, A. Michael. “What is Anglican Theology?” Theology 48 (1945): 2-6. Rapp, Claudia. Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005. Reinhartz, Adele. Befriending the Beloved Disciple: A Jewish Reading of the Gospel of John. New York: Bloomsbury, 2002. Rooden, Peter T. van. Theology, Biblical Scholarship, and Rabbinical Studies in the Seventeenth Century. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Rosenblatt, Samuel. The Interpretation of the Bible in the Mishnah. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1935.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

293

Saldarini, Anthony J. Scholastic Rabbinism: A Literary Study of the Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982. Saldarini, Anthony J. Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Sandmel, Samuel. "Parallelomania." Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 1-13. Sarna, Nahum. Exodus. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991. Schäfer, Peter. Jesus in the Talmud. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. Schäfer, Peter. The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. Schechter, Solomon. Abot de Rabbi Nathan. Vienna: Georg Olms Verlag, 1887. Schofer, Jonathan. “Spiritual Exercises in Rabbinic Culture.” AJS Review 27:2 (2003): 203-225. Schofer, Jonathan. The Making of a Sage: A Study in Rabbinic Ethics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2005. Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Schwartz, Seth. Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society? Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Sievers, Joseph. “‘Where Two or Three… ’: The Rabbinic Concept of Shekhinah and Matthew 18:20.” SIDIC 17: 4-10. Sheveland, John. “Solidarity through Polyphony.” In The New Comparative Theology, edited by Francis X. Clooney, 171-190. New York and London: T & T Clark, 2010. Siegal, Michal Bar-Asher. Early Christian Monastic Literature and the Babylonian Talmud. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Siegal, Michal Bar-Asher. “Saying of the desert fathers, Sayings of the rabbinic fathers: Avot deRabbi Nattan and the Apophthegmata Patrum.” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 20.2 (2016): 243-259. Signer, Michael and John Van Engen. Jews and Christians in 12th Century Europe. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. Skehan, Patrick W. and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. In The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries, vol. 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smith, Jonathan Z. Drudgery Divine: On the Comparisons of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. Steimetz, Devora. “Distancing and Bringing Near: A New Look at Mishnah Tractates Eduyyot and Abot.” Hebrew Union College Annual 73 (2002): 49-96. Stemberger, Günter. “Mischna Avot: frühe Weisheitsschrift, pharisäisches Erbe oder spätrabbinische Bildung?.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 96:3-4 (2005): 243-258.

294

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Stemberger, Günter. “"Schaff dir einen Lehrer, erwirb dir einen Kollegen" (mAv 1,6): Lernen als Tradition und Gemeinschaft” in Religiöses Lernen in der biblischen, frühjüdischen und frühchristlichen Überlieferung, edited by Beate Ego and Helmut Merkel, 141-55. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Strack, Hermann. Pirke Avot, Die Sprüche der Väter: Ein Ethischer MischnaTraktat. Berlin: H. Reuther, 1888. Strack, Hermann and Paul Billerback. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch 6 vol. Munich: Beck, 1922-1961. Strack, H. L. and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Translated and edited by Markus Bockmuehl. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992. Tomson, Peter J. Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1999. Taylor, Charles. Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, Comprising Pirqe Aboth in Hebrew and English with Notes and Excurses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1877. Taylor, Charles. An Appendix to the Sayings of the Jewish Fathers Containing a Catalogue of Manuscripts and Notes on the Text of Aboth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900. Thunberg, Lars. “The Human Person as Image of God: Eastern Christianity.” In Christian Spirituality: Origins to the Twelfth Century, edited by Bernard McGinn and John Meyendorff, 291-311. New York: Crossroads, 1987. Tropper, Amram. Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography: Tractate Avot in the Context of the Graeco-Roman Near East. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Ulmer, Rivka. “Construction, Destruction, and Reconstruction: The Temple in Pesiqta Rabbati.” In The Temple of Jerusalem: From Moses to the Messiah, edited by Steven Fine, 105-124. Leiden: Brill. 2011. Van Buren, Paul. A Theology of the Jewish-Christian Reality, 3 vol. New York: Harper & Row, 1980-88. Viviano, Benedict. Study as Worship: Aboth and the New Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Wall, Robert W. Community of the Wise: The Letter of James. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997. Wengst, Klaus. “Worauf Die Welt Steht Und Das Gewichtigere in Der Tora (mAv 1,18 Und Mt 23, 23).” In “Eine Grenze hast Du gesetzt”; Edna Brocke zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Ekkehard W. Stegemann and Klaus Wengst, 249-57. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003. Wilken, Robert L. The Land Called Holy: Palestine in Christian History and Thought. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. Williamson, Clark M. A Guest in the House of Israel. Louisville: Westminster / John Knox Press, 1993. Wills, Lawrence M. “Scribal Methods in Matthew and Mishnah Abot.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63:2 (2001): 241-257.

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706