Pirkei Avot Capítulo 6 Mishna 1
Rabbi Meir says: Anyone who is involved in Torah for its own sake merits many things. Furthermore, the entire world is worthwhile for him. He is called friend, beloved, lover of God, lover of people, rejoicer of God, rejoicer of people. The Torah dresses him with humility and fear and prepares him to be righteous, pious, upright, and faithful. It keeps him away from sin and brings him close to merit. People enjoy his advice and wisdom, understanding and might, as the verse states, “With me (Torah) there is counsel and wisdom; I am understanding; with me is might.” The Torah gives him sovereignty, dominion, and the ability to analyze judgment. The secrets of the Torah are revealed to him, and he becomes like an ever-flowing spring and like a river that never ceases. He is modest, patient, and forgiving of insults. It makes him great and elevates him over all of creation.
Our chapter begins: The sages expounded in the language of the Mishnah (blessed is He who chose them and their learning). An introduction like this is quite unique. There are thousands of tannaitic statements, known as beraithot, that were not selected for inclusion in the Mishnah. Wherever they are collected and presented, for instance, in Tosefta, it is without introduction. (By definition, a beraitha is a Tannaitic statement that was left “outside,” that is, not one of the Tannaitic statements included “inside” the body of mishnayoth.)
Of course, one could note that this chapter is different precisely because its collection of beraithot appear within a tractate of mishnayoth. Other collections of beraithot, of course, appear only within compilations that consist of beraithot alone. One might therefore say that the introduction here is used to distinguish between that which is of mishnaic origin and that which was appended at a later point in time. I, however, would question this as being the sole rationale, pointing to what appears to be a parallel example in tractate Bikkurim.
The mishnayoth Bikkurim have only three chapters. But, a fourth chapter is sometimes appended as well. That chapter, like ours in Avoth, consists solely of beraithot, not mishnayoth. There, however, no introduction appears.
Aside from the issue of why our chapter opens with an introduction, I wonder as to why the chapter was added at all. Aside from the example from Bikkurim, I know of no other instance where a chapter of beraithot was appended to a tractate of mishnah.
The Bikkurim additions, at least, are thematically related that which appears in the mishnayoth. The fourth chapter discusses the legal status of the androgynous, one born with physically ambiguous sexual characteristics. This would connect it with chapter two, which mentions the androgynous as well, albeit incidentally. Perhaps this explains why some editions of mishnayoth Bikkurim include a fourth chapter.
On the other hand, Perek Kinyan Hatorah, our chapter in Avoth, does not seem to relate to the first five chapters, even incidentally. Why add a chapter to Avoth that deals with the methods by which Torah is acquired?
The sixth perek is not the only one that has historically been attached to Avoth. Chapters titled “Yirat Cheit,” “Derech Eretz,” and others appear as well, albeit not in printed mishnayoth but in some siddurim. In other words, not as a part of the mishnah, but for being recited together with Avoth. Our perek, Kinyan Hatorah is the only one, though, whose association with Avoth has continued to this day throughout the Jewish world.
The wording of our introduction is quite revealing. It says that our Rabbis taught the words that follow “using the style of the mishnah.” They are saying, then, that the sayings are not true mishnayoth, but only “in the style of the Mishnah.” It continues, though, to say “blessed is He who chose them c.
Although, one could translate c to mean “and their teachings,” one could also interpret it literally, to mean “and their mishnah.” Were one to say, as I was suggesting, that the phrase literally means “and their mishnah,” one could then ask, “But, are the words that follow part of the mishnah? Of course not!” Why, then, would we be praising the Rabbis for their mishnah?
Wouldn’t it have been more fitting to praise them for their “talmud” or something similar? (Once again, this assumes the literal understanding of what is meant by c. He who reads it non-literally, in line with the traditional understanding of “mishnah,” would not have my question.)
So, once again I ask, “Why praise them for their mishnah, when the chapter does not contain mishnayoth and the first part of the introduction tells us this implicitly?
Allow me to suggest that my question might be answered through a poetic reading of the talmud’s statement that “Everything that the Sages decreed, they decreed in the same manner as the Torah” (Pesachim 30b.”) This principle is normally understood to refer to the methodology behind the Sages’ legal enactments. It means that Rabbinic decrees generally follow the same pattern as that applied to Torah. I would like to take the liberty of extending this concept beyond its conventional understanding and apply it more broadly.
Consider the mitzvah of lighting Chanukkah candles, for instance. As you know, the event commemorated by the holiday of Chanukkah occurred well after the Torah was given. Nowhere in our written Torah does it say that Hashem commanded Moshe to tell the people to celebrate the Chanukkah story. The decree to light candles on those eight days is entirely of Rabbinic origin. Yet we still precede the lighting with saying, “Blessed are You, Melech HaOlam, who has commanded us in the lighting of Chanukkah lights.” (Other examples of this would be the blessings prior to the Purim reading of the Megillah, the present day counting of the Omer, and the recitation of Hallel on Festival Days and Rosh Chodesh.)
Another example would be second day of Yom Tov, which was rabinnically decreed for those who live outside of Eretz Yisrael. Those who live in Eretz Yisrael follow the Torah guideline, which is to celebrate only one day of Yom Tov. They have one Pesach seder. They say kiddush only on the first and last days of Pesach and the first day of Sukkoth, Shemini Atzeret, and Shavu’oth. The only Yom Tov whose holiness extends over two days in Eretz Yisrael is Rosh HaShanah. Rambam, in his Laws of Sanctifying the Month (Chapter 5:7,8) provides the rationale.
In contrast to the Eretz Yisrael practice, Diaspora Jews celebrate all Yamim Tovim as two days. The first two days of Pesach, they recite Kiddush and conduct a full sedarim each evening. They neither chametz nor put on tefillin on the eighth day, while their Eretz Yisrael brethren would be doing both. Their Kiddush on that eighth day, the same day that is a regular weekday in Eretz Yisrael, has them saying, “Blessed are You, Hashem, who sanctifies Yisrael and the Zemanim.” That blessing, “. . . Hashem, who sanctifies Yisrael and the Zemanim” is made despite the fact that nowhere in the Torah does it say that Hashem ever commanded that we celebrate that extra day.
The second-day decree was made due to the fact that during the time of the mishnah, the Jewish calendar was not yet fixed. Because it is based on the synodic lunar cycle, which is approximately 29.5 days, some months would necessarily have to be thirty days in length, while others would need to be twenty-nine. Determination was done through eyewitness testimony regarding the sighting of the “new moon.” This was done in Yerushalayim, by the Beit Din.
After having decided whether the new month had begun on the day following the twenty-ninth, as opposed to the day following the thirtieth, the news had to then be spread to all other Jewish communities.
Messengers were sent out by foot. The process could take a fair amount of time. Communities far enough away that would not receive the news early enough in the month would observe two days, because of doubt as to when the new month had been declared.
One might ask why the two-days-in-Diaspora practice should continue in our own times, now that we have a fixed calendar. Even those in the farthest reaches of the Diaspora are no longer in doubt as to the dates. Talmud Bavli (Beitzah 4b) already asked this question.
Now that the calendar is fixed, for what the reason do we have two days of Yom Tov [in Chutz L’Aretz]? Because they sent from there [from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel]: be zealous in maintaining the custom of your forefathers lest a foreign government pass a law to forbid the calculations of the new moon and you may miscalculate [the time of the festival].
The gemara’s answer is that we continue to do so by Rabbinic decree, apparently because doubts about the calendar could reoccur at some later point in history. The fear, according to Rashi, is that Jews would then come to inadvertently eat chametz on Pesach. In any event, this is clearly a matter of Rabbinic, rather than Torah, enactment.
Now that I have given you the outline, I would like to offer a bit more detail. Once the temple was destroyed and the Jews driven out of Eretz Yisrael,
the possibility of sanctifying the month through a Beit Din ended as well. This
is because membership in the Great Beit Din of Yerushalayim was limited to those with semikha, that is, Rabbis who had been ordained by Rabbis who had themselves been ordained according to certain qualifications. Those without semikha could not participate in the Sanctification of the New Moon process.
Hillel Hanassi, not the same Hillel as the one in the mishnah, but belonging to the last generations of Amoraim, calculated all future months and established a fixed calendar. Once this was done, there seemed to be no further reason to continue the two-day practice, given that Jewish communities were no longer in doubt as to when Rosh Chodesh would fall.
Despite the fact that its original rationale had disappeared, the two-day practice continued nevertheless. As I said before, this was solely due to Rabbinic decree. And, as I said before, the question then becomes how the people could utter the words, Blessed are You, Hashem, who commanded us . . . when reciting Kiddush on a day for which no Divine command had ever occurred. And, not only would they be saying a blessing that seems puzzling -- at least from a superficial understanding -- but they would be forgoing the two Torah commandments to wear tefillin on days that the Rabbis had decreed to be a Yom Tov.
One of the answers to our questions might be found in the Rambam’s Laws of Berachot 11:3. After telling us (in halacha 11:2) that we are to recite a blessing prior to performing most positive commandments, he explains that the same thing applies to those that are Rabbinic in origin:
And so, too, with mitzvoth from the words of the early generations of Rabbis, the sofrim. This applies whether it is a mitzvah that is obligatory, like the reading of the Megillah, lighting a flame on Shabbat, and the lighting of candles on Chanukkah or whether it is a non-obligatory mitzvah, like eiruv, netilat yadai’im. On all of them, one makes a blessing before doing them, Blessed are You, who commanded us with . . ..
Where in the Torah was this commanded? It is from the verse that says, (Devarim 17:11) “. that which they tell you, so must you do.”
We see that the meaning of who has commanded us in our commandments is that He commanded us to listen to those commanded us to light Chanukkah candles, to read the Megillah, and all other mitzvoth from the words of the early generations of Rabbis, the sofrim.
The Rambam tells us that everything commanded us by the earliest generations of Rabbis (the sofrim) is included in the concept of who has sanctified us in His commandments. In a certain sense, they become like the mitzvoth commanded us by Hashem through Moshe, for that was the authority given to the earliest Rabbis.
As I understand it, those early Rabbis were granted that authority because Hashem knew that their Torah learning would be entirely l’shma, that is, for its own sake and not from personal interest. He therefore permitted them to add new commandments as they saw appropriate.
Violation of these Rabbinic decrees could be said to be equivalent to having violated a Torah prohibition, in a sense. For instance, someone dwelling outside of Eretz Yisrael who eats chametz on the eighth day of Pesach, when it is Rabinnically proscribed, could be understood to have violated Torah law. The Torah violation, though, would not be his having violated the Torah’s laws regarding chametz, but the Torah law to listen to the early sages.
