Berakhot 029

David Bockman refers to the following passage that I wrote:

I am also very wary of miracles – especially in the Talmudic age! Why is "the miraculous hair-whitening … zaken-ization [that] took place overnight" not even hinted at in the account in the Talmud of Eretz-Israel if it is so important and meaningful?? Lastly, unlike the priesthood, the rabbinate does not require Divine sanction.

I, too, don't believe in these types of "miracles", from a rational and scientific point of view (I studied lots of physics). But I have always wondered why people want or need to talk about them. Is it because they were pre-enlightenment and didn't know any batter, or do these stories fulfill societal functions, entrenching some power structure or establishing a regimented hierarchy in leadership or authenticity? The fact that this "myth" of the aging/hair whitening doesn't appear in the Yerushalmi lets us know that for some reason, the Bavli sees this story as useful. I conjecture here, that in Eretz Yisrael the hierarchy was already established, and the people were close to the event (in time). It's only when hundreds of years have gone by and the mists of time shroud the original event that people can write of "miracles". And the rabbinate has divine sanction (asher yihye bayamim ha-hem [Deuteronomy 17:8-13]). But, after the fact, for people living hundreds of years later, "just the normal workings of society" may not seem like an edifying "reason" for leadership. See, for example, stories in the American mythos about George Washington (Cherry tree, dollar across Potomac) or other, older, myths.

Ed Frankel writes:

I believe it is Kehati's commentary, and I don't know his source, that notes that Yir'ah is even more than respect, but a fear of death. This would be in keeping with a later mishnah in which there is a differentiation between the treatment of foreign kings and of Jewish ones, in the event they are with us at time of Shema. It also relates nicely to the Talmudic parable in which a rabbi is chastised by a non-Jewish authority for his failure to greet [someone] at the risk of his life. I don't have the Talmud handy at my computer as I write, but my reading of it is that the Talmud regarded that rabbi as foolhardy, even if he came out of the incident well and alive.

Richard Friedman also writes:

1. I'm not convinced that Yir'ah in 2:1 denotes "respect," though I recognize that some commentators read it that way. My reason is that I think it's too difficult to articulate two separate categories of "respect" and "honor" (i.e. kavod). And if kavod is really merely the obligation of common politeness, which would differentiate it from the category of teachers, rabbis, and perhaps others, I have difficulty accepting that there's a category below that – don't we owe common politeness to everyone? If indeed there is such a category of low-lifes, I should think it very small, yet the mishnah gives the impression of describing a large category. I still think the mishnah is easier to understand as distinguishing the Roman centurion (Yir'ah), the rabbi (kavod), and the rest of us (kol adam). Then R' Me'ir allows me to speak to you (whether initiating or responding) in the breaks, but does not allow you to speak to me at all. R' Yehudah allows me to greet you in the breaks and respond in the middle; he does not allow you to greet me at all, but does allow you to respond to me in the breaks.
2. A response to Rabbi David Bockman who wanted to read 1:5 in a way that made it pick up thematically and esthetically on 1:1. Notwithstanding your [Simchah Roth] reluctance to apply those techniques to interpreting the Mishnah, and your cautions that we can't assume that Berakhot Chapter 1 was seen as "the first chapter" in the entire Mishnah, I'm sympathetic with David's approach. A suggestion:

   There is a structure to chapter 1. 1:1 focuses on the evening – starting and ending times for the evening Shema. 1:2 focuses on the same questions for the morning. Then 1:3 speaks of the night and then the day, in discussing appropriate posture. 1:4 speaks of the day and then the night, in discussing the berakhot accompanying Shema. All this conveys a sense of order, regularity, as we go from night to day, night-day to day-night. Then 1:5 focuses on night – whether the Exodus is mentioned at night. After a brief reference to both day and night (yamei = days, kol y'mei = nights), it breaks through, not to day (that's been done, in 1:3) but to the Messianic Era. How neat a structure. But also how reassuring in a period of historical, social, and religious chaos: (a) the chapter begins by linking "our" practice with the Temple practice, saying that our Shema is linked with kohanim entering the Temple to eat terumah after their impurity; (b) the whole chapter conveys a structure of order, with day and night alternating regularly; (c) the chapter ends by linking us with the Messianic Era, and even hinting that we can hasten its arrival — l'havi l'y'mot hamashiaĥ denotes "to include the Messianic era," but its literal sense is "to bring the Messianic era."