Moses received Torah from Sinai and passed it on to Joshua; Joshua to the elders, the elders to the prophets and the prophets passed it on to the Members of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be moderate in judgement, Create many students, and Make a fence around the Torah.
15:
It is clear that our mishnah wishes to present a certain conception of the development of the oral tradition. According to this conception, as we have already mentioned on several occasions, from Sinai Moses received not only the Written Torah but also an oral explanation of how that Written Torah was to be put into effect. It is this
Unwritten Torah, or Oral Torah, that is the subject of our mishnah. According to this conception there was an unbroken chain of tradition that started with Moses and continued through the biblical period and beyond, until we reach the "Members of the Great Assembly". This chain of tradition is given only in general terms, whereas from the time of the "Members of the Great Assembly" the human links in the chain of tradition are detailed one by one until the end of this chapter, and beyond.
16:
While our present mishnah gives only a very general picture of the development of the oral tradition in its early stages (only two recipients are mentioned by name: Moses and Joshua), in the magnificent General Introduction to his magnum opus, Mishneh Torah, Rambam details the supposed chain of tradition from Moses right through to the last sages of the Talmudic period. The list begins with Moses, Joshua, Pinĥas, Eli, Samuel, David, Aĥiyah, Elijah, Elisha, Yehoyada, Zechariah, Hoshea, Amos, Isaiah, Micah, Joel, Nahum, Habakuk, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Baruch to Ezra. According to Rambam the rabbinical court over which Ezra presided was the "Great Assembly".
17:
From the objective historical point of view this list is very problematic. The traditional date for the Exodus from Egypt (according to Seder Olam of the Tanna Rabbi Yosé ben-Ĥalafta) is 1310 BCE. David conquered Jerusalem around the year 1000 BCE. The chronology given by Rambam has only six recipients for this 300 year period – a 50 year tenure for each. This would be even further complicated by the fact that Seder Olam itself says that Samuel was only 52 years old when he died and we know that David only reigned for 40 years. The other end of the list given above is no less unreliable. Zechariah was a prophet of the second Bet Mikdash, not the first, and yet he is placed before Jeremiah who was active in the last years of the first Bet Mikdash which was destroyed in the year 587/6 BCE. Ezra held his great Assembly in Jerusalem in the year 444 BCE – a span of 143 years to be covered by only two generations! The period immediately after Ezra is no less problematic. The Land of Israel was under Persian rule from 536 BCE until 333 BCE, and yet the Seder Olam gives this whole period only 52 years! However, from the year 333 BCE Seder Olam demonstrates a much more realistic appreciation of historical chronology.
18:
Thus we must smile rather indulgently at the certainty with which Rambam gives the chain of transmission in the biblical period. However, one point in time is extremely important, and that is the events that took place in Jerusalem under the aegis of Ezra and Nehemiah in the year 444 BCE.
To be continued.
The difference of opinion between
Jacob Chinitz and myself concerning the nature of Tractate Avot – whether is is better to view it predominantly as Aggadah or as Halakhah – has been discussed. My view, based on that of the majority of sages and scholars is that it is better to relate to most of the contents of this tractate through the viewing glass of Aggadah rather than Halakhah; Jacob holds a different view and seems unwilling to leave the issue as one contested. He has sent me the following riposte which I present without comment, because our divergent opinions are very clear.
Jacob Chinitz writes:
Rabbi Roth's distinction between action Halakhah and value Agadah has to be tempered by some Rabbinic comments such as: Gedolay Averah Lishma Mimitzvah Shelo Lishmah, which would seem to lay such great stress on intent, that even a sin, performed on the basis of good motives, is superior to a mitzvah performed for less than pure motives. Also, we have the case of Nitkaven Laharog Et Zeh Vehorag Et Zeh. One opinion is that since he had the intention to murder, and a murder was carried out, even though it was not the victim intended by the murderer, he is liable. The other opinion says, since there was no direct action result of his intention, and only by accident a murder resulted, he is not liable. There is a tremedous emphasis on intention here, in the sphere of Halakhah, not Agadah.
Two explanatory notes:
The first quotation comes from Rabbi Naĥman bar-Yitzĥak, a prominent talmudic sage: "it is better to sin with the best of intentions than to perform a mitzvah with no intentions." The second quotation means: "he intended to murder A and [by accident] murdered B".
Discussion on this topic is now closed.
