1:
Before we begin our study of the contents of this the second Mishnah in Chapter 2 we must say a few words about the mishnah itself. We must recall that the last few
mishnayot have been tracing eminent sayings attributed to the presidents of the Sanhedrin who were all of the line of Hillel – Hillel himself, Rabban Gamli'el I, Rabban Shim'on ben-Gamli'el I, Rabban Gamli'el II, Rabban Shim'on ben-Gamli’el II, Rabbi, and now the son of Rabbi, Rabban Gamli'el III.
2:
However, the inclusion of our present mishnah in the tractate is not as simple as it seems. If Rabbi Yehudah the President of the Sanhedrin was the redactor of the Mishnah, and was the one who took the audacious plunge and set the oral tradition in writing, how can it be that a saying attributed to his son is included after the saying attributed to Rabbi himself? Surely, the text of the Mishnah must have been finalized before Rabbi published it!
3:
A simple answer would be, of course, that Rabbi himself included the saying attributed to his son. But further thought must rule out this possibility. The author of our present mishnah is identified with the honorific title of 'Rabban', a title which was reserved exclusively for the President of the Sanhedrin. Therefore, during his father's lifetime the title of the author of our present mishnah most certainly was Rabbi Gamli'el, and not Rabban Gamli'el; and the fact that he is identified here as Rabban Gamli'el must indicate that he was already known and honoured as the President of the Sanhedrin, a position which he assumed only upon the death of his father.
4:
So we must look for a more recondite solution. The simple truth must be that, contrary to popular lay understanding, it was not Rabbi who finalized the redaction of the Mishnah, but the work continued for a few years after his death. How much of the Mishnah (as a whole, all six orders) was added or edited after Rabbi's death cannot be known. My own view – which has nothing greater or less to commend it than any other view – is that it was only Avot which was edited after Rabbi's death. Indeed, it may well be the case that the whole of Tractate Avot was added to the Mishnah after all the rest had been set forth by Rabbi. At the very beginning of our study of this tractate we noted how different Tractate Avot is from all the other tractates of the Mishnah. I can't help feeling that it was added some time during the presidency of Rabban Gamli'el ben-Yehudah, and that it was included so that the work which defined the Oral Tradition should also include the philosophic and spiritual teachings of the sages as well as their halakhic pronouncements.
5:
Indeed, I would go further. I feel that Tractate Avot was originally intended to fulfill one of two functions: either it was intended to be a kind of preface to the whole Mishnah or it was intended to come right at the end. However, I cannot explain why it ended up towards the end of the fourth of the six orders. The traditional explanations given as to why Avot is included in the Order Nezikin, which deals with judicial procedure, qre very weak indeed. Rambam, for example, opines that Avot illustrates the spiritual and ethical qualities required of a judge in Israel.
6:
Actually, the work of collating and redacting the oral tradition certainly did not end with the death of Rabbi. The best example to illustrate this point is the compilation of the Tosefta. This is a work which has exactly the same format and arrangement as the Mishnah, but includes halakhic material that Rabbi rejected and did not include in his Mishnah. According to tradition the Tosefta was the work of Rabbi Ĥiyya, who was a colleague and student of Rabbi himself. So let us assume that for a few years after the death of Rabbi a few changes in the Mishnah were made, and this will explain how a saying attributed to rabban Gamli'el III comes to be included in our present Mishnah.
To be continued.
A comment made by Jacob Chinitz in our last shiur has prompted some comment. This time we only have space for one such comment. Jacob Chinitz wrote:
So the Mishna is saying to us: Listen, you have to respect all the Mitzvot. Sure, some are greater than others. I found that no less than 16 Mitzvot are characterized as weighty as all the other mitzvot of the Torah. Which is a logical contradiction in itself, because if one Mitzva is as great as all the others, does that "others" include other great Mitzvot, of which the same thing is said?
Warren Green writes:
There is a mathematical solution here. If you give those 16 mitzvot an infinite value than you can have the relationship ONE = MANY being true.
