Avot216

5:
The teaching of Rabbi Shim'on ben-Zoma that is offered in this first mishnah of Chapter Four is very ingenious as it turns commonly held views upside down. It is commonly held that people can and should learn from those held to possess wisdom (though no accurate anthropological tool has ever been conceived to measure wisdom). Too often wisdom is confused with knowledge. One can be possessed of vast amounts of knowledge and yet be lacking in wisdom. The modern proliferation of the communications media has created an almost instantaneous reference to 'experts' who are credited with almost infallible wisdom in their chosen subject. This, of course, is nonsense.

6:
Ben-Zoma says that a measure of wisdom is not so much the number of people that a person teaches, but the number of people from whom a person is prepared to learn. Because, for the truly wise person wisdom and knowledge can be gained from everybody and everything. To substantiate his teaching, as it were, ben-Zoma quotes Psalm 119:99 –

The sages understand the first clause of that sentence as meaning that "I have learned from all who could teach me". And we have already had occasion to quote the comment of the Amora of Eretz-Israel, Rabbi Ĥanina, that was prompted by this teaching [Ta'anit 7a]:

To be continued.

In Avot 211 we had occasion to quote a mishnah which taught that three 'sins' might cause the death of women in childbirth. Jacob Chinitz writes:

With regard to the three sins of the woman, which you suggest may be the explanation for the sin offering after childbirth, I have a problem with two of them: Hadlakat haner, obviously post Biblical, Derabanan, could not be a motive in Torah legislation. Ĥalah I guess could be considered her obligation as well as that of her husband. But Nidah, is the Issur [prohibition] on both man and wife, or only on the man? It says: "You shall not approach a woman during here period of impurity", which sounds like a prohibition for the man. Of course, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is in the masculine and includes the woman. But that is because when both sexes are addressed the male form is used. But in the case of "You shall not approach" I am not sure that grammatical rule applies.

I respond:

I really cannot begin to fathom what Jacob's problem is. As far as my understanding of the mishnah in question goes it matters not a jot whether the three mitzvot mentioned are Torah obligations [de-orayta] or rabbinic obligations [de-rabbanan]. All the sages are trying to do is to emphasize the importance in their eyes of these three mitzvot for women: when a woman dies in childbirth it may possibly be attributed to her contravening one or more of these sins.

Jacob's reasoning, also, seems to me to be faulty: he objects to Ĥallah (the duty of removing a small amount from the dough before baking) being included because it applies equally to men and women: but that is also true of Hadlakat ha-Ner (lighting the Shabbat candles). In both cases the mitzvah is held to be the prerogative of women, but in the absence of a woman a man must perform these duties. As far as Niddah is concerned, I am sure that Jacob cannot have been unmindful of the concept of Dat Yehudit. The Mishnah [Ketubbot 7:6] states quite categorically that a woman who contravenes Dat Yehudit must be divorced even against her will and must forfeit all her Ketubbah money. One of the items in Dat Yehudit given there is a woman who cohabits with her husband when she is Niddah.

In the Discussion in Avot 212 Yehuda Wiesen wrote: This raises the question, how do faith/observance and scientific orientation (aka common sense) coexist? I think, not well. This might be one cause for the pervasive lack of observance of the vast majority of the laity of the Conservative Movement. The problem is clear, but what is the solution?

Bayla Singer responds to this:

Whoa – wait a minute – please do not conflate faith with observance in this context. (I won't even go into the implied equivalence of 'observance' with kashrut & shomer shabbat only, without mention of ethics & morals.) Those who affiliate with the Conservative Movement, and who attend services etc, should be granted some measure of faith even in the absence of full observance. For example: I am scientifically trained (Bachelor's in Science Teaching & Botany, Master's degree in physiology, PhD in history of science & technology), but my level of observance has nothing to do with "common sense." It's much more a matter of my own spiritual journey; there are some observances I'm "ready" for, others which do not speak to me. I have heard pious, observant Orthodox Jews speak of a "ladder of observance," and encourage people to begin their ascent even though they currently have no intention of reaching the "top." I am only moderately observant of kashrut & shabbat, yet for the past decade and more I have been esteemed among the most "religious" and "spiritual" members of the congregations to which I have belonged. I take comfort in the permission granted on Kol Nidre night, that it is ok to pray with sinners — for who else is there? (In another context, I would have also taken issue with conflating 'science' and 'common sense.')

I comment:

Concerning Bayla's distinction between 'qualifications' and 'common sense' please see also our present mishnah!

This shiur was prepared to be sent one week ago. Unfortunately, I had an accident at home and had to be hospitalized for an operation on a broken foot. I am now home, but for the next two months I have to learn how to live from a wheelchair and how to hobble on one foot with a walker. So, I apologize in advance if during the next couple of months the shiurim will not reach you with the regularity that I would like. I shall do my best.