Avot228

1:
In many codices this mishnah is linked together with the previous mishnah, as one mishnah. Already in Avot 223 I noted that in most of the codices of the Mishnah which have reached us the allocation of the mishnayot is rather haphazard in this chapter. For the sake of clarity I have allocated one mishnah per sage. Therefore, it goes without saying that the numbers of the various mishnayot will be different from their counterparts in other editions – especially those found in prayer-books.

2:
In Avot de-Rabbi Natan a story is told of Rabbi Zadok. This story, which is told to illustrate his great piety in very difficult circumstances, places him in the period of the great Jewish war against the Romans [66-70 CE]. However, since it is clearly established that he was the father of Rabbi El'azar ben-Zadok who was a sage in the late 2nd century it seems to me that the story in Avot de-Rabbi Natan [16:2] has confused the earlier revolt with the later bar-Kokhba revolt [132-135 CE]. According to this story, Rabbi Zadok was taken prisoner by the Romans and taken to Rome where he was sold as a slave to a wealthy Roman lady [matrona]. As was customary in such circumstances the matrona tried to force this young man to marry one of her beautiful slaves, but Zadok refused, claiming that not only did he belong to one of the most influential families of Jerusalem, but that he was of priestly lineage, whereupon his mistress gave him his freedom.

3:
Many and wonderful stories are recounted in our sources concerning Rabbi Zadok, but since they all put him in the prime of life before the destruction of the Bet Mikdash they must be referring to a different Rabbi Zadok – perhaps the grandfather of the Rabbi Zadok of our present mishnah. If this is the case, we know almost nothing concerning the biography of the Rabbi Zadok of our present mishnah.

To be continued.

In mishnah 4 of this chapter [Avot 224] I used the word 'unassuming', which others have rendered as 'humble'. Ed Frankel takes issue with my translation and, after due consideration, I think that he is right. He writes:

I have a sense that there is a vast difference between being unassuming and being humble. Humility, if Moses is the paradigm, is not a matter of being unassuming. Moses would not ever be called that. Were he, how could he have dared to argue when God threatened to destroy Israel? How could he have struck a rock to bring forth water, had the temerity to speak directly to the Almighty, or led our people from bondage to freedom. Rather humility is knowing one's place in life, showing respect for others, and recognizing that there are those who hold a higher station. Moshe Rabenu referred to himself, after all, as "eved Hashem", God's servant.

Orin Rotman has also written to me concerning the virtue of humility as recommended in Mishnah 4:

I spent some time considering your discussion in Avot 224 regarding R. Levitas' pronouncement. The difficulty you note is not with the general sentiment that one should be humble because one's future is as food for worms. The problem, as you note, is with the term 'very,very'. I don't understand this phrase to recommend acting, or taking on an extreme
behavior pattern, out of false humility. Perhaps this phrase can better be understood as not a modifier signifying an extreme degree of acting humble or professing self- effacement, but rather as an extreme modifier warning to not merely act humbly, but to in fact be humble. The character that we know as Moses at times must act proudly and decisively, with audacity and leadership. But it is activity borne from the clear understanding that he acts solely as the mere agent of God, and not from any individual merit of his own, a merit. The closer the relationship with God the more humble one must be, not by acting humble but by recognizing one's true position vies a vie the sacred and infinite. To learn to in fact be humble may require the greatest dedication of to learning and exploring of one's relationship with God to arrive at that place.