Avot338

Before we move on to the next mishnah it would be very impolite of me not at least to try and reduce the number of messages waiting in my inbox.

Tamar Dar wrote that a motivating force for observance of the mitzvot might not be love of God, as claimed in the mishnah in Avot 332, but rather a social need. I responded that I doubt very much whether people say to themselves, for example, "I shall eat kosher food for the sake of companionship" Since then Tamar has written to clarify her thoughts but that is unnecessary. She has found two stalwart supporters:

Avi-Sarah Killip writes:

I would like to respond that I do say things like "I shall eat kosher food for the sake of companionship" and I also say "I will keep Shabbat for the sake of companionship" and "I will attended services and study Talmud for the sake of companionship."

And Jim Feldman too writes:

I believe that Tamar Dar's comments are central to group religious practice in general and Judaism in particular. Why else the minyan? And your "counterexample" is specious. I, for one, eat kosher so that no Jew will feel uncomfortable in my home or in my presence. I recognize it as a tribal imperative. At a fundamental level, Judaism is a tribe, a social, scholarly and charitable organization that believes in at most one God.

In Avot 335 the mishnah also taught that anyone who causes the public to act virtuously no sin will be brought about by him. Jim Feldman questions this from a contemporary point of view:

Now former Governor Spitzer of New York, a zealous prosecutor and, as governor, a powerful advocate for an anti-prostituion law aimed at the "Johns" (which clearly would reduce non-virtuous acts), was brought low by being caught with an overwhelming appetite for high-class prostitutes. My point is to deny the premise that good public acts imply a worthy private life. I am sure that the rabbis thought this should be so, but their examples do not convince.

I respond:

But the mishnah did not claim what Jim says it claims. It just says that no sin will be brought about (in others) by causing the public to act virtuously. However, since Jim has brought this matter up let me offer something written by one of my colleagues here in Israel. Rabbi Daniel Goldfarb's article, "The Recline and Fall of Eliot Spitzer" is reproduced here with kind permission.

Eliot Spitzer is hardly the stuff of Greek tragedy; he is YouTube or Pulp Fiction. Spitzer fell into the traps life set for him – being rich and then powerful he felt he was above the law and standards of behavior he himself was so vigilant to demand of others. Spitzer would have done better studying Torah in his room at the Mayflower Hotel rather than trysten' with Kristen. It certainly would have cost him less. Davka maybe he was. In Tractate Kiddushin Rabbi Elai Hazaken advises one whose hormones are overpowering him to dress in disguise, go somewhere he's not known and engage there the services of Emperors Club VIP, lest he publicly desecrate God's Name [Kiddushin 40a]. An explicit teaching of the Talmud, Eliot's lawyer can claim. Run the resignation tape backwards. Not so quickly. In the first place, it's not clear that the explicitness of the Gemara is so explicit. The Tosafists quote Rabbenu Hananel who says "God forbid" that Rabbi Elai would sanction such sinful behavior, and that what he really meant is that the bother involved in disguising oneself and making the journey will subdue the evil inclination – like a cold shower. Just the thought of traveling from Buffalo to Washington, even in a state-owned plane, should bring the Governor to his senses.

And even if Rabbi Elai meant it literally – that if chilul ha'shem is inevitable, do it secretly – Eliot, drinking a Diet Coke from the minibar while awaiting Kristen's arrival on the Metroliner, should have remembered the words of Rabbi in the opening mishna of Avot II [ Avot 082]: If you keep in mind three things you won't fall in to sin – that from up above you there's a camera that's filming, a mike that's recording and a hard disc with a memory of infinite gigas. You might fool the hotel staff by checking in as George Fox, but not God. It's only a question of time.

Rabbi Elai, at least via Rabbenu Hananel, is sharing with us a very sharp psychological insight. Human behavior should be determined through cool and deliberate judgment, not on the basis of momentary impulse. This is the same lesson we learn from Deuteronomy 25:13-14: don't even possess phony weights and measures, "lest it be for you a snare" [Sefer HaHinuch]. How many good people have fallen because the money or the attractive woman was so accessible and no one was there to see or know, or so they thought? The sages teach us that if we don't fortify our moral immune systems or create a buffer between ourselves and temptation, we're in trouble.

Who is the hero? Ben Zoma asks; one who can control his yetser (appetites/impulses) [ Avot 215]. Who is rich? One contented with what she has. The trouble is that today's culture works against both. The goal of advertising, the engine driving commercial society, is to make us dissatisfied with things (or persons e.g. spouses, rabbis) which are serving us nicely, thank you, and to make us want what we don't really need. And the best way to do this is to make impulse the dominating factor in the decision-making process, not plain old common sense. The use of the scantily clad young woman in ads from everything from cars to kitchen sinks is not accidental. The purpose is to stimulate the viewer's fantasy, not the rational thought process about the need for the car/the sink, the merits of one brand vs. another, and the value of the benefit received for the expense. Madison Avenue and web designers know well what a wise cousin of my wife says: "Wenn der Schmeckel steht, der Sechel geht." In the minds of many, clearly, Eliot's biggest sins were in getting caught and having earned a horde of detractors in politics and the media who were waiting for the chance to pounce on him. And that's the sad part. If the western world was as concerned about correcting SD (Sechel Deficiency) as it is about ED, maybe Eliot would still be Governor, and the State of New York and the Jewish people would have been saved this shameful episode.

Next time we move on to mishnah 19 and, God willing, I shall also bring some more of your messages.