Avot339

1:
This rather long mishnah is really quite simple. It is the last of the rather loose series of mishnayot all of which begin with the Hebrew word which means "all" or "everyone" or "someone".

2:
In our present mishnah the patriarch Abraham is presented as the archetype of the all-round "good" person. His opposite number is Balaam, the Mesopotamian seer whose exploits are recounted in the book of Numbers. Obviously, Abraham is described as possessing those qualities which are to be embraced by those who would follow his example; Balaam is described as possessing qualities which should be eschewed by those who would follow the example of Father Abraham.

3:
The three distinguishing characteristics are:

• generosity (whose antithesis is, of course, miserliness);
• a chaste spirit or sexual modesty (as opposed to promiscuity);
• humility (whose opposite is overweening pride).

We shall, God willing, identify these traits in our next shiur – and also expatiate somewhat on Balaam himself.

To be continued.

Mark Lautman writes:

Concerning Avot 5:17, is it possible to say that a dispute which is not for the sake of heaven can never be resolved? There are many disputes in the Jewish world: Hassidim and Lithuanians, Sefaradim and Ashkenazim, Orthodox and other religious groups. These disputes are spread over almost two hundred years. Therefore, is this "enough time" to determine that these disputes are "for the sake of heaven"? Furthermore, are disputes which were decided by force of historical circumstances not for the sake of heaven? For example, the dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees was decided by the Romans and their destruction of the Bet Mikdash. Since then the Sadducees have disappeared (or they have changed beyond all recognition). Similarly, the opponents of modern Zionism: the holocaust put an utter end to their position. Does the historical eventuality determine that these disputes were not for the sake of heaven?

I respond:

This is a very penetrating question and I am not sure that I have a satisfying answer for you. I believe that it is the intentions of the disputants (or at least one party to the dispute) which determine whether the dispute is altruistic or not. And that is something that we can never know for sure; we can only surmise. Obviously, a Pharisee would claim that the utter demise of the Sadducean Party is in itself sufficient proof of their insincerity. But to be quite honest, from the historical point of view I am not so sure about this. I think that the Sadducees saw the Pharisees as the intruders who sought to make the world topsy-turvy. If I am right – and there is no guarantee that I am right! – it would seem that historical circumstances do not determine whether a dispute is altruistic or not.

On the other hand, I am quite sure that the modern religious disputes that Mark has exampled are quite altruistic. Both the Orthodox at one end of the spectrum and the Progressives at its other end sincerely hold their beliefs and have no essentially opportunistic motives. (That doesn't mean, of course, that sometimes individual items in the dispute may not be opportunistically motivated.)