Hillel says: Do not opt out of society; do not believe in yourself until your dying day; do not judge your fellow until you reach his place; do not say something which it is impossible to obey, because in the end it must be obeyed; and do not say, 'When I get some free time I will study' – you may not get any free time.
EXPLANATIONS (continued):
14:
Items two and three in the teachings attributed to Hillel in our present mishnah are almost self-explanatory. First comes the warning that we should not believe in ourselves until our dying day. Self-sufficiency is not a Jewish virtue: I think that this is why the warning comes right after the instruction not to opt out of society. In order to live a full Jewish life one must be part of a Jewish society. It may be possible to be a good Jew if one lives alone on a desert island, but it is not possible to lead a full Jewish life because there will be important mitzvot that one cannot fulfill. At the very start of Tractate Avot we learned that one of the three pillars upon which a truly Jewish society must be based is the fulfillment of the mitzvah to perform acts of sheer human kindness. If everyone were completely self-sufficient it would not be possible to perform such acts of kindness as giving a helping hand, participating in the happiness and sorrow of others, visiting the sick, dowering a bride, helping the needy, burying the dead and so forth. Indeed, the fallacy of self-sufficiency is emphasized by the warning not to strive for self-sufficiency "until your dying day" – because on that day no human being can be self-sufficient. That is why the burial of the dead is often called in Hebrew 'a completely altruistic act of charity' – because no one can bury themselves and those who perform the deed will not be thanked by the recipient of the charity. The only way one can be a full Jew – indeed, the only way one can be a complete human being – is by recognizing our mutual interdependence.
15:
The classical commentators take a different tack. Rambam sees the warning never to believe in oneself as a warning that however hard one has strived throughout one's life to learn and practice the ethical virtues one should never believe that the goal has been achieved. In ethical education one must always be striving, never resting on one's laurels because a fateful lapse into unethical behaviour is always possible. Rabbi Ovadyah of Bertinoro even applies this warning to our evaluation of others: he moralizes that even Yoĥanan, after serving 80 years as high priest, in the end became a Sadducee! (There is no known historical basis that would enable us to identify this Yoĥanan.)
16:
Equally self-explanatory is the recommendation that we not judge someone else until we reach "his place". Such a teaching exists in the popular wisdom of many peoples. The similar saying, attributed (possibly fallaciously) to the indigenous Indians of North America, has now become known in many parts of the world: "Let me not criticize another until I have walked a mile in his moccasins". Rabbi Ovadyah of Bertinoro gives the most obvious explanation:
If you see your fellow man succumbing in a moment of temptation do not judge him unless you have faced a similar temptation successfully.
We discussed something very similar in Avot 037 when we studied the instruction to "give every man the benefit of the doubt" .
To be continued.
DISCUSSION:
It is some time since we discussed the revolution effected by Rabbi when he set down his Mishnah in writing. Jacob Chinitz sent me these questions some time ago:
On the question of the writing of the Mishna, as opposed to its Oral Rescencion, when did the issue of Devarim Shebikhtav I Ato Rashai Leomrom Beal Peh, and Devarim Shebealpeh I Ato Rashi Lekotvom – arise [that which is written you may not say orally; that which is not written you may not be put into writing – SR]? And what was the source of this Isur [prohibition – SR]? In Milton Steinberg's As a Driven Leaf, he describes R.Akiva as possessing notes of Mishnaic Halakhah, or Midrash Halakhah. Were such notes permitted by the Isur of writing?
I respond:
When we first began discussing this matter [in Avot 085] I gave the locus classicus for this halakhah: Gittin 60b in the Babylonian Talmud. However, it could be that Jacob is asking for a more detailed explanation. The best source for appreciating how the sages created the distinction between the Written Torah and the Oral Torah is to be found in the collection of Midrashim called Yalkut Shim'oni. There there is a discussion on this verse from the Torah [Exodus 34:27]:
And the Lord said to Moses: Write down these things, for in accordance with these things I make a covenant with you and with Israel.
The sages saw the instruction 'write down these things' as an indication that the Torah was to be transmitted in writing. The phrase 'for in accordance with these things' can also be interpreted in the original Hebrew as meaning 'for these things are [to be taught only] orally'. To the sages [Yalkut Shim'oni #404] this seemed to be an internal contradiction:
Rabbi Yehudah bar-Naĥmani, the spokesman of Resh Lakish, taught: it is written Write down all these things, but it is also written for orally these things. How is it possible [to reconcile the two statements]? – That which is written you may not say orally; that which is not written you may not be put into writing. In the school of Rabbi Yishma'el it was taught: These – 'these you may write down but you may not write down halakhot'.
Rabbi Yishma'el understands the word 'these' in the verse to be a true indicative, as if God were showing Moses the written tablets and instructing him that only 'these' may be written down.
As for Jacob's second question: I have already dealt with this in Avot 085, where I wrote quite specifically:
It was permitted for individual sages to maintain a written version of new material that had come their way, but this "Megillat Setarim" ('secret document') [Bava Metzi'a 92a] was for private use only and could never be used for teaching purposes or for any other public purpose.
