Avot134

1:
Almost all the mishnayot remaining in this chapter are sayings attributed to each of the five students of Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai who were mentioned in the two previous mishnayot. While three sayings are attributed to each of them it is quite possible that – as was the case with several mishnayot in Chapter 1 – that the number three here is typological: it is only with some difficulty that we can find exactly three statements in each case. For example, at a first reading Rabbi Eli'ezer seems to have four sayings attributed to him; alternatively, three sayings are quoted and a fourth is a later addition or an afterthought.

2:
Among the classical commentators Rabbi Ovadyah of Bertinoro is particularly pedantic regarding our present mishnah. He takes pains to resolve an obvious contradiction: only three teachings are attributed to Rabbi Eli'ezer whereas we know that hundreds of halakhot are quoted in his name throughout Tannaitic literature. Rabbi Ovadyah has two suggestions to offer to resolve the dilemma. His first suggestion is that when the mishnah says that he was (and the others were) wont to say three things it refers to the three things they said in the realm of morals and ethics, excluding the numerous things they said about halakhah. This is a very weak suggestion. For the sages of old there is no qualitative distinction between halakhot: halakhah is halakhah regardless of the issue being regulated. Clearly, Rabbi Ovadyah himself recognizes the weakness of his first suggestion and offers another as well: he suggests that these were sayings that each of the sages was wont to say on many occasions. This seems much more likely.

3:
Rabbi Ovadyah also shows pedantry also in another matter: he notices that four sayings are attributed to Rabbi Eli'ezer and not just three: honour, anger, repentance and being wary of the sages. He resolves this difficulty by suggesting that the first two items are one (and this is hinted at in the translation offered above). His interpretation of the mishnah is that we should hold someone else's honour to be as dear to us as our own by never giving way to fits of anger against anyone.

4:
Anger is a very destructive emotion when it is allowed to run rampant and uncontrolled. When someone is in a rage which has taken possession of him, as it were, he is not in control of himself for the duration of the rage. In the Gemara [Shabbat 105b] there is a teaching of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben-Nuri, who was a older contemporary of the students of Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai. He says:

What he means is that if someone loses self-control to the extent that they do irrational things while under the capture of their rage they are like an idolater: their fury has taken hold of them to such an extent that they have excluded God and His commandments from their consciousness. Indeed, by submitting to uncontrollable rage they have turned themselves into their own god. There is only one thing that consumes them at that moment, and that thing (whatever it may be) is attributable to their own honour; the honour of anyone else ceases to be of any consequence.

To be continued.

In Avot 129, concerning the "show down" between Rabban Gamli'el and Rabbi Yehoshu'a, I wrote: A young student (later to become very famous in his own right, Rabbi Shim'on ben-Yoĥai) caused the explosion by asking whether the Evening Service was compulsory or voluntary. Rabban Gamli'el forced a showdown in the full plenum, haughtily subjected Rabbi Yehoshu'a (who held a different view) to a humiliating 'recantation'. The assembled sages exploded and voted to depose Rabban Gamli'el from the presidency of the Sanhedrin.

Sue Mackson writes:

Did you leave something out here? You did not indicate which view Rabban Gamli'el had, and I realize it's not germane to the story, but between the 3rd and 4th sentence it seems incomplete.

I respond:

Sue is quite right that I omitted the details because they were not relevant to the main topic under discussion. The "bone of contention" between the two sages was the status of the Evening Service, Arvit. Rabban Gamli'el was of the opinion that it is statutory and required of every Jew, Rabbi Yehoshu'a was of the opinion that it was non-statutory and voluntary. The ultimate conclusion reached is that while Rabbi Yehoshu'a is essentially correct that the Evening Service is voluntary (unlike the Morning and Afternoon services which are required by Torah command), nevertheless the view of Rabban Gamli'el prevails because the Jewish people have voluntarily taken it upon themselves as being compulsory.