Avot149

3:
In our last shiur we reminded ourselves that Rabbi El'azar ben-Arakh had gone to live in Emmaus after the great war against the Romans. There, in a spa town with a mixed population of Jews and non-Jews and easy living, it is probable that he amassed much experience in responding to the Epikoros. The disastrous defeat at the hands of the Romans must have been the cause of much heart-searching among the Jews and considerable ridicule among the non-Jews. Therefore, his advice is that one must "be diligent in study of Torah" so that from that learning one may know how to respond to and refute heretical thoughts and theological jibes.

4:
We have already discussed at some length the origins of the Hebrew appellation 'Epikoros', or 'Apikoros'. (See Avot 135.) In Rabbinic literature the term took on several meanings, all pejorative. In the Gemara [Sanhedrin 99b>] it is suggested that the term Epikoros should be applied to someone who (among other things) distorts the teaching of Torah. However, in his commentary on our present mishnah, Rambam gives a wider definition:

The fact that Rambam says that the term derives from Aramaic, whereas, as we have seen, it derives from the name of a Greek philosopher, suggests to me that Rambam did not know Greek and that all his 'Greek' learning was second hand, the great Arabian philosophers being the instrument of transmission.

5:
The sages who came after Rabbi El'azar ben-Arakh watered down his teaching somewhat – probably as the result of bitter experience. The Gemara [Sanhedrin 38b] quotes our present mishnah and then adds:

Rashi explains that because the Jewish Epikoros has studied Torah in the past there is nothing that you can say that will convince him!

6:
The following section in that same Gemara gives us a good idea of what criticisms the sages had to fend off from non-Jews. That same Rabbi Yoĥanan [Amora of Eretz-Israel, latter part of 2nd century CE] quotes six biblical verses which must have been quoted by non-Jewish heretics (early Christians – Ebionites?) as indicating a plurality of deities. (All these are verses where the term Elohim, 'God' – itself having a plural form in Hebrew – is qualified by an adjective or a verb in plural number.) He indicates that in all cases the continuation of the verse indicates the singular. There is little point in quoting these verses in translation since the whole point in each of them devolves upon Hebrew grammar. The verses in question are: Genesis 1:26, 11:7, 35:7, Deuteronomy 4:7, 2 Samuel 7:23 and Daniel 7:9.

7:
The classical commentators link the last clause of our mishnah with the first: when responding to an Epikoros always make sure that you are aware of "before whom you toil and who your employer is": do not let these discussions sow in your heart the seeds of that doubt raised by the Epikoros himself; rather, constantly bear in mind that you are the agent of God, who is your principal.

In Avot 147 I responded to a criticism offered by Amnon Ron'el. I wrote: They [kissing mezuzot, books and tzitzit and bowing down to the ark] are physical actions which express an inner emotion, so, yes, in a sense they are metaphorical.

Amnon Ron'el responds:

This is clear to me, but the border is thin and not always clear. That same claim is valid for the images that represent, as it were, the power of a pagan deity.

I respond:

When I was a child we had a neighbour who was a devout Roman Catholic. My mother would make new dresses for her. Every time she tried on a new dress she would stand before a small image and say, "Do you like my new dress, Mary?" No believing Jew would ever think that in kissing the mezzuzah he is kissing God.

---

In Avot 146 I wrote: It could be that he is warning us not to make the recital of our prayers a kind of 'fixed task', something that we do mechanically, without thinking because we are so used to the words. If this was his intention then Rabbi Shim'on is warning us not to recite the Amidah as a task which must be done but to make it a plea for "mercy and supplication before the Omnipresent."

Martin Lederman writes:

[This] really hit home. I think one reason our Conservative Movement is losing members to the Reform Movement is because our religious services our dull, prayers too fast and generally uninspiring. It appears we are only attempting to get to the end as soon as possible. The average congregant is not able to contemplate what he/she is saying, let along complete the prayer. It’s a shame our clergy don’t realize what is happening, or just don’t care.

I respond:

While I appreciate the general thrust of Martin's complaint I would be very wary of tarring all our rabbinic leaders with the same brush. In my experience many of my colleagues are wonderfully creative. The most effective response to the problem Martin raises is education, education, education. And, for what it's worth, I would agree that our services should be stripped down to their halakhic essentials so that they may be recited with greater emotional depth on the part of the worshipper. However, most of those frequenting Conservative congregations are, I think it is said, more attracted by tradition than by religion; therefore they would object to such changes.