Avot154

12:
Having traced what we know of the biography of Akavya ben-Mehalal'el we can now turn our attention to what he has to say in our present mishnah. All the classical commentators agree that his purpose is to encourage in a person humility and fear of sin. The Psalmist asks [Psalm 8:5]

And in the very next verse he places the human race on a pedestal that is almost divine:

For the Psalmist man is the "crown of creation". When Akavya ben-Mehalal'el considered the same question he would have responded that man is nothing but "a smelly drop", creature "of dust, rot and worms."

13:
The "smelly drop" to which Akavya refers is, of course, the semen of the male which fertilizes the egg of the female. Again, it is interesting to note here that where Akavya chooses to emphasize the more lowly aspects of human biological origins others have seen something quasi divine in the human reproductive system. In his book "Guide for the Perplexed" [Part 2, Chapter 6] Rambam sought to indicate that the biblical term 'angel' did not necessarily indicate a heavenly winged creature sent on a divine errand. He claims that God's angels could also be natural processes:

14:
But all this, of course, is the antithesis of the impression that Akavya seeks to create in our minds: man is a lowly creature, that derives from putrefaction and is destined to putrefaction. His origin is in a drop of semen which (as Rabbi Ovadya of Bertinoro points out in his commentary) if it does not effect a timely union with an egg will putrefy. And man's ultimate destination is the grave, where his body will suffer putrefaction and rot away. The sole feature of man's complexion that raises him from this dunghill of humanity is the fact that he is destined to enter the divine presence and there to render his report before "the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed is He."

15:
The picture of Akavya that we glean from our sources is that of a stern, dour, unbending man. As we have seen, on his deathbed he recommended to his son that he recant of the heterodox halakhic views that he had learned from his father – views which he himself had refused to relinquish even when the sages pleaded with him to do so and thereby attain rank and influence. The son, presumably aware that his path back to the favour of the sages was not going to be an easy one, begged his father to help him:

16:
Interestingly enough, the version of our mishnah given in Avot de-Rabbi Natan [19:1] is slightly different. Although it clearly offers the same message I feel that the language has been toned down somewhat:

He comes from a dark place – the womb; he goes to a dun dark place – the grave; and the rest is clear.

In Avot 149 I presented Martin Lederman's critique of much Conservative worship and I appended my own response. Michael Lewyn writes:

In my experience, Conservative prayers are actually slower than everyone else's. At the nearest Conservative shul in Washington (as well as my old shul in Atlanta) Saturday morning prayers take 3 plus hours. Orthodox shuls are much faster, generally in the 2-3 hour range. Why? Because Conservative shelichei zibbur, cantors, etc. enunciate more words, I suspect to make it easier for congregants to follow. Not sure which I like better – sometimes I'm in mood for faster, sometimes for slower. And of course Reform is shorter than either, because Reform cuts out so much of the service – typically services last an hour.

Discussion on this topic is now closed.

---

In Avot 151 I quoted Rambam on paganism and then added that in his description of the qualities required of a member of the ancient Sanhedrin he included:wide general knowledge, some knowledge of the sciences such as medicine, mathematics and astronomy and the ways of wizards, magicians, conjurors and all the nonsense of idolatry… I then added: It occurs to me that Conservative Judaism is absolutely right in requiring our would-be sages to have a good university education and to be widely read in worldly matters.

My colleague, Marty Berman, writes:

While I am sure that it was not your intent, but when you wrote after discussing the Rambam's study of idolatry et al it sounds like you are equating the worldly matters with idolatry.

I respond:

I have read and re-read what I wrote and I just cannot see why Marty thinks this. (Doubtless, others will set me on the right track.) However, in order to remove all doubt let me explain that my intention was to say that if "wide general knowledge, some knowledge of the sciences such as medicine, mathematics and astronomy and … all the nonsense of idolatry" were required for membership of the Sanhedrin it seems to me "that Conservative Judaism is absolutely right in requiring our would-be sages to have a good university education and to be widely read in worldly matters."