Avot173
|
BET MIDRASH VIRTUALI
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
|
|
|
TRACTATE AVOT, CHAPTER THREE, MISHNAH TEN:
Rabbi Ĥanina ben-Dosa says: The wisdom of him whose fear of sin takes precedence over his wisdom will endure; but the wisdom of him whose wisdom takes precedence over his fear of sin will not endure. He [also] used to say: The wisdom of him whose actions are more than his wisdom will endure; but the wisdom of him whose wisdom is more than his actions will not endure. He [also] used to say: God is pleased with those with whom people are pleased; but God is not pleased with him with whom people are not pleased.
EXPLANATIONS:
1:
Most of the existent codices of the Mishnah present this material divided up between two mishnayot. It seems more logical, from the didactic point of view, to arrange the material as shown in our present mishnah, above. 2: 3: To be continued. DISCUSSION:
In Avot 172 I mentioned the fact that Rabbi Yehudah, the president of the Sanhedrin, undertook the unprecedented task of committing the oral tradition to writing. (This was mentioned in passing. For a full account see Avot 085 and the following shiurim.)
Jacob Chinitz suggests that this was a temporary measure. He writes: Writing down the Oral Torah is an example of a Horoat Shaah [temporary measure] which becomes permanent. Supposedly, the rationale was that the Oral Torah was being forgotten and they lapsed the prohibition, on a temporary basis, to save the situation. But does anyone expect that someday the original Issur [prohibition] to write the Oral Torah would be restored, and we would abolish printed Talmudim? In this way, I believe, Menahem Elon in his Hamishpat Haivri points out that abrogation of Torah law on a temporary emergency basis ends up as a permanent abrogation. Similarly, there is an opinion that Rabenu Gershom’s Issur [prohibition] of polygamy applied only for a limited period. Does anyone seriously believe that someday his Takanah, changing Torah law, will be changed back to permit more than one wife? I do not think so. I respond: I do not know why Jacob thinks that "writing down the Oral Torah is an example of a Horoat Shaah". My guess is that he is basing himself on Rambam's explanation as given in his Introduction to "Mishneh Torah".
Our Holy Teacher wrote the Mishnah. From the time of Moses no one had written a work from which the Oral Law was publicly taught. Rather, in each generation, the head of the then existing court … wrote down for his private use notes on the traditions he had heard from his teachers, and he taught in public from memory. So too, everyone wrote down according to his ability parts of the explanation of the Torah and of its laws he heard, as well as the new matters that developed in each generation, which had not been received by oral tradition, but had been deduced by applying the Thirteen Principles for Interpreting the Torah, and had been agreed upon by the Great Rabbinical Court. Such had always been done, until the time of Our Holy Teacher. He gathered together all the traditions, all the enactments, and all the explanations and interpretations that had been heard from Moses or had been deduced by the courts of all the generations in all matters of the Torah; and he wrote the Book of the Mishnah from all of them. And he taught it in public, and it became known to all Israel; everyone wrote it down and taught it everywhere, so that the Oral Law would not be forgotten by Israel. Why did Our Holy Teacher do so, and did not leave things as they were? Because he saw that the number of students was continuing to go down, calamities were continually happening, wicked government was extending its domain and increasing in power, and the Jews were wandering and emigrating to remote places. He thus wrote a work to serve as a handbook for all, so that it could be rapidly studied and would not be forgotten; throughout his life, he and his court continued giving public instruction in the Mishnah.
I do not think that Rambam here is suggesting that Rabbi's measure was intended to be temporary; but I can see how others might have understood it to be so.
There is no "opinion" that the Takkanah prohibiting polygamy among Ashkenazi Jews was limited in time: it is a fact. What is not clear is what Rabbenu Gershom meant by giving his Takkanah the terminus of 'the end of the millenium'. Did he mean the end of the fifth Jewish millenium – 1240 CE – or did he mean 'after one thousand years'? (In modern times his Takkanah is assumed to have been made permanent by general agreement – and by Knesset legislation.) Also, The Takkanah of Rabbenu Gershom did not "change Torah Law": it merely restricted it. |