Avot176

17:
We have mentioned on several occasions that Tractate Avot does not claim to present one coherent philosophy of Judaism; rather it presents the varying views and opinions of the halakhic sages in matters of ethics and wisdom of life. This being the case, the tractate often presents us with differing and sometimes contradictory views. Rabbi Ĥanina ben-Dosa, in our present mishnah, sets fear of sin against wisdom. However, a good argument can be made that his greater predecessor, Hillel, held the opposite view. In Mishnah 6 of chapter 2 [Avot 107] we learned that Hillel said:

In other words, according to Hillel wisdom is an essential precursor to fear of sin. If this is the case, if 'wisdom' is understood as the opposite of 'ignorance' and is an essential precursor to fear of sin it cannot also take second place to fear of sin as Rabbi Ĥanina ben-Dosa opines. (The two views can be reconciled if, as I have suggested, Rabbi Ĥanina ben-Dosa is referring to 'conventional' wisdom or something similar.)

18:
However, we shall encounter later on the teaching of yet a third sage which can only be understood as implying the exact opposite of what is taught in our present mishnah. When we reach mishnah 18 of our present chapter we shall find Rabbi El'azar ben-Azaryah teaching that wisdom and fear [of sin] are co-equal: the the one cannot exist without the other. This implies that wisdom cannot take second place to fear of sin or vice-versa.

19:
The seifa [last part] of our present mishnah seeks to emphasize a teaching that has already been presented. In mishnah 15 of Chapter 1 [Avot 065] we found Shammai (no less!) teaching us to

Rabbi Ĥanina ben-Dosa takes this a stage further: people whose nature is such that others feel comfortable in their company are approved by God. The converse is also true: if you want to 'get on well' with God you must also 'get on well' with your fellow human beings. Alas, in too many cases we find that in modern religiosity this is not the case.

In Avot 173 we mentioned the takkanah of Rebbenu Gershom concerning polygamy. Yehuda Wiesen asks:

Why isn't Rabenu Gershom's takana regarding polygamy an example of following the ways of the gentiles?

I respond:

Why should we think so? While our scriptures certainly condone polygamy I think that they also present monogamy as an ideal. The prophets – particularly Hosea – often use the metaphor of a happy monogamous relationship to describe the ideal relationship between God and Israel. When Israel, the unfaithful wife, goes a-whoring after other lovers the Husband does not divorce her or take another wife, but constantly seeks to return His wayward wife to Himself. In the bible [Isaiah 50:1] we find God indignantly asking:

The takkanah of Rabbenu Gershom seeks to make human marriage an imitation of the 'divine marriage' – if such an expression is permissible. Being human we are not always able to live up to the ideal, which is why the takkanah leaves a loophole for special circumstances – permission for a bigamous marriage with the assent of one hundred rabbis: but the ideal remains the ideal in almost 100% of the cases.