דף הביתשיעוריםAvot

Avot191

נושא: Avot
BET MIDRASH VIRTUALI
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel


RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP


Bet Midrash Virtuali

TRACTATE AVOT, CHAPTER THREE, MISHNAH FOURTEEN (recap):

Rabbi Akiva says: laughter and frivolity encourage promiscuity; tradition is a fence around the Torah, tithes are a fence around wealth, vows are a fence around asceticism; silence is a fence around wisdom.

EXPLANATIONS (continued):

5:
Like any religious system it is possible for fanatics to make the Torah endorse extreme views and extreme behaviour. If one follows the text of the Torah as it stands, in many cases one will find that the literal meaning of the text is encouraging or requiring actions that are extreme according to any objective reading. One example can suffice. If we read the text of Exodus 21:22-25 according to its plain meaning we can arrive at some very cruel punishments:

When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be assessed by the arbitrators; but if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Clearly, a literal reading of the text would require putting out the eye of a malfeasant, or burning his skin or amputating his foot. But the sages 'interpreted' this text otherwise. Indeed, their interpretation consists of one word!

Eye for eye – money! [Mekhilta, Mishpatim 8]

The amplification which follows in the text shows that the sages meant that it was the value of one eye, the value of one tooth and so forth. This is what in modern jurisprudence is called damages.

6:
It is to this treatment of the text of the Torah that Rabbi Akiva refers when he teaches that 'tradition is a fence around the Torah'. The Hebrew word that he uses for 'tradition' is masoret. This word indicates the rabbinic interpretation of the text that was handed down from sage to sage and from generation to generation. Yeshayahu Leibowitz z'l was wont to opine that the Oral Tradition is more important than the written Torah. And there is much common sense in that view, because we do not observe the Written Torah: we observe the Written Torah as interpreted by the sages. [See explanation #14 in Avot 003.]

7:
Over the years we have seen many examples of how the sages used their right of interpretation to completely alter and even nullify a command of the Written Torah. The most salient example of this is probably what the sages did with the command of the Torah concerning the 'stubborn and rebellious son'. The Torah command [Deuteronomy 21:18-21] is unequivocal in its severity:

If a man has a wayward and defiant son, who does not heed his father or mother and does not obey them even after they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the public place of his community. They shall say to the elders of his town, "This son of ours is disloyal and defiant; he does not heed us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Thereupon the men of his town shall stone him to death. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst: all Israel will hear and be afraid.

What the sages systematically did with this text can be learned from our study of Chapter Eight of Tractate Sanhedrin, Sanhedrin 106 to Sanhedrin 114. That will demonstrate the power and the boldness of the sages more than anything else I could suggest.

8:
Thus, Rabbi Akiva in our present mishnah, may be understood as teaching that the interpretative skills of the sages should be seen as having a liberalizing effect upon the text of the Torah, and not the opposite as is often claimed by the unlearned. That this is his intention is borne out by the rest of his teaching in this mishnah, as we shall see.

To be continued.

DISCUSSION:

In Avot 185 Jacob Chinitz suggested making an addition to the wedding ceremony in which the bride is asked whether she consents to the marriage. In my response I said that this was already accomplished by the act of Kiddushin. Joel Berman writes:

At our wedding, we added the words Akhen Ani M'kudeshet L'kha, [I am indeed betrothed to you] spoken by my wife, after the acceptance of the ring.

I respond:

For those couples that want the bride to make a declaration parallel to the declaration of the groom I have suggested something along the same lines: Harei ishi attah kedat Moshe ve-Yisra'el; in this the bride is affirming that by her acceptance of the ring (or whatever) the groom has become her husband.


In Avot 188, in response to a further query from Jacob Chinitz on this same subject I wrote: If the groom offers the bride a gift and says "If you accept from me this newspaper you will become my wife according to the law of Moses and Israel" and she accepts – why should they not be deemed to be man and wife?

Amnon Ronel writes (presumably with tongue in cheek):

My local supermarket gives me a newspaper as a gift with my weekly purchase. Does this mean that I am betrothed?

I respond:

Well, it would do if the following conditions were met:

  1. That you were a woman;
  2. That the man giving you the newspaper made the declaration quoted above;
  3. That this is done in the presence of two competent witnesses according to Jewish law.

NOTICE:

The Bet Midrash Virtuali is now going on its traditional break for the festival of Passover. God willing, the next shiur in this series will be on Monday, April 24th. I take this opportunity of wishing everybody a very happy and kasher Passover.



דילוג לתוכן