Avot223

1:
In most of the codices of the Mishnah which have reached us the allocation of the mishnayot is rather haphazard in this chapter. For the sake of clarity I have allocated one mishnah per sage. Therefore, it goes without saying that the numbers of the various mishnayot will be different from their counterparts in other editions – especially those found in prayer-books.

2:
We know almost nothing about Rabbi Levitas who is the sage whose teaching is the subject of our present mishnah. This is his sole appearance in the Mishnah and the Gemara (though he is also quoted three times is a late midrashic work called Pirkéde-Rabbi Eli'ezer). 'Levitas' is Latin for 'Levi', but we have already seen several examples of sages who bore Hellenized or Romanized names.

3:
The term 'from Yavneh' could mean several things. Of course, it could simply be a descriptor for the sage's place of domicile. Alternatively, it could just be an indication that Rabbi Levitas was a member of the Sanhedrin that met in Yavneh for sixty-five years or so from soon after the year 70 CE. Lastly, the term could serve to indicate that Rabbi Levitas was an important personality in Yavneh: possibly he was the 'local rabbi' as it were.

4:
The teaching of Rabbi Levitas in our mishnah is very simple to understand. It is appropriate that human beings exhibit great humility in life: they should never forget that their ultimate haven is the grave where their bodies will putrefy and become 'food for worms'. The idea is similar to that proposed by William Shakespeare [Hamlet 4:3]: when Hamlet is asked where he has hidden the body of Polonius he retorts that Polonius is

Rabbi Levitas' makes the point much more succinctly.

To be continued.

In the discussion section of Avot 218 we mentioned the fact that ben-Azzai remained celibate. Ed Frankel writes:

I am intrigued by the episode regarding Ben Azzai that you noted in the last lesson. What intrigues me is his final statement, "What can I do? I have fallen in love with Torah. The world will have to be populated by others." From his comment I infer that marriage and procreation were related to falling in love with a woman. Often, even with counter examples as the love of Rabbi Akiva and Rachel, we picture our predecessors as having almost universally wed in arranged marriages. Perhaps I am pushing too hard, but to me Ben Azzai's comment suggests that falling in love was not an unusual reason for marriage.

I respond:

I see no reason why we should not assume that most marriages in earlier ages were the result of mutual attraction. Human nature and human sexuality has not changed in just a few thousand years. On the other hand, it is surely true that in earlier times arranged marriages were much more common than they are today – at least in western culture. I would also imagine – though I have no statistical evidence to offer – that arranged marriages are no less successful than marriages created by attraction. Attraction often depreciates with time and if it was the only basis for the union that bodes ill for the survival of the marriage – as modern divorce statistics may indicate. Happily, I tend to agree with Ed on this one.

The next shiur will be, God willing, on Thursday 21st September.