Avot235

6:
It is one of the basic interpretive precepts of the hermeneutic process of the sages (midrash ha-Torah) that there is nothing superfluous in the text of the Torah. Therefore, if something is repeated in two or more separate passages there must be some reason for this.

7:
One of the most well-known passages in the Torah is the passage [Exodus 20:1-14] which contains what the world knows as the Ten Commandments. And one of the best known verses in the Ten Commandments is verse 13:

With such apodictic clarity involved one would be hard put to find much to 'interpret' here. But the sages noted that the prohibition against theft occurs also in Leviticus 19:11. For the sages such a repetition requires elucidation and interpretation.

8:
When we encountered the great sage Hillel in our study of the first chapter of this tractate [Avot 054] we noted that he was the author of a logical system of interpretation of the Torah – Hillel's Seven Rules of Interpretation. In Avot 057 I wrote:

One of these rules of interpretation is that the exact implications of a command of the Torah may be deduced from its context [Davar ha-lamed me'inyano]. The context of Exodus 20:13 is that all the prohibitions mentioned there involve the death penalty for their proven infraction. Therefore 'stealing' in this context cannot refer to the theft of money, because that prohibition is punishable by a fine. The only 'stealing' that involves the death penalty in rabbinic jurisprudence is the theft of a person, what we would call kidnapping. Therefore a rabbinically correct translation of Exodus 20:13 should read:

9:
The context of the other mention of theft in the Torah [Leviticus 19:11-13] is as follows:

My translation of this passage is awkward in order to better reflect the meaning of the passage for the sages.

10:
Surely, many will be asking themselves what can be the import of this digression in connection with the teaching of Rabbi Yishma'el in our present mishnah. The connection will hopefully become apparent in our next shiur.

To be continued.

In Avot 233 I pointed out that the teaching in the mishnah did not seem to be borne out by modern behaviour. I then added: Presumably, we must understand the teaching of Rabbi Yosé as meaning that one should honour Torah in the hope that our honouring of Torah will encourage others to do so as well.

Martin Berman has another suggestion as to how to resolve the difficulty:

Perhaps the best way to understand his teaching is simply limit it to the world of observant Jews. In that world normally, the greater the Torah knowledge the greater the honour and the reverse.

Marc Auslander offers a different solution to the problem:

It seems to me that interpreting "will" as "should" is another way to read this which makes more sense than the alternatives offered. Is this possible in the Hebrew?

I respond:

Marc's suggestion would yield the following translation of the mishnah:

It's very neat and attractive, but, as Marc himself suggests, I don't think that the Hebrew text would support such an interpretation. Rabbi Berman's suggestion makes a lot of sense to me.