Pirke Avot Chapter 6: Celebrating Human Innovation Within Our Tradition

Rabbi John S. Schechter

The popularity of the public reading and discussion of Pirke Avot - The Wisdom Of Our
Ancestors scarcely needs justification due to its common portrayal as an ethical guide to Jewish
living. Through rabbinic presentation it has served as the guide to the transmission of the Oral
Law from Sinai onward, and has often been invoked as praise to the value of Torah study. Yet,
outside of praise of the Torah, the sixth chapter of Pirke Avot presents an unusual and strong
treatise asserting that the interplay of human independence and divine inspiration is an inherently
valid and holy approach to reading Scripture. The announcement of this new means of
interpreting Torah and law may have developed in early Judaism in response to the growing
awareness of both the doctrine of "dual Torah" -- the recognition of the importance of the Oral
Tradition alongside of the written -- as well as a partial answer to the challenge of emerging
Christianity to rabbinic Judaism. The doctrine of "dual Torah" was, in part, a means of
explanation of the variant texts of Torah which were circulating in the literate Jewish
community, and, served as a response that Judaism held its own internal and genetically
consistent answer to the charge that the unwieldy ritual and religious laws had been superseded
by new revelations.

In this light, the addition of Chapter Six to Pirke Avot was more than a joining of a late baraita
(legal/aggadic material of Mishnaic age) to an established text by the early rabbis. Not only did
Chapter Six's examples of interpretation demonstrate that more than adequate resiliency and life
still resided within the Torah. The creative use of prooftexts drawn from outside of the first five
books of the Torah proclaimed to the initiated reader that all parts of the written tradition could
be deployed to show that divine guidance could only be understood in light of human experience.

Through a startling set of prooftexts and examples the chapter suggests that God wanted the
innovation and claims of humans to be ranked alongside of revealed truth. It is possible that this
thesis was known but thought to have been deemed too unsettling and dangerous to publish
openly during the early publication (or transmission) of the Mishnah. That is, an unchecked or
unauthorized fashion the announcement of a new mechanism for interpretation could have led to
dissolution of the lines of authority, tradition and communal obedience. So, the writer of Pirke
Avot Chapter Six encapsulated the examples of the proper mode of innovation within a larger
body of observations about the value of Torah, insuring that only the diligent reader would see
that the prooftexts do more than simply fail to support each argument of the Mishnah in Chapter
Six.

It may be understandable that this method of innovation was cloaked. But why the
announcement of the method here (rather than in some independent treatise)? Perhaps by
working within the accepted literary form, the author(s) of Chapter Six assured that while many
would hear the melody of a means of innovation, few would recognize its potential. Taken
together, the dual usage of prooftexts - to establish legitimacy of new interpretation and to
lament the passing of the older, fixed structures - builds a new foundation for the expansion of
Jewish legal thought.

1
Specifically, the common feature of these ill-fitting Biblical citations is that, when read closely,
they each relate a shift of responsibility for a Biblical event from being an action of God to the
thoughtful work of an individual. By this ploy, while the sixth chapter professes to be a
discussion of the authority of Torah, it invests greater opportunity, effort and responsibility in the
individual. At the same time, although the chapter receives a title of “kinyan torah” in its
published form, there is little explicit reliance on divine revelation in its chosen prooftexts. While
a modern reader might be familiar with the pattern of an essay whose argument and its citations
run in differing directions, in its time this pattern contradicted even the contrived linkages of
verses and interpretations which mark some of the early Judaic sermons and midrashim.

One reason for such cautious disclosure of a new route of interpretation is suggested by Dr.
David Weiss Halivni in his recent work, Revelation Restored:

“With each successive generation, the written word became the supposed source of more and
more tradition, which was now adduced through exegesis. The scriptures were regarded as God‟s
essential and all-encompassing legacy to Israel. If Israel held by the detailed traditional laws, the
early rabbis reasoned, then the basis for these laws must have been scrutable in the holy written
word itself. At the same time, some laws that had once been taught as pure oral tradition -
attributed to the instructions of Moses himself at Sinai - were now subordinated to other rules
which could be adduced from exegesis.”
[Weiss Halivni, p. 54] (Revelation Restored, David Weiss Halivni, Westview Press, Boulder,
CO, 1997)

The first gambit displayed in Chapter Six's portrayal of the tension between innovation and
traditional obeisance is notarikon. On a simple level, the exegete in Pirke Avot creates an
acronym directed to prove a theological point. In the opening gambit, the scholar who fails to
recognize the full meaning of the Torah is said to deserve the label of nazuf - reprobate.

Rabbi Jehoshua ben Levi said: Everyday a Bath Kol goes forth from Mount Horeb, and
proclaims, and says 'Woe to mankind because of their insulting the Torah; for everyone
who is not occupied with Torah is called reprobate, as it is said ( Prov. XI. 22 ) - 'As a jewel
in the snout of a swine so is a fair woman without any sense'. And Scripture says ( Exodus
XXXII. 16 ) - 'And the tables were the work of God, and the writing of God graven upon
the tables'. Read not haruth (graven) but heruth ( freedom ) , for none is your freeman but
he who is occupied with the study of Torah. And everyone who is occupied with the study
of Torah, lo, he exalts himself, as it is said ( Num. XXI, 19.) - 'And from Mattanah to
Nahaliel and from Nahaliel to Bamoth'.
[Rabbi Travers Hereford Translation, p. 151] ( Pirke Avot, Rabbi Joseph Hertz, Behrman House
Publishing, Springfield, NJ. 1945 )

Is it a sin for a Torah scholar that he fails to reach his potential ? The incongruence is
pronounced by the writer of Pirke Avot through the invocation of Proverbs 11:22. " Nezem
Zahav Be'af -- “ like a gold ring in a swine‟s snout is a beautiful woman bereft of sense.” The
analogy must have been appealing since it speaks to the notion of visible signs of fitness, yet, it
is flawed since the ( already declared "beautiful") woman needs no outer adornment and the

2
scholar‟s retarded inner development cannot be fixed by external means. The mismatch of
appearance with reality is further suggested by underscored by the scholar‟s failure to conceal his
ineptitude. No single gift is going to make him more valued in a world of Torah, just as a breeder
would fail if the swine‟s sole attraction is the decorative gold ring. However, just as a gold ring
retains its value (and causes no adverse reaction if used as jewelry ) so too might Torah retain its
value and redemptive power, even in inept hands.

Perhaps that is why the editor of Mishnah 2 quickly shifts to the new image of the contrasting
power of the Tablets with the sterility of the Golden Calf.

Before the Biblical description of the apostasy of the newly freed Israelites with the Golden Calf
there are a few key descriptions of the Tablets of the Law. “When He finished speaking with him
on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the Pact, stone tablets inscribed with the
finger of God.” ( Exodus 31:18 ) To insure that the reader acknowledges the divine authority
vested in the act of writing, the origin of the stones is reiterated in the next chapter of Exodus: “
Thereupon Moses turned and went down the mountain bearing the two tablets of the Pact, tablets
inscribed on both their surfaces : they were inscribed on one side and on the other.” ( Exodus
32:15-16 ) This would seem to be an unambiguous telling.

However, a second telling of the incident raises a very different possibility. In the first line of
Chapter 34 “The Lord said to Moses: Carve two tablets of stone like the first and I will inscribe
upon the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you shattered.” This simple
description is belied by the fourth line of the same chapter, “ So Moses carved two tablets of
stone, like the first, and early in the morning he went up on Mount Sinai, as the Lord
commanded him, taking the two stone tablets with him.” The stones are the very basis for the
transmission of the Law, but once the pact has been renewed by Moses and God, then these
blank tablets become the means of a different, perhaps more activist, human role. Moses moves
from being a mere bearer and purveyor of the tablets and their messages to being the scribe:. “
And the Lord Said to Moses: Write down these commandments, for in accordance with these
commandments I make a covenant with you and with Israel. And he was there with the Lord for
forty days and forty nights; he ate no bread and drank no water; and he wrote down on the tablets
the terms of the covenant, the Ten Commandments. So Moses came down from Mount
Sinai…bearing the two tablets of the Pact.” ( Exodus 34:27-29)

Now, these small variations do not lead to a claim that Moses possesses ownership or authorship
for the terms of the Pact, but Moses is depicted as the authorized human transmitter. That small
shift of responsibility, away from God to the human, is precisely what permits the author of
Mishnah 2 to uproot a single unvocalized word of the Torah Harut-Graven and substitute Herut-
Freedom in his admonition “ Do not read graven but rather freedom, for no person is free except
one who engages in the study of Torah.” To comment in that fashion suggests more than a fluid
reading of the unvocalized Hebrew. It is an endorsement of wordplay over reception in service of
expanding the reader‟s responsibility for learning the words of “ the Pact” and for intellectual
freedom.

A differing method of investigating the problem of authorship of the Second Tables was
proposed by Professor Saul Lieberman in Hellenism In Jewish Palestine. (HELLENISM IN

3
JEWISH PALESTINE: Studies in the Literary Transmission Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in
the I Century B. C. E-IV Century C. E. Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York.
1950 )In his discussion of the search by Alexandrian grammarians for the proper attribution of
authorship of texts by their searches for acrostics which might contain the names of the authors,
Lieberman remarks, “ In early rabbinic literature this kind of acrostic is not mentioned. But the
Rabbis were sometimes confronted with problems similar to the question of authorship of a
given work…For example, the rabbis differed as to the writer of the Second Tables. The Bible
itself leaves room for doubt. Some verses ( Ex.34:1; Deut. 10:2,4 ) imply that the Almighty
wrote them ( as He did the first ones). But the other verses ( Ex. 24:27, 28 ) indicate that the
Moses engraved the Second Tables. The prevalent rabbinic view is that the First and the Second
Tables were written by the Almighty. But some sources suggest that the latter were the work of
Moses.” ( Lieberman, pp. 80-81 )

The solution proposed by Lieberman revolves around the reading of the core word, Anochi, as an
acrostic for "I Myself wrote and gave them" ( Anochi Nafshi Kativah Yehavit ) based upon
sources in Shemot Raba and Tosefta. (Lieberman, p. 81) But, Lieberman brings an intriguing
anonymous statement which appears in the Yemenite Midrash Haggadol wherein Moses
becomes " nomikah " to the act of writing. That is, he is the middleman, the scribe, the notarius,
or, the notary ( but not quite the law giver --see note #272, Lieberman ). The suggestion is that
the proper reading of Anochi refers to Moses. In that reading, Anochi Rabanan Amrei Ana
Nomikah Katavit , “The Rabbis said Anochi is to be resolved into: I nomico wrote [and] gave
[them].” Here it is the nomico who wrote and gave the Tables. There can be no doubt that the
nomico is none other than Moses.”
(Lieberman, p. 81 )

The critical role of the nomico derives from his responsibility to be both bearer and transmitter of
the tradition. His personal biases and thoughts might find expression as he translated and
explained the law even as he sought to keep within the bounds of the king‟s or emperor‟s
original thoughts. The role of the nomico or notary included publishing the edicts of the rulers of
the Greco-Roman world as recorded by Eusebius.( Lieberman, p. 200 ) " For, according to the
Rabbis, the nations of the world sent their notarii to copy for them the Torah which was inscribed
on the stones ( by Joshua ) in seventy languages. Apparently the Rabbis conceived that the
notarii in their turn inscribed it on blocks of stone which they then deposited in their sanctuaries
or archives." ( Lieberman, p. 201 )

Still the mere possession of the words of the Lord in any language did not guarantee that ( in the
eyes of the rabbis ) that the possessor would have access to the "mysteries" of God. The
difference between mere ownership and true possession is found within the concluding jibe from
a tale related by the Jews about the Christians according to the mid-fourth century sage, Rabbi
Judah ben Shalom, whom Lieberman quotes as saying: " That you [ possess the written form of
Torah ] may be, but only those who possess my mysteries are my children, i.e. [ those who have
] the Mishnah which is given orally.” (Lieberman, p. 207 ) The act of writing, the act of
transmission, might change the content of the presentation, but the corrective is the personal
knowledge of the authorized interpretation, in this case, the Mishnah. The need for that
corrective cannot be overstated. The early rabbinic Jews were aware of the competing claims by
the Christians for authenticity and authority based upon who possessed the Torah. The Jews and

4
the Gentiles might both read the Torah, because “ the nations of the world would translate the
Torah and read it in Greek and then say : „We are Israel‟, and now the scales are balanced !” (
Lieberman, p. 207)

The tension which existed between the public version of a story from the Torah and its private
usage required some reconciliation lest the authority of a new interpreter ( or interpreting
community ) become dominant. The Sixth Chapter of Pirke Avot addresses that issue by
insisting that freedom still lies within obedience to the laws of the Torah and not by overturning
them. The Jewish reader is cautioned that revealed words are fixed but that freedom to interpret
is also a given for those who remain within the covenant. One might yet study and live by the
received wisdom while matching it with new insights and new attributions. For example,
consider the transformation which takes place in the following section of that Mishnah utilizing a
whole verse drawn from the book of Numbers.

The verse " From Mattanah ( gift ) to Nahaliel ( inheritance of God ) and from Nahaliel to Bamot
( high places of worship )" [ Numbers 21:19 ] is, plainly speaking, an awkward proof of how
study of Torah results in exaltation. On the simplest plane, this can be read as praise of one who
labors to explain each verse of the Torah, no matter how simple or obscure. The mere
atomization of the verse makes for an interesting sermon ( and was followed by most of the
medieval commentators as the means to unravel the verse ) but that approach ignores the Torah‟s
argument over leadership and authority within the larger travelogue of Numbers 21.

As the Israelites journeyed through Amorite and Moabite territory they lacked the sustenance of
water as depicted in Numbers 21. "And from there to Be'er, which is the well where the Lord
said to Moses "Assemble the people that I might give them water". With the emphasis on God's
sole discretion over resources, the verse neatly but quietly undercuts the suggestion of the first
mention of that well, one chapter earlier: "You and your brother Aaron take the rod, and
assemble the community, and before their eyes order the rock to yield its water." ( Numbers
20:8) If the Mishnah‟s discourse on the orderly revelation of the Torah was to prove the absolute
supremacy of received wisdom, then should not have its exposition logically followed the
original sequence of the verses in Numbers ?

Instead the writer of the Mishnah chose a prooftext from Numbers whose larger context
describes a public relations exercise on who creates and who takes credit.

" Then, Israel sang this song: Spring Up O Well- sing to it - /The well which the chieftains
dug/Which the nobles of the people started/With maces, with their own staffs. And from
Midbar to Mattanah, and from Mattanah to Nahaliel, at the peak of Pisgah, overlooking to
Bamoth to the valley that is in the country of Moab, at the peak of Pisgah, overlooking the
wasteland." ( Numbers 20:8 )

It is good political form to allow each tribal chieftain to put his name on the public works sign
which announces the commencement of the well project. But that behavior is theologically
troubling since the declaration makes this well the result of human effort -- complete with a
hymn (!) to the Well. So why the writer of the Mishnah might have chosen this verse to teach as
the proof of the reward of diligent inquiry into Torah ?

5
The repeated invocation of the well as the symbol of divine providence and sustenance serves as
a tribute to those who rearranged the landscape and led the popular effort. Citation of this verse
allows the author of Chapter Six to move one step closer to the goal of showing how the human
response to divine inspiration creates the meaning and defines the memory.

The human readiness for creation of significant ideas built upon Torah ( but not limited to
applying it only to its own time) is heralded by the citation of concerning the behavior that
constitutes proper obedience toward authority. In Mishnah 3, the piety attached to proper
quotation and attribution of rabbinic sayings seems -- at first -- to support the traditional idea
that the received statement is the authoritative for the community.

" One who learns from his colleagues a one chapter, or one halakhah, or one verse, or one
expression, or even one letter, is obliged to pay him honor." Despite the whiff of piety
attached to the proclamation of credit being due for even a single expression, the marker for the
power of the human reader is the concluding half of the Mishnah‟s statement. Misleadingly, the
Mishnah credits King David with the words " he learned but two words from Ahithophel, yet,
he called him his master, his guide, his dear friend." But what were those two words and how
did they alter the outcome of the story ?

The Mishnah's first answer is insufficient, a red herring: "But it is you, my equal , my guide,
my dear friend " ( Psalm 55:14 ) How does Ahithophel's short statement function as a
confirming key for David ? Only when Ahithophel joins with David's errant son, Absalom, in
rebellion against the king, does the reason for not quoting with attribution become clear. The
verses from 2 Samuel set the stage:

" Absalom sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David's counselor, from his town, Giloh, when
the sacrifices were to be offered. The conspiracy gained strength and the people supported
Absalom in increasing numbers. " ( 2 Samuel 15:12 )

Ahithophel does not publicly speak or act at the public ceremony in Hebron, but his presence
lends authority and the appearance of a shift of divine power ( from David ) to the new actor,
Absalom. The essence of the story is presence, not words. When Ahithophel counsels Absalom
that the best way to solidify public support for the new order is for Absalom to acquire the
concubines of King David on a rooftop in Jerusalem while the king is out of town. Cleverly,
Ahithophel does not specify a role for himself in these proceedings, but he certainly understands
the power of a well placed word.

" Absalom then said to Ahithophel, "What do you advise us to do ?" And Ahithophel said
to Absalom, " [ May you ] Have intercourse with your father's concubines whom he left to
mind the palace; and when all Israel hears that you have dared the wrath of your father, all
who support you will be encouraged." ( 2 Samuel 16:21 Aside from the blunt answer serving
as an allusion to Jacob‟s concubines in Genesis 35:21-22, the verbal instruction really implies
the power of the unspoken ( but visible ) action. The power of the suggestion is fully developed
in 2 Samuel 16:23, " In those days, the advice which Ahithophel gave was accepted like an
oracle sought from God, that is how all the advice of Ahithophel was esteemed by both

6
David and by Absalom." While the implication of this simile is that a sure disclosure from God
may come through an authorized agent, what does it mean that David must credit Ahithophel
with learning ?

The explanation is tied to chapter 17 of 2 Samuel when King David returns exhausted from battle
only to find Ahithophel hastily calling for a rebellion and assassination. When the latter‟s call is
ignored, Ahithophel " saddled his ass and went home to his native town. He set his affairs in
order, and then hanged himself." ( 2 Samuel 17:23 )

So what did David learn from Ahithophel ? He apparently learned the power of political speech (
in general ) and the power of concealing intent in speech. Political speech constitutes not merely
words, but includes action, too. When Ahithophel appears in Hebron for the public to see him
near the rebellious leader, he does not need to speak with words. Even worse, Ahithophel creates
a false distance between himself and his spoken words when he repeatedly employs the word
"you" as he advises Absalom on how to publicly signal the usurpation of David's power and
prowess. By emphasizing the singular "you" Ahithophel separates himself as speaker from being
a responsible actor. The one ideal which Ahithophel taught by betraying it is personal
responsibility; the self is joined to the action through words.

David drives the point home by honoring the late and discredited advisor, Ahithophel, for his
valor but not for his cause. Never does he curse or discredit the man, rather, David directs
attention to him by honoring the late rebel's physical offspring ( by making one of them part of
his presidential guard ) but denies Ahithophel the honor of a eulogy or song of mourning. By
creative use of a silence which expands (political) speech David prevents the veneration of
Ahithophel, for he fails to quote him or to honor his prior words of advice.

The third set of unmatched prooftexts and argument occurs in the Mishnah 3. It begins with the
praise of abstinence or self-control in those who would labor to acquire Torah. The Mishnah
initially equates hardship in labor with the hardship necessary to gain a fuller understanding of
Torah. But then, it builds a new expectation that those who are successful will be recompensed in
the next world ( olam ha bah ).

“ If thou does thus happy shalt thou be and it shall be well with thee. Happy in this world and
well with thee in the word to come.” ( Mishnah 3 ) The selection of an excerpt from Psalm 128 is
intriguing because the very point of the short Psalm is that God‟s rewards and gifts are
immediate, to be delivered within the seeker‟s life or in his children‟s. Is this a parallel to"
Happy are they who fear the Lord and follow His ways. You shall enjoy the fruit of your labors -
you shall be happy and you shall prosper ?”

The difficulty of assigning when the belief in the World To Come arose within Judaism comes
from the lack of written sources from the time of the inclusion of the book of Daniel in the
Tanakh until the time of the Mishnah. But the issue of whether there is a written tradition to
support its inclusion was explored with reference to the idea of "second Torah" by Professor
Robert Gordis [ The World And The Book, KTAV Publishing, New York, 1976 ] in his
exploration of the tension between Kethibh-Qere [ the written and pronounced text ]. Gordis
notes that when the topic of the World To Come is sighted in the book of Job 13:15, the
Mishnaic Tanna who later notes the lack of identical versions in manuscripts which circulated in

7
the first centuries, " does not call the variant readings before him in Job 13:15 by the term
Kethibh-Qere demonstrates that this process was not yet complete in Mishnaic times. It is only in
the Amoraic period, beginning with the third century C.E., that we find the term used for variant
readings. Thus on Ecclesiastes 9:4, where Gordis notes that “** the verse is written YeVuchar --
it is to be chosen, but the reading aloud is YeChubar -- God will join the lives of all creatures”,
he continues and translates: “ Rabbi Johanan says: "It is written - Y V H R - all the living have
hope, for so long as a man lives there is hope that he may repent; when he dies his hope is lost" (
J. Berakhot 9,1)." { Gordis, pp. 54-55 }

In this example the Amoraim base their idea upon a Kethib ( a written version ) which differs
from the Qere ( the spoken version ) resulting in a new approach to life. The power of the bearer
and interpreter goes beyond simply being nomikah, a text-writer and speaker, to being a creative
soul who establishes a new stance toward God based upon a flexible reading of the Bible.

Not only does the theological sense of the verse in the Psalms change if the reader holds the
power over when and how a person merits eternal redemption, but the reliance upon
interpretation of a written tradition to lay the groundwork for and to support this idea of man's
power in determining the outcome is precisely in line with the thrust of Mishnah 3. The route of
access to the World To Come depends upon one's stance of how to read it: if one is contented
with the existing world you could read the words in one fashion. But, if one seeks a new life ( yet
a meaningful and observant life still bounded within the world of revelation ) then one slightly
rearranges the emphasis of the verses.

Such is the gift of that third citation from Pirke Avot is found within chapter Six. The potential
for a flexible approach within a world of fixed ( but not inerrant or perfect ) texts enables one to
carve out a new theological path while remaining firmly within the rabbinic tradition. Such
actions demonstrate both obedience and respect to received traditions while celebrating human
innovation. What better way to acknowledge "kinyan Torah" than by laboring to acquire one‟s
own interpretation of Torah ?

Rabbi John S. Schechter

40 Whitenack Road
Congregation B‟nai Israel
Basking Ridge, New Jersey
07920