Shiur #20: Poresh Min Ha-tzibbur
Pirkei Avot - The Wisdom of the Fathers
Shiur #20:
Poresh Min Ha-tzibbur
By Rav Moshe
Taragin
The fifth Mishna of the
second perek quotes a lengthy, seemingly unrelated series of statements
in the name of Hillel. Some have suggested that this Hillel was the son of
Rabban Gamliel and the grandson of Rabbi Yehuda Ha-Nassi, based upon an
interesting Gemara in Bava Batra (83b) in which Hillel the grandson posed
a question to his grandfather regarding land acquisition procedures. This opinion may be supported by our
Mishna's placement: the first Mishna of the perek cites Rabbi Yehuda
Ha-Nassi's statements, followed by the second Mishna which cites Rabban
Gamliel's ideas. Perhaps Rabbi
himself, the author of Pirkei Avot, slotted the first mishnayot of
the second perek with his own illustrious Torah lineage.
Rashi and the Rambam
dispute this minority opinion and claim that these ideas were authored by Hillel
Ha-zaken who lived much earlier than Rabbi Yehuda Ha-Nasi. In contrast to the earlier
mishnayot, the ENSUING mishnayot of the second perek cite
statements of the earlier Hillel and many versions of Avot begin Mishna 6
- clearly Hillel Ha-zaken's statements - with the pronoun "he [also] said,"
corroborating the position of Rashi and the Rambam. Those who argue and maintain that Mishna
3 records statements by the later Hillel, while mishnayot 6-8 cite
statements by the earlier one, are forced to adopt a version of Mishna 6 which
begins with "Hillel Ha-zaken said
" clarifying that these mishnayot
record the statements of a different Hillel.
I.
Do not secede from the community
Hillel's initial
statement warns against behavior which deviates from commonly accepted
norms. Though the value of
conformity has universal application, Chazal drew special attention to
two very specific contexts. The
Gemara in Ta'anit (11a) outlines appropriate behavior during times of
national crisis. It specifically
addresses an individual who may not be personally affected by the emergency and
whose conduct appears unmindful the public situation. The Gemara describes a scene of two
angels who descend, place their hands upon this person and pronounce, "As he did
not commiserate with the public agony he will not merit to participate in its
redemption." This ominous warning
highlights the import of immersing in public crisis practical participation as
well as emotional identification.
The aforementioned Gemara derives this ethic from Moshe who placed hard
boulders under his outstretched hands during the war with Amalek. Though Moshe, engaged in prayer, was not
involved in battle and was not exposed to threat of death, he refused to lay his
arms upon a comfortable base. His
story highlights the value of emotional identification: even though he was
participating in, and directly contributing to, the war effort, he still labored
to maintain emotional identification with public suffering.
In his comments to the Mishna, Rashi alludes to a different Gemara and a
more abstract form of commiseration with national crisis. A well-known Gemara in Ta'anit
(31b) announces that whoever does not mourn the destruction of Jerusalem will
not behold its deliverance. Hillel
not only recommended empathy with immediate public suffering, but also demanded
broader historical identification.
A second specific
scenario which Chazal highlighted is the public experience of
tefilla. Tefilla with
a minyan, though it provides opportunity for the recital of special
passages, does not constitute a concretely different prayer experience. As the actual liturgy of prayer is
similar - whether recited in public or private - some may question the
'superiority' of public prayer. The
Gemara in Berakhot (8a) quotes Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai who identified the
experience of communal prayer as 'eit ratzon.' Rabbeinu Bachaye cites a different
Gemara in Ta'anit (8a) which indicates that prayer offered in public is
embraced by Hakadosh Barukh Hu even if it lacks the same fervor or focus that
private tefilla may contain.
The Gemara effectively refutes a possible decision to choose private
prayer over minyan because it may be more focused or attentive. Ultimately, public prayer provides the
greatest chance of acceptance. This
sentiment is emphatically asserted by the Rambam in Hilkhot Tefilla (8;1)
when he claims that public prayer is never rebuffed by Hakadosh Barukh Hu even
if the group contains sinners. Even
at a metaphysical level, public prayer is fundamentally different from private
experience and carries a greater chance of being accepted.
One has to wonder
whether Hillel's statement even if applied to davening, conveys the
metaphysical connotation of this form of tefilla. Tefilla be-tzibbur can be
encouraged for many different reasons ranging from social - contributing to
communal needs - to liturgical - enabling the recital of
'tzibbur-exclusive' passages - to existential - expanding tefilla
to address public needs and thereby purifying it of its potentially selfish
nature. Even if Hillel intended
public prayer as the application of his statement not to secede from the
community, it is questionable whether he intended the metaphysical consequences
of this form of tefilla.
Though the commentaries
to Avot associated Hillel's statement with two very specific areas, it is
unquestionable that this phrase resonates with broader meaning. Undoubtedly, religious experience
demands personal conviction and the courage to defy public pressure which may
undermine either our faith or our obedience. Yet, just as important and perhaps more
important is the ability to conform to public norms - obviously those which
reflect and buttress our value system.
A healthy degree of conformity is valuable at both a moral and practical
level. Morally, it helps inhibit
hubris or arrogance which, ironically, are often bred by religious
ambition. Ambition, by nature,
seduces us by whispering our own differences and unique qualities and
potentials. Unrestrained, our
'noble' ambition may sometimes poison and lead us into the realm of
egotism. A healthy membership in a
community of others tempers our ambition with the recognition of other similarly
gifted people who display traits which hopefully, we recognize as absent from
our own personalities. Ideally,
this serves as a hedge against uncontrolled egotism.
Practically, our
membership in a society of co-worshippers assures a safety net of religious
inspiration for the moments that our own enthusiasm wavers. At these stages, strong affiliation with
community can be counted upon as a source for reinforcement of religious values
and practices as well as an inspiration to continue participating in something
which is larger than ourselves.
Consequently, given the
value of balanced conformity to a community of healthy values, we should express
this ethic in areas far beyond prayer and commiseration with crisis. It informs our manner of behavior,
social interaction, religious posture, and so many other areas of public
interaction. As a seminal value, it
should and does factor in halakhic predicaments. Certain behavior may be sanctioned
because it supports the ethic of conformity, even if it may encroach upon other
lesser-valued ideals.