Moshe Kline
The Art of Writing ，The Oral Tradition
Leo Strauss, The Maharal of Prague and Rabbi Judah The Prince

转自朝圣山之思
· ...No one can so well understand a thing and make it his own when he learns
it from another as when he discovers it for himself.

Descartes, Discourse on Method

· ...An author who wishes to address only thoughtful men has but to write in
such a way that only a very careful reader can detect the meaning of his book.

· ...Writing between the lines. This expression is clearly metaphoric. Any
attempt to express its meaning in unmetaphoric language would lead to the discovery
of a terra incognita, a field whose very dimensions are as yet unexplored and which
offers ample scope for highly intriguing and even important investigations.

Leo Strauss, Persecution and the Art of Writing

· Introduction

· Level 1: The chronological shell

· Level 2: The static rule

· Level 3: The dynamic rule: extension

· Level 4: Wisdom

· Level 5: Empowerment

Introduction
The Maharal of Prague (Rabbi Judah Loew) viewed the Mishnah as a composition rather
than a collection. He did not use such terminology, of course, but this view is
clearly implicit in his explanation of how the various parts of the text are
related. His most convincing arguments are based on the structure of the list
of "Pairs" in the first chapter of Avot, a list which appears to be chronological
and historical. In his unique commentary Derekh Hayyim, he demonstrates that this
passage must, in fact, be read as a literary and philosophical composition. Perhaps
because of the obscurity of the Maharal's language and the complexity of his ideas,
the implications of his reading have not yet been fully appreciated. With this
article, I hope to clarify the significance of the Maharal's findings and to begin a
reappraisal of the approach they entail.

In his discussion of the Pairs passage, the Maharal describes three levels of order.
He also implies that there is a fourth level, though he does not describe it
explicitly. Later, I will argue that one can even speak of a fifth level. But first
let us consider the Maharal's argument.

Top
Level one: The chronological shell
From Pirkei Avot Chapter 1

(1) Moses received the Law at Sinai and handed it down to Joshua, and Joshua to the
Elders, and the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets to the men of the Great
Assembly.
They said three things:
be deliberate in judgement,
raise up many disciples,
[and] make a fence around the Law.
(2) Simon the Just was one of the last survivors of the Great Assembly.
He used to say,
Upon three things is the world based:
upon the Law,
upon worship,
and upon the practice of charity.
(3) Antigonos of Sokho received the tradition from Simon the Just.
He used to say,
Be not like slaves who serve their master for the sake of a reward
but rather like those who serve their master without hope of a reward;
and let the fear of heaven be upon you.

Tractate Avot begins with a description of the transmission of the Torah from one
generation to the next through the leaders of each generation: from Moses to Joshua
to the Elders to the Prophets to the men of the Great Assembly. Starting with the
men of the Great Assembly, the text cites a series of aphorisms, one in their name
and one in the name of each of the authorities introduced thereafter, spanning a
period of five generations. Two personalities are mentioned as receiving the Torah
in each generation, giving us a total of five Pairs, until the culmination of the
Second-Temple period with the last of the Pairs: Hillel and Shammai. We thus have
ten statements reported in the names of the five Pairs. These ten aphorisms make up
the literary-philosophical construct described by the Maharal.

The Pairs, Avot ch.1, According To The Maharal Of Prague

The Five Pairs Text

From The Maharal's Commentary

...The counsel (mussar) of each Pair adds to that of the previous Pair.
"One based his admonition on love and the other on fear"


1
(4) Yose ben Yoezer of Zereda
and Yose ben Yohanan of Jerusalem
received tradition from them

For the first Pair ordained correct behavior in regard to those members of one's
household to whom he is most closely related
A

Yose ben Yoezer said: Let your house be a meeting place for the wise; sit in the
dust of their feet, and drink in their words thirstily
B

(5) Yose ben Yohanan of Jerusalem said: Let your house be open wide; let the needy
be part of your household. Do not speak too much with women. They said this of one's
own wife; how much more is it true of another man's wife. Hence the Sages said: When
a man speaks too much with women he brings evil upon himself, neglects the study of
the Law and in the end will come to perdition.


2
(6) Joshua ben Perahia and Nittai the Arbelite
received tradition from them

After this, the second Pair ordained behavior toward one's teacher, friends and
neighbors, who are more distant but still close to one
A

Joshua ben Perahia said: Get yourself a teacher,acquire a comrade, and give the
benefit of the doubt.
B

(7) Nittai the Arbelite said: Stay away from an evil neighbor, do not associate with
the wicked, and do not despair of retribution.


3
(8) Judah ben Tabbai and Simon ben Shetah
received tradition from them.

Then the third Pair ordained behavior toward those one judges and leads, for they
are yet more distant.
A

Judah ben Tabbai said: Act not the part of counsel; while the litigants stand before
you, regard them as guilty, but as they leave, regard them as innocent, for they
have accepted the verdict.
B

(9) Simon ben Shetah said: Examine the witnesses thoroughly, and watch your words,
lest they learn from them to lie.


4
(10) Shemaia and Avtalion
received tradition from them.

And after that, the fourth Pair spoke of the behavior of one who gives orders, who
is even further removed, for being over the others he is set apart from them....
A

Shemaia said: Love labor, hate domination, and do not make yourself known to the
ruling powers.
B

(11) Avtalion said: Sages, watch your words, lest you incur the penalty of exile,
and be banished to a place of evil waters, and the disciples that follow you drink
and die, and the Heavenly Name be profaned.


5
(12) Hillel and Shammai
received tradition from them.

Finally, the fifth Pair ordained correct behavior in regard to all men, that the
bond of peace be not broken; for there is no greater order than that of the world as
a whole.
A

Hillel said: Be of the students of Aaron, loving peace, pursuing peace, loving one's
fellowmen and drawing them close to the Torah. (13) He also said: He who invokes the
Name will lose his name; he who adds not will be taken away; he who studies not
deserves death; and he who makes use of the Crown will soon be gone. (14) He also
said: If I am not for myself, who will be for me; and if I am only for myself, what
am I; and if not now, when?
B

(15) Shammai said: Make regular your [study of the] Torah; say little and do much;
and greet everyone cheerfully.

The Pairs passage comprises a literary unit with clear principles of organization.
The most obvious is that the Pairs are presented in chronological order: each
Pair "received tradition" from the previous one. This simple observation permits two
different approaches to the text. On the one hand, it could be maintained that the
content of the statements is not related to the chronological sequence. This is the
way the text is usually read. On the other hand, one could take the approach of the
Maharal, looking for the connection between the content of each statement and its
place in the sequence. This reading implies that the text was arranged so as to
reflect a meaningful rather than chance relationship among the aphorisms. The
Maharal's comprehensive, or contextual, reading does not necessarily conflict with
the more narrowly focused reading that takes each statement on its own terms. The
Maharal, too, is certainly concerned with the spiritual and philosophical views of
each of the speakers. But he adds two levels of possible signification. First, he
relates the content of a given statement to a specific historical stage. Second, the
broader overview adds its own level of meaning: the "forest" rather than just
the "trees".

The Maharal demonstrates two interrelated rules of organization or conceptual
elements in the structure of the Pairs passage. One is dynamic and the other static.
The first relates to the flow from Pair to Pair and parallels the historical
progression defined by the editor. I refer to this as a dynamic rule because it
defines the movement from one Pair to the next. The static rule points to a fixed
relationship between the members of each Pair.

Top
Level two: The static rule
We know from the Mishnah itself (Hagigah 2) that each of the Pairs was comprised of
the two highest officials of its generation, those who bore the titles nasi,
President, and av beit din, Chief Justice. The order of the appearance of the two is
consistent: in each of the five Pairs, the President precedes the Chief Justice. The
first of the conceptual principles described by the Maharal relates to a uniform
distinction between the content of the statements of the President and those of the
Chief Justice.

You must know that the first, Yose ben Yoezer, was the President and [the second,]
Yose ben Yohanan, was the Chief Justice. Now the presidency is exalted, and one whom
the Lord has exalted and glorified will love the Lord for the exaltation bestowed
upon him and will serve Him out of love, for he must be thankful for the goodness
done to him, and therefore his instruction concerns the love of the Lord. The Chief
Justice, as is implied by his title, is responsible for justice, and his instruction
is connected with fear. For insofar as his characteristic quality is justice, it is
based on fear. For it is stated of Isaac, whose chief attribute was justice, "The
fear of Isaac filled me" (Gen. 31). For litigants are afraid of seeming to show
insufficient respect [for the court]. And so the Chief Justice's admonitions concern
fear.

Each of the Pairs has a common frame of reference, with positive and negative
aspects. Within this frame, the first statement emphasizes the positive and the
second the negative. In the Maharal's terms, the President speaks from the viewpoint
of love, ahavah, and the Chief Justice from the viewpoint of fear or awe, yirah.
This is consistent with the traditional difference in character between Hillel and
Shammai. Hillel, the President, is considered to have been lenient and forthcoming,
as opposed to Shammai, the Chief Justice, who is known to have been strict and
aloof. As the Maharal points out, the text implies that this difference may have
been one of role rather than of personality. In each of the five cases, the
President, as we would expect from Hillel, is more positive and lenient than the
Chief Justice, who like Shammai, comes across as stricter or more preoccupied with
the negative. In some of the Pairs this distinction is quite obvious. For example,
it is the President who asserts in positive terms, "Acquire a comrade," whereas the
Chief Justice confines himself to the negative injunction, "Do not associate with
the wicked". In the following table I have selected the elements in each Pair that
illustrate the distinction made by the Maharal.

Distinctions Between Love and Fear
In the Aphorisms of the President and Chief Justice

Pair
A

Love

President
B

Fear

Chief Justice

1
drink in their words thirstily
do not speak too much with women

2
acquire a comrade
do not associate with the wicked

3
regard them as innocent
watch...lest they learn to lie

4
love labor
watch...lest... the Heavenly Name be profaned

5
loving peace...loving fellow men
say little

Following traditional interpretive methods, the Maharal stresses the consistent
relation between attitude and role in the Pairs. Literary analysis corroborates this
insight. While a full analysis of all the literary techniques employed by the
editor/author is beyond the scope of this article, I will give one example now of
how such an analysis would lead to conclusions like those of the Maharal. Each Chief
Justice except Nitai the Arbelite indicates that one should limit one's speech: "Do
not speak too much," "Say little," "Watch your words". This finding is consistent
with the Maharal's concept of yir'ah, fear or awe, which implies a negation or
limitation:

You must understand that the difference between love and fear is that love causes
one to perform the positive commandments from his love of the Lord and His
commandments, while fear prevents one from sinning. For one who fears another will
fear transgressing against him, hence [one who fears God] is said to be a fearer of
sin. This is what Maimonides writes, in his (commentary on) the first chapter,
concerning Antigonos' saying "and let the fear of heaven be upon you": "This
commandment, concerning fear, appears in the Torah: `Fear the Lord your God;' and
the Sages say, `Serve out of love, serve out of fear;' and they state further, `One
who loves will not forget to do what he should do, and one who fears will not do
what he has been warned not to do.' For fear plays an important role in
prohibitions." It should thus be clear that the things we should do depend on love,
while those that are forbidden depend on fear. That is why you will find that the
President admonishes us concerning things that should be done and the Chief Justice
concerning things that should not.

Top
Level three: The dynamic rule: extension
The basic structural unit in our text is a Pair. Insofar as it is a Pair, the two
members must have something in common. And since they are two distinct elements they
must also differ. As we have seen, the elements of all the Pairs differ in the same
way, thus obeying the static rule. We must now examine each Pair in order to define
what its members have in common. The editor/author has left no doubt as to the
common element in the first Pair. Both statements begin with the identical
phrase "Let your home be," thereby unmistakably defining the home as the common
frame of reference. The home provides the origin or baseline for a conceptual
process parallel to the chronological order.

The Maharal points out that each succeeding Pair "adds" to the previous one and
expands on its statements. By "adds" he means, he tells us, that the social
framework widens from Pair to Pair. While the first Pair confines itself to actions
within the home, the second Pair expands the circle, going out of the home to deal
with close personal contacts such as friends, neighbors and teachers. While the
second Pair, like the first, deals with private, individual matters, the third Pair
moves into a more formal area, the court of law. The Maharal describes this as
yet "further" from the initial privacy of the home. The fourth Pair addresses itself
to men of power, the leaders of society. The progression from the home to the halls
of power is quite clear and convincing through the first four Pairs. The fifth Pair,
the Maharal emphasizes, is the most inclusive of all in the reach of its statements.
Hillel refers to Aaron the Peacemaker, who as high priest embodied an all-embracing
social consciousness. Shammai, too, speaks of relating to humanity as a
whole: "Greet everyone cheerfully." There is thus a complete progression: from the
total privacy of the individual home to an overview of society. The Maharal refers
to this movement from Pair to Pair as "extension," hitpashtut.

What does the Maharal's description of the dynamic flow from Pair to Pair add to our
understanding of the text? On the aesthetic level, his analysis is striking in its
elegance. He has made one of the many, a whole of the parts. He has found a
progression in the inner meaning of the text which runs parallel to the outward
historical progression (the transmission of the Torah from generation to generation)
it describes. We are now confronted with two parallel processes which share only the
sense of progression: the transfer of knowledge from the leaders of one generation
to those of the next, and circles of social concern that expand steadily outward.

It is clear that we are dealing with an extraordinarily complex composition. In
light of the clear rules of organization which we have seen so far, it is impossible
to view our text as a chance collection or historical accretion. Someone put a great
deal of effort into constructing this literary document.

Top
Level four: Wisdom
The Maharal repeatedly refers to the foregoing principles of organization when
speaking of the relationship between the members of each Pair and the flow from pair
to pair. There is evidently yet another rule which he found but only hints at, one
which differs in kind from the first two. The Maharal alludes to the third rule when
he speaks of a gap between the President and the Chief Justice that develops during
the period of the second temple. The first Pair start out "close" to each other. The
succeeding Pairs draw farther away from each other. The process culminates in the
establishment of the separate schools of Hillel and Shammai.

The Maharal, uncharacteristically, does not explain in detail what he means. It
sounds as if he were superimposing the first two rules upon each other. From the
static rule we learned that the President and the Chief Justice have a fixed
relationship stemming from the difference in their roles. But over the course of
five generations, as the common subject area broadens, the relationship between the
members of each Pair also "broadens" in the sense that they grow apart, polarize. It
could be that the matters with which they must deal become increasingly substantial,
thereby heightening the differences between their positions. Alternatively, we could
speculate that as the roles became more clearly defined over the generations, the
individuals who occupy them became more entrenched in their respective role
orientations. This line of speculation fits well with the chronological sequence in
which the Pairs are presented and would be appropriate for an idealized history of
the Second Temple period. Unfortunately, as we shall see, this theory is at best
only marginally relevant to the composition before us. As the Maharal might say,
this would be an attractive explanation if we read Rabbinic thought as mere
speculation. However, the respect due to the sages and their wisdom demands that we
look for a deeper level of meaning.

In his discussion of Mishnaic concepts, the Maharal uses the scholastic terminology
of his age. I have attempted a modern, literary approach to the text. Close analysis
reveals that a subtle device is used to convey the sense of a widening gap between
the Pairs. In each of the five Pairs the common frame of reference is expressed
differently. For example, in the first Pair there is a simple repetition of the
initial phrase. But the devices which point to the common subject change from Pair
to Pair, thus creating a progression parallel to the progression described in the
dynamic rule. As we will see, the overall effect of this sequence of devices is to
create a sense of increasing distance between the members of the Pairs. While this
type of analysis may seem at first dry and academic, it eventually leads to a rather
surprising conclusion: a reading of the text as an esoteric composition. We will see
now how this "rule of literary devices" is derived from the first three Pairs and
then utilize it to understand the fourth and fifth.

The statements of the first Pair begin with the identical words "Let your house be".
This has two effects. As we have seen, in reference to the second rule, it gives
them an absolutely common frame of reference and directs us to seek similar frames
of reference in succeeding Pairs. It is also the basis for the Maharal's description
of the Pairs as beginning "close" to each other, using the same words. In terms of
our modern literary analysis, we can add that their statements are also structurally
similar. Both of them have three parts, speak of who should be in the home and, in
the third element, relate to conversation: "Drink in their words", "Do not speak too
much."

The Second Pair

Joshua ben Perahia said:
Get yourself a teacher,
acquire a comrade, and
give the benefit of the doubt.
Nittai the Arbelite said:
Keep away from evil neighbors;
do not associate with the wicked; and
do not despair of retribution.

The statements of the second Pair do not share a linguistic element, but
structurally they are identical. Each statement has three parts. The first two point
to close personal contacts and have the root ch-b-r in common in the second element.
The third part of each of their statements speaks of a general attitude rather than
a specific relationship. It is clear that the two statements have been cast in the
same mold, even though they do not share the same language, as did the first Pair.
However, since they do not have an explicit common element, they can be described
as "farther apart," in line with the Maharal's observation.

The Third Pair

Judah ben Tabbai said:
Act not the part of counsel;
when the litigants stand before you
regard them as guilty,
but as they leave, regard them as innocent,
for they have accepted the verdict.
Simon ben Shetah said:
Examine the witnesses thoroughly,
and watch your words,
lest they learn to lie from them.

The statements of the third Pair have neither a linguistic nor a structural common
denominator. It is clear from their contents that both statements are addressed to a
sitting judge. While the statements have diverged in form, they are still close in
substance. Each of the first three Pairs indicates its common subject in a different
way. I will summarize this point in the following table.

Parallels Within The First Three Pairs

Pair
Literary Device
Degree of Parallel

1
a. identical language
b. identical structure (three parts)
Absolute

2
a. similar language
b. identical structure (three parts)
very precise

3
obviously similar subject
Close

In our terms, we have seen three different types of textual parallels in the first
three Pairs. In the Maharal's terms, the Pairs grow farther apart, the differences
between them more pronounced. Evidently, he is speaking in terms not of content but
of form. Both speakers in the third Pair are quite clearly addressing the same
audience. Their common subject is even clearer than that of the second Pair. Only
when we analyze the devices utilized to define the common frame of reference in each
Pair, does it become apparent that it is the devices themselves that are logically
ordered. The similarity in the first two Pairs is based on structural and linguistic
parallels. These are elements of style and can be thought of as extrinsic to the
content. The statements of the third Pair have no common structure or linguistic
element to tie them together, but there is an intrinsic parallel in their content.
We began with an obvious linguistic parallel and have been drawn more and more into
the content of the statements in order to see what they have in common. Of course we
have read the statements of only three Pairs and can not draw substantive
conclusions at this point. Still, we have already seen a degree of literary
sophistication in the overall scheme which demands that we be prepared to follow
wherever the text may lead. It seems to be leading to the conclusion that analysis
of the structure reveals additional layers of meaning. This observation is at the
core of the third rule. Before analyzing the literary device employed in the fourth
Pair, I would like to underline this link between form and content by means of a
short digression concerning the names of the Pairs.

The Names of The Pairs

1

2

3

4

5
Yose ben Yoezer of Zeredah and Yose ben Yohanan of Jerusalem

Joshua ben Perahia and Nittai the Arbelite

Judah ben Tabbai and Simon ben Shetah

Shemaia and Avtalion

Hillel and Shammai

There is a dynamic flow in the names of the Pairs which runs parallel to the
chronological and conceptual flow. Through the five generations, the names a process
of simplification. In the first Pair, both of the names have a three-part form:
first name, father's name, place of origin. Both start with the same first name,
Yose, just as their statements begin with the same words. Both have a place
delimiter, as does the content of the statements, the home. In the third Pair, the
names are in the standard form of "A ben B." In terms of the structure of their
statements, the second Pair is closer to the first than the third. However, the form
of the names indicates an intermediate position between the other Pairs. Like the
third Pair, one, Joshua ben Perahia, is in the standard form. Like the first Pair
one has a place delimiter, "the Arbelite." Looking forward to the fourth and fifth
Pairs, we see that they are introduced only by their first names. Since the names of
the fifth Pair are shorter than those of the fourth Pair, we can infer a process
of "simplification" from generation to generation. In Hebrew, we could use the word
hitpastut to describe the process. This is the word used by the Maharal to describe
the conceptual flow of expanding social circles. The same word is used for seemingly
opposite processes, expansion and contraction (literally: simplification or
undressing). This is more than just a linguistic curiosity. We are about to see that
the interdependence of these concepts is an essential feature of our text.

We will now examine the literary device employed in the fourth Pair. It requires the
application of a lemma of the second rule. The lemma can be described as follows.
Each of the expanding social circles is associated with a social role. The range of
the first Pair is the home, and the role is that of householder. In the third Pair
the range is that of law or formal relations, and the role is that of judge. There
is an inverse relationship between the size of the sphere of influence and the
number of people in the role. Householders are much more common than judges, but
their individual influence is less than that of a judge. This inverse relationship
is the lemma, and it will lead us to the role associated with the fourth Pair.

While we have had no difficulty in identifying the roles associated with the first
and third Pairs, the second is less clear. If, as in the first Pair, we derive the
role from the common linguistic element, we can identify it as that of the chaver or
comrade. This role typifies the types of interpersonal relationships considered in
the first elements of the second Pair. The word chaver is also the formal title of a
student; he is a "member" of the academy. After him comes the judge, the subject of
the statements of the third Pair. We see that the social circles of the second rule
may imply an academic pyramid:

Judge









Student




Householder or Layman

We have jumped from the "social circles" pattern to one which is defined in terms of
academic standing. This could imply that the basic standard for social groupings is
an academic standard or that the text forces a quantum jump, a new level of
differentiation between the Pairs. Now comes the point of internal verification. All
of the statements of the Pairs are imperatives. The speakers in the third Pair are
not describing an abstract theory of justice. They are giving advice to judges. They
and all the other Pairs are directly addressing specific role requirements. The
subjects being addressed are those we identified in the academic pyramid. Therefore
we were justified in making the jump from the "social circles" theory. In fact, the
academic pyramid is a closer representation of the text, because it acknowledges
that different types of roles are being addressed by each Pair. Part of the artifice
of the text, in fact, is the direction of each set of aphorisms to a different
audience. Actually, the line between artifice and substance is no longer clear. Now
we will consider how the academic pyramid is connected to the progression of
literary devices.

We found that a literary device was used to define the common subject of each Pair's
statements and that each Pair addresses a specific role. Each of the devices is
suited to the role being addressed. The layman is the least sophisticated and must
be addressed with statements that are literally identical, "Let your house be", in
order to grasp that both members of the Pair are speaking about the same subject.
The student or "comrade" is more advanced and, as his title implies, deals with
connections, chibbur. He is equipped to appreciate the more subtle device used by
the second Pair. The judge is told to examine carefully what the witnesses say. He
involves himself with content. The first two stages are similar in that they utilize
superficial similarities to establish the common element in the respective Pairs.
The Judge is limited to the testimony of the witness, the content of his statements.
Superficial resemblances have no significance for him. From this reading of the link
between the type of literary device and the role, we are prepared to predict some
things about the fourth Pair. First of all we are looking for a role on a higher
level than that of the Judge of the third Pair. Secondly, we are looking for a
literary device which goes beyond the content of the two aphorisms.

The Fourth Pair

Shemaia said:
Love labor,
hate domination,
and do not make yourself known
to the ruling powers.
Avtalion said:
Sages, watch your words,
lest you incur the penalty of exile,
and be banished
to a place of evil waters,
and the disciples who follow you
drink and die,
and the Heavenly Name be profaned.

The editor has left no room for doubt as to who is next up the ladder from the
judge. Avtalion's statement is addressed directly to the sages. Proof that the next
category is in fact the Sages appears in Shemaia's statement. It is also the
solution to a textual problem. He says, s'na et harabanut, which can be taken
literally to mean "hate authority." But Shemaia is hardly likely to be telling the
average citizen to rebel. If, however, he is addressing the Sages (or those who
could become such), his admonition makes sense: "Those of you who have been chosen
to lead must commit yourselves to the task--`love labor'-and not become enamored of
the perquisites of the role--`hate domination.'" There can be no doubt that both
members of the fourth Pair address themselves to leaders. And yet it is virtually
impossible to reach this conclusion without going through the process of analyzing
the previous statements and abstracting the dynamic rule.

The key element in identifying the role addressed by the fourth Pair is the literal
appearance of the term "Sages". But this is not the point of departure for an
analysis of the statements of the fourth Pair; it is, rather, the fulfillment of a
prediction. From observing the process that begins to unfold in the first three
Pairs, it is possible to predict that the fourth Pair would speak to those higher up
the academic pyramid than judges, and sages exactly fit the expectations.
Literally, "a word to the wise is sufficient," if the word is "the wise"! The
parallel in the fourth Pair is predicated upon the fact that the reader comes to the
text prepared by the dynamic rule which has developed over the first three Pairs.
Once he/she spots the opening, "Sages", he/she knows that the pyramid theory is
valid.

The device employed by the fourth Pair is not limited to the content of their
statements, as was that of the third Pair. This new literary device requires the
reader to be "wise" and integrate the content of the statements of the fourth Pair
into the rule determined by the first three Pairs. The fourth Pair demands that the
reader be aware of the previous Pairs. It dictates his/her active participation on a
level beyond that of the isolated parts of the text, the level of a comprehensive
overview. In terms of the progression of literary devices, the Sage transcends the
limitations imposed upon the Judge who was directed to the evidence of the
witnesses, the Pair who stood before him. As a Judge he could clearly determine that
their statements supported each other and were ato a judge. The Sage does not limit
his judgement to the evidence presented to him in the testimony of the fourth Pair.
He is wise because he integrates their statements within the context of all that
preceded them. The device is his inclusive reading of the text.

It is no longer sufficient to say that each Pair independently addresses a
particular role. The fourth Pair requires the context of the first three Pairs in
order to be comprehensible to its subject. This fact has implications regarding the
authorship of the text. It demonstrates that if we read our text as a mere
collection, Shemaia's and Avtalion's statements must be seen as having been made in
the context of an earlier collection which included the statements of the previous
three Pairs! We must concede that we are reading a text written by one hand. Pirkei
Avot is redefining itself. From a collection of aphorisms has emerged a text which
admits that it is not what it appears to be. This revelation takes place in the
framework of statements addressed to Sages. The exoteric collection has been
replaced by an esoteric composition, one reserved for the initiated, the Sages. I
believe that here, too, the text provides internal verification. Avtalion's
statement, which otherwise seems inscrutable, begins to make sense if it is read as
a warning to those who have begun to probe the esoteric level of the text. The key
is in the reading of the word g'lut, dispersion, as g'lot, revealing.

Avtalion's statement has no overt meaning. It is a cryptic metaphor addressed only
to those, the Sages, who are capable of deciphering it. I suggest the possibility of
reading the warning as if it said "choose your words carefully lest you be forced to
reveal [more than you should]...". Not all knowledge can or should be transmitted
openly. This reading of Avtalion's statement sheds additional light on part of
Shamaia's saying: "do not make yourself known to the ruling powers." The free
transmission of certain knowledge is dangerous, both to the teacher, as implied here
by Shemaia, and to the student, as stated by Avtalion, "the disciples who follow you
(will) drink and die". The image of knowledge as water already appeared in the first
pair: "sit in the dust of their feet and drink in their words thirstily." The
beginning student, the layman of the first pair, lacks the necessary tools to
understand the teacher fully. Nevertheless, because of his "thirst" he may "drink"
ideas which he cannot digest. Therefore the teacher must be careful not to expose
the unprepared student to ideas that could harm him. While this doctrine may seem
inimical to the modern democratic spirit, it was far from uncommon in the classical
world. We need only to read our text as the Sages would in order to understand some
of the potential danger inherent in the knowledge acquired by them.

We can now see that our text has been crafted to exemplify the dichotomy between
exoteric and esoteric knowledge. For seventeen hundred years Jews have been have
been delighting in the collected aphorisms of the Sages, the exoteric Pirke Avot.
Rabbis and teachers have found inspiration for countless homiletic flights within
each of the collected sayings. Yet, from our analysis, the scholar who grasps the
text as a whole, the esoteric book, is forced to say that it is a composition,
written by one hand, not a collection. Is the scholar free to contradict common
wisdom and declare his conclusions in the marketplace? This question is similar to
the question our author is addressing through Avtalion. The author has created a
vehicle for transmitting esoteric knowledge to the few who can profit from it while
keeping it totally hidden from the masses whose faith could be endangered. At the
same time, he has created a popular work which can be used by the general public
while reserving its treasures for the initiates. The continued popularity of Avot
attests to the author's skill.

Following a process demanded by the text, under the instruction of the Maharal, I
reached a place where I was convinced that I was reading a composition rather than a
collection. This composition is inaccessible until one goes through the process
required to reveal it. There can be no doubt that the text reads like a collection,
as generations of readers have testified. But once I have seen it as a composition,
I no longer agree with the accepted, orthodox, view. By following the internal logic
of the text, I have developed a special relationship with the author. I know that
the text contains a level of meaning which is available only to the few, which is,
in at least one way, diametrically opposed to common sense. This is part of the
message being conveyed. The pursuit of wisdom can lead to dangerously unpopular
opinions. Socrates is the classical example of the life threatening dangers inherent
in philosophy. Avtalion's warning is even more forceful than the example of Socrates
because he indicates that the philosopher risks not just his own life but the lives
of his students as well.

Our next task is to clarify the progression of devices through the first four Pairs
and apply it to the last Pair. We have been following two parallel developments. The
first, the revelation of the academic pyramid, was a direct corollary of the
Maharal's description of the subject flow from Pair to Pair. Each Pair has a common
subject. We found that the subject could be identified with a specific station on
the religio-academic pyramid. The second development is the set of literary devices
associated with the various levels of the pyramid. We found that the common elements
of the first two Pairs were superficial devices. The third Pair depended solely on
similar content without an extrinsic device, leading us to say that the content
itself was the device. With the fourth Pair we made a quantum jump. The device was
no longer within the text of the Pair under investigation. It would remain invisible
if the reader were not ??í, wise, if he were not able to abstract the dynamic rule
of the first three Pairs and anticipate its application to the fourth Pair. In this
sense, the text has become "interactive." Only a participant reader could extract
all of the information included in it and receive the feedback of internal
verification. At the exact point where the device transcends the limits of the Pair,
the text transcends the limits of its exoteric content.

In the Sage we found a theoretician. He read the statements of the first three
Pairs, formulated a theory and verified it with the fourth Pair. If we are
continuing up an intellectual ladder, we are looking now for one whose achievements
go beyond those of the Sage. To continue the image of the pyramid, we are looking
for one who stands at the pinnacle, in a class by himself. He is not part of a class
of individuals, the occupant of a role, but a singular personality. Such were the
members of the fifth Pair, Hillel and Shammai. They transcended the roles of
President and Chief Justice to become institutions in their own right: the School of
Hillel and the School of Shammai. This development is also consistent with the
connection we found between the dynamic rule and its lemma. When we view the Pairs
in terms of expanding social circles, expansion reaches its limit when all of
society is included. The pyramid of academic types points to a process which is the
direct opposite, leading to an inevitable question: who is on top? The asking of
this question becomes the literary device of the fifth Pair. At this point the text
completely transcends itself. The reader is the device.

Top
Level five: Empowerment
Having successfully completed the analysis required, the student learns that he is
being addressed by the author. His proven ability wins him the title "Sage". The
fourth Pair addressed Sages; if he understood their message, he himself must be one
of them. This awakening is at the heart of the process that we began identifying as
the progression of literary devices. They were indeed devices, but different in
scope than we might have thought at first. Their function was not simply to acquaint
us with the common elements of the Pairs, but to make us aware of the teacher, just
out of sight, who whispered encouragement at every small step of progress, finally
to reveal himself with the fourth Pair. The last step of the process is the
student's self-realization. He recognizes that the author is trying to reach him as
a unique individual. The reader has already seen that the text must be viewed as
esoteric, written for the few. At the pinnacle of the pyramid stands just one, the
reader who has gone this far in his analysis. At the instant when he becomes aware
of the question "who is on top", he knows the answer.

Perhaps those coming to the Mishnah already acquainted with the fact that Hillel and
Shammai regularly appear together to present opposing views would look for the point
of disagreement here too. But only by expanding the dynamic rule of the first four
Pairs is it likely that one would know where to look for the question upon which
they disagree. In fact, the question we asked-Who is at the top?--is the question
that they must be addressing. Hillel answers: "students of Aaron", those who are
totally committed to the active pursuit of peace, "loving peace." This is clearly an
expansion of the previous President's statement, "Love labor". The ultimate labor is
peacemaking. Shammai's answer is more laconic: "Make regular your [study of the]
Torah; say little and do much; and greet everyone cheerfully." Like Hillel, Shammai
also emphasizes the active life-"do much"-but he does not refer to any specific
activity. The two sages also have in common a reference to their fellow men,
expressed in Hillel's active love of "fellow-men" and Shammai's passive acceptance
of humanity-"Greet everyone cheerfully." But the most striking parallel between them
is in fact unspoken. And had we not gone through the process of defining the dynamic
rule in the first four Pairs, we would remain ignorant of the fact that just as this
rule reaches its epitome with Hillel and Shammai, it disappears. The first four
Pairs all deal with clearly defined categories. The individuals are addressed by the
Pairs as sharply delimited social types or roles, from "laymen" to "Sages". At the
tip of the pyramid there are no more categories, only total socialization as
expressed by Hillel and total individualization as seen in Shammai's statement. For
Hillel, the ideal is the High Priest who sacrifices his self for his role. The
individual becomes totally identified with society: "He who makes use of the Crown
will soon be gone". Shammai offers us existential man, one who has internalized all.
He needs neither role nor social structure. His statement which I have translated in
line with the more traditional commentaries as "Make regular your [study of the]
Torah," should in fact be read as "realize your theories", build the world from your
understanding. We can easily read the otherwise murky have m'qabbel et kl ha'adm,
which in any case carries overtones of Ecclesiastes, as "accept the human
situation." The author has created a brilliant parallel between the chronological
limit imposed by the fall of the Second Temple, which closed the age of the Pairs,
and the conceptual limit imposed by the apex of the pyramid.

Let us summarize the distinction between Hillel and Shammai. They are both dealing
with "ultimate" man, one who fully realizes his potential. For Hillel this means
selfless service. Total identification with the other. The focus of action is
external, social. Shammai appeals to the individual to develop himself from within.
They are in fact polar opposites. Only the reader who has successfully prepared the
right question can understand the dichotomy they represent. The literary device
which points to the similarity between Hillel and Shammai is the reader.
We could continue the literary analysis, pointing out that Hillel's position
reflects the inverse pyramid of expanding social circles and Shammai's the pyramid
of individualization. We could also note that the two ostensibly opposite senses of
hitpastut, expansion and contraction, which we noted earlier in connection with the
names of the speakers, are also reflected in the pyramids. However, we have reached
the point where individual creativity takes over from strict analysis. The reader
has been empowered. He is no longer the student of an ancient tradition but a
participant in the process of revelation. With the collapse of the institutions
associated with the Temple, a new Man emerges, Rabbinic Man.

I will conclude with another quote from Leo Strauss's Persecution and the Art of
Writing:

In Plato's Banquet, Alcibiades-that outspoken son of outspoken Athens-compares
Socrates and his speeches to certain sculptures which are very ugly from the
outside, but within have most beautiful images of things divine. The works of the
great writers of the past are very beautiful even from without. And yet their
visible beauty is sheer ugliness, compared with the beauty of those hidden treasures
which disclose themselves only after very long, never easy, but always pleasant
work. This always difficult but always pleasant work is, I believe, what
philosophers had in mind when they recommended education.

No doubt the author of the Mishnah was one of the "great writers of the past."