Pirkei Avos 1:1 – One Recipient

“Moses received the Torah at Sinai and passed it on to Joshua and Joshua to the elders…”

With these opening words, Avos describes the way Torah was transmitted from G-d to Moses and from Moses to subsequent generations until it reached the period known as the “Men of the Great Assembly.”

There is an interesting fact that emerges from this description that requires clarification. G-d transmitted the Torah to just one individual—Moses. The question that arises is why was there only one recipient? This problem with transmitting the Torah to just one individual is magnified in light of the Rashi’s commentary on the words, “And He gave it to Moses when he concluded speaking to him.” Rashi makes the observation that the word for conclude in Hebrew “kichaloso” is written without a vov, as if it was “k’chalso” as his bride, This is to teach us that G-d gave Moses the Torah as a gift that a bride gives to the groom. Why did G-d have to give him the Torah as a gift? Rashi explains because he could not master all of it in such a small period of time.

Now if Moses had a hard time receiving the Torah that necessitated G-d giving it to him as a gift, why didn’t G-d simply give the Torah to several people? Each one of them could have mastered one part. Why the emphasis on one recipient?

With respect to the first recipient, Moses, one could say that his selection was to emphasize the theme of unity. Just as there is one G-d and one Torah, so too, there was only one recipient. More than one initial recipient could have led to a mistake similar to what was caused when G-d said “Let us make Exodus 31:18.

man.”¹ Multiple recipients could have given some the impression that there were, G-d forbid, more than one Divine source from which these teachings came. This will explain why throughout many of the subsequent generations, there was more than one recipient of the Torah. Indeed, in this very chapter we read of the zugos, the pairs who received and transmitted the Torah from one generation to the next.² Likewise the Rambam, when discussing the forty generations from Moses through the redaction of the Talmud, he describes many of the links as Rabbi so and so “and his court,”³ implying that there were actually more than one recipient even when one name is mentioned.

The question remains, however, with regard to subsequent generations where there were single recipients.⁴ By transmitting the torah to only one recipient would no longer help to reinforce the theme of unity, because there were multiple recipients in earlier generations. Why then was there such an emphasis on finding one individual to whom the Torah should be transmitted? If transmitting all of the Torah to Moses was fraught with difficulty, wouldn’t it have been preferable to pass on the tradition to multiple recipients?

The answer to this question requires a better understanding of what precisely the teachers transmitted to the next generation and what being a recipient entailed.

Torah study consists of two distinct focuses.⁵ First, there is an obligation to learn and know the entire Torah. This obligation requires that one know the reasons for the laws in a succinct fashion. This means that one must know the reasons for all of the 613 commandments, with all of their minute details and nuances, as well as the rabbinical laws. As extensive and as broad a scope as this obligation is, it is finite. One can master all of the laws with their basic explanations There is also a second obligation that devolves on a person even if he has mastered the entire Torah. It is for one to devote time for “delving into the Talmud, to understand the conceptual basis for the laws, to engage in dialectical casuistry, to raise questions, provide answers and thereby fathom the profundities of the concepts and reasons for the laws and to be capable of drawing logical inferences from them.” This area of study truly has no limit. No matter how deep one can go in attempting to understand the meaning of the Torah, there is always a level that is deeper and that is ultimately unfathomable.

There is a practical application that emerges from these two facets of Torah study. One who wants to postpone marriage in order to study may do so. However, this license is only granted to one who wishes to master the entire Oral Torah with but succinct explanations. This is a feat that is possible to accomplish by the age of twenty.⁶ By contrast, one may not postpone marriage in order to fulfill his obligation to engage in the in-depth Torah study because it really has no limit.

Now, with respect to the transmission of the Torah from one generation to the next, the Alter Rebbe writes:

“Just as they received the Mishnayos and Beraitos one man from the other, so too they received the reasons for each law, without the pilpul, the dialectical analysis of the laws. This can be deduced from the statement of the Talmud⁷ that pilpul was only given to Moses and his children. Therefore, even in those times they were not conscientious about remembering the pilpul and they did not review it sufficiently; they remembered just the laws with brief explanations. Because they did not adequately review the pilpul, all the pilpul of the Tanaim and the early Amoraim was forgotten. The Talmud cites only a small fraction of it. Evidence of the dearth of pilpul that existed can be found in the second chapter of Shabbos⁸ that he would answer every one of R. Pinchas ben Yair’s question with twenty-four answers. Yet, we do not find this ever occurring in the entire Talmud. Similarly, Resh Lakish would ask twenty-four questions on each statement of R.

Yochanan. Yet we do not find any place in the Talmud where he asks more than seven or eight questions. There is never a place where his twenty-four questions are recorded. All the rest were forgotten, because there was no obligation to review them, since pilpul was given only to Moses.”⁹ We can now understand why there was a possibility and even a preference for one Bava Metzia 84, end of side a.

recipient of Torah in each of the generations. Were the transmitters of Torah interested in imparting the intricacies and complexities of the pilpul component of Torah to the next generation, the sheer volume and intricacy of information would have necessitated multiple teachers and recipients. When it comes to one who follows the approach of pilpul, sometimes referred to as an “uprooter of mountains,”¹⁰ it is the give-an-take of multiple individuals¹¹ that contributes to the process. Our Sages were referring to this when they said:¹² “What is the meaning of the verse, ‘A sword to the …’¹³ a sword on the enemies of Sages who engage in Torah solitarily. Moreover, they will also become foolish.” Pilpul study demands peer involvement and review.

With regard to the transmission of the laws with only brief explanations—an approach that is identified as “Sinai”¹⁴ because “the Mishnayos and Beraisos were so neatly arranged for him, just as they were given at Sinai,”¹⁵—the reverse is true. There is a distinct advantage when it is transmitted to only one recipient. Were there to be two recipients, it is likely that a dispute will raise between them, as did occur with Shammai and Hillel—who were genuine recipients— and who both received the tradition from Shemaya and Avtalyon. And notwithstanding whom they both received the Torah from, they still differed because of the Talmudic dictum, “there are no two people who think alike.”¹⁶ Thus, whichever generation was capable of having but one teacher pass the Torah one to but one recipient, this was the most preferable way for the Torah to be transmitted accurately. If, for whatever reason, this were not possible, it would then be transmitted to two students or more. Hence when the opportunity arose they restored the tradition to one recipient.¹⁷ (Adapted from the talk of Shabbos Parshas Naso, 5745)

From the book Essays on Pirkei Avos: Chapter One, Mishnah One by Rabbi Heschel Greenberg, adapted from the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe and published by the Jewish Discovery Center.

Footnotes

1. See Bereishis Rabbah 8:8. Yalkut Shimoni, Bereishis remez 13. Rashi, Bereishis 1:26. ↩

2. From Yosei ben Yoezer and Yosei ben Tzereidah in Mishnah 4 through Hillel and Shammai. ↩

3. Introduction to Mishneh Torah. ↩

4. Although the Rambam writes in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, “Elazar, Pinchas and Joshua, all three received it from Moses,” however he concludes “and to Joshua he passed on the Oral Torah and commanded him concerning it.” Our Mishnah too states clearly “and he passed it on to Joshua.” ↩

5. See Alter Rebbes’s Shulchan Aruch, Hilchos Talmud Torah chapter 1:4-5. Chapter 2:1-2. Beginning of chapter three. See there for cross-references. ↩

6. This goes against the opinion of the Rosh. See Hilchos Talmud Torah ad loc., beginning of Chapter three. See Kuntres Acharon there for a lengthy treatment of this issue. ↩

7. Nedarim 38 ↩

8. 33, end of side b. ↩

9. A story is told about the Ragatchover Gaon (R. Yoseph Rosen, one of the greatest Talmudists of the twentieth century) who was once asked about the number of questions that were asked on a statement of R. Yochanan. He answered that there were seven. When the questioner argued that the Alter Rebbe stated that there were seven or eight, he reflected for some time and said that “yes, there was one more time, but it hinged on a dispute or a variant reading of the text.” He then expressed his amazement of the Alter Rebbe’s erudition and praised him profusely. The Ragatchover had previously expressed profound admiration for the Alter Rebbe’s brilliance; in the way he clarified complex issues with merely adding one word. Alas, who today would search to find the foregoing “seven and eight times,” recorded in the Talmud? ↩

10. End of Berachos and Horiyos ↩

11. See Avos, 6:6, where it lists the following among the 48 ways to acquire Torah knowledge: “companionship with one’s contemporaries and discussion and debate with one’s students.” ↩

12. Berachos 63b. ↩

13. Jeremiah 50:36. ↩

14. See n. 99. ↩

15. Rashi ad loc. ↩

16. See Berachos 58a. Sanhedrin 38a. See there for cross-references. ↩

17. Notwithstanding the emphasis of the straightforward transmission of the laws with brief explanations from one generation to the next, it does not diminish, G-d forbid, the importance of the pilpul give-an-take dialectical approach of Torah (“probing the depths of the laws and the dialectical exchange therein”), particularly considering that this methodology leads to the innovation of new laws. See Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, Hilchos Talmud Torah, 1:5, 2:2. The significance and desirability of the pilpul approach is further magnified when we realize how our connection to Moses is primarily through this approach, since pilpul was given as a gift specifically to him. Moses was magnanimous and gave it to Israel. Whereas the rest of the Torah was given through Moses who received it at Sinai, that was not Moses’ contribution. Pilpul, by contrast is identified with Moses in particular—for which reason he is called Rabeinu-our teacher. These two approaches are generally represented by the titles “Sinai” and “uprooter of mountains.” Alternatively they are represented by the terms “deliberate and focused” and “sharp and [always] challenging.” (Horiyos ibid.), or: “A cemented cistern that does not lose a drop,” and “a gushing fountain.” These two approaches generally reflect the diverse roles of the Rav and the Rosh Yeshiva. Both approaches are complementary and one should dedicate times for the study of “straight” Halacha as well as times for study of Torah utilizing the pilpul approach. ↩