Pirkei Avos 1:1 – The Order of Transmission

This Mishnah appears to comprise two distinct themes. The first segment of the Mishnah describes the order of the transmission of the Torah. Moses received it from Sinai and had then transmitted it to subsequent generations until it reached the Men of the Great Assembly. The Mishnah then follows with a second completely unrelated segment, i.e., the Men of the Great Assembly’s prescription for proper comportment.

We must try to understand why the author consolidated these two disparate themes, while he could have separated them into two separate sections.¹ Furthermore, what compelled the author to say that Moses handed it to Joshua and Joshua handed it to the Elders and the elders to the prophets and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly? What is the relevance of the knowledge of all these details in the transmission of the Torah? The author could have stated concisely that Moshe received the Torah at Sinai and transmitted it—from generation to generation—to future generations, until it reached the Men of the Great Assembly?

The difficulty here is magnified when we realize that the author does not really give us all the links in the chain of tradition. Between Moses and the Men of the Great Assembly there were other generations. For example, the era of Prophets comprised several generations, as did the era of the Elders, all listed in the introduction to both Maimonides’ Yad HaChazakah as well as his Commentary on the Mishnah.

Why then—if the author is not really intent on enumerating all the generations—did he find it necessary to mention specifically the generations of Joshua, the Elders and the Prophets?

There is another matter that needs to be clarified. One of the links mentioned in our Mishnah is “the Prophets.” It is clear that their role in receiving the Torah from the Elders as well as their role in transmitting the Torah to the Men of the Great Assembly did not hinge on their status as prophets, since a prophet may not invoke prophecy in matters of Torah. The Torah emphatically negates interjecting prophecy into matters of Torah law: “Torah is not in Heaven!”² While a Prophet may get involved in the process of adjudicating Torah law, he may do so as a scholar, basing his decision on his understanding of the law, but not because he received the knowledge prophetically.

Why then does the author characterize these Sages—who lived between the period of the Elders and the Men of the Great Assembly— as “prophets,” considering the fact that this appellation has absolutely nothing to do with the transmission of the Torah?

We are compelled to conclude that the selective listing of generations in the chain of tradition is intended, not as a historical primer, but as a guide for each and every individual in his study of Torah. Moses, Joshua, the Elders, the Prophets and the Men of the Great Assembly are not just names of people or the historical periods to which they correlate; they are the titles of characteristics that we all must possess and through which Torah study must develop. Each and every soul possesses a Moses, Joshua, Elders, Prophets and Men of the Great Assembly.

This now sheds light as to why the Mishnah only lists these few historical periods, notwithstanding the existence of other historical links. Only those corresponding soul faculties and characteristics that are relevant to us because they serve as a guide in our service of G-d are listed.³ Prophecy, though not a proper medium for transmitting Torah knowledge, is a conceptual prerequisite for students of Torah. When a person studies Torah, in addition to the intellectual soul-powers that are needed, there is also a need to harness one’s “prophetic” potential.

With this premise, we can also explain why Moses, notwithstanding his status as the greatest prophet,⁴ is not described as a Prophet in this Mishnah, while Sages of a much lower prophetic caliber are referred to as such. The name Moses in the Mishnah alludes to the soul-faculty entitled “Moses” that every Jew must unleash in his study of Torah. It is not the trait of Moses’ prophecy that we need to access; rather it is the higher attribute of Moses itself that we need in the study of Torah.

The first trait that one must invest in Torah study must be the “Moses-faculty” of one’s soul. From there one must access and harness the “Joshua-faculty” of their soul and continue onward with the “Elder-faculty,” the “Prophet-faculty” until one reaches the point where they involve their “Men of the Great Assembly-faculty” in the process of Torah study.⁵ We can understand the “Moses-faculty” involvement in the process of study, by referring to the statement of the Talmud⁶ that the first thing that a father should teach his child when he begins to speak is the verse, “Torah was commanded to us by Moses.”⁷ Even before the child is capable of intellectually grasping any of the ideas of Torah, its introduction to Torah is with this verse and its reference to Moses.

When the child matures it is introduced to the formal study of Vayikra, the Book of Leviticus.⁸ When the child first learns to speak, its very first introduction to Torah, however, is with the verse “Torah was commanded to us by Moses.” This is underlies the opening statement of our Mishnah: “Moses received the Torah from Sinai.” One’s first introduction to receiving the Torah is to invoke the concept of. Moses.

What does Moses signify in terms of one’s introduction to Torah?

Moses personified the trait of humility and absolute self-abnegation. One verse that poignantly describes Moses personality is where he responds to his detractors, “And what are we?” This expression of humility is representative of the trait of Chochma,⁹ the first step in the process of acquiring Torah knowledge. One must be first self-effacingly submit to the knowledge that he is trying to grasp, before actually engaged in the process of assimilating and comprehending the knowledge. .

In practical terms the “Moses” approach does not allow for one’s expressive-self to be involved in Torah study, at least not at the outset. We do not begin to receive the Torah with our emotions, or even with intellectual comprehension. Torah study must be initiated by our total devotion and subordination.¹⁰ Despite the fact that this trait is ascribed to Moses, it is in the possession of every Jew.¹¹ This is particularly true, when one considers the “Moses” component that each of us has embedded in their soul.¹² From the “Moses” attitude of total submission, one continues to the Joshua mindset, the latter being the natural expression and corollary of the former. Joshua’s trait was exemplified by his behavior. “He would not depart from the tent,” is the laudatory statement the Torah makes about him. He was tenaciously attached to his teacher Moses’ teachings. The extent to which he was devoted to Moses is expressed in the Midrashic narrative¹³ concerning Moses desire to have his children succeed him as the Jewish leaders. According to the Midrash, G- d, however, told him that Joshua would be his successor because: “The one who guards the fruit shall partake of it.”¹⁴ G-d implied that Joshua was equipped to be Moses’ successor, because his attachment to Moses exceeded that of a child. Joshua was the very “guardian of the fruit;” he guarded and never departed from Moses’ tent.

Practically speaking, the “Joshua” mindset with regard to Torah study parallels that of a child who has gone beyond the stage Shemos 33:11.

speaking. When the child gets a bit older and is able to understand, one has to accustom the child to “never depart from the tent,” to be engaged in Torah study the entire day. A child does not learn this way because he appreciates the preciousness of Torah. A child, obviously, is not capable of appreciating this. Rather, a child’s obsession with Torah is based solely on “Kabbalas Ol, accepting of the yoke,” i.e., acceptance of authority that derives from the submissive nature of Chochma. This process thus parallels the trait of Joshua, the disciple of Moses.

The “Moses” faculty precedes the formal learning process inasmuch as it is the quintessential state of submission. One’s submission is not merely a functional one, such as a person who follows orders, but it is an abstract sense of self-abnegation that does not manifest itself in any defined form. Even the scant intellectual involvement of a small child who studies Torah would reflect some See Alter Rebbe’s Hilchos Talmud Torah, 1:10: “Teachers of Scripture to children…are required…to train them to learn by day and by night. One should not interrupt children from learning at all, except…”

defined measure of intellectual identity. The submissive character of the Moses-faculty is analogous to the child who has just begun to talk, as was discussed earlier, where there is absolutely no comprehension.

By contrast, the “Joshua-servant of Moses” faculty does manifest itself in an identifiable form, albeit one of submission rather than self-expression. The child’s learning is motivated by his acceptance of authority, whereby “the youth did not depart from the tent.”

With this understanding of the “Joshua-trait” of tenacious devotion to Torah study motivated by acceptance of authority, we can appreciate the use of the phrase “Moses received the Torah at Sinai and passed it on to Joshua.” The Hebrew word employed here is not limad or nasan that he taught it to Joshua or gave it to Joshua, rather it is, “u’mesarah,” which has the connotation of a dedicated passing on of his teachings to his disciple, Joshua. In order to instill the trait of “never departing from the tent,” characteristic of Joshua, one must have a teacher who is totally dedicated to imparting knowledge to his disciple.

When the child matures even more, and is capable of understanding, one must graduate to the next level. The child must learn Torah in a manner of understanding and comprehension. Submitting to authority will clearly not suffice. One’s learning must be an intellectual as well as an enjoyable experience.

This is what the Mishnah means: “And Joshua to the Elders.” The term elder connotes wisdom and intellect.¹⁵ After one possesses the acceptance of authority characterized by Joshua, one must study Torah in the manner that is represented by “the Elders.”

“From the Elders to the Prophets,” is a reference to the need to instill a measure of “prophetic inspiration” into one’s intellectual approach to Torah study.

An illustration of how there can be an element of prophecy in Torah study—despite the admonition that Torah is not in Heaven—can be seen in the following example. Notwithstanding the fact that the Torah was introduced into the realm of human intellect and that “Torah is not in Heaven,” nevertheless, when the Talmudic Sages, the Ta’naim and Amoraim, had to issue a ruling of Jewish law, they would first “see” the laws of the Torah as they existed in their spiritual world. Once they knew the spiritual dimension of the law they would then “download” this information into their intellectual faculties.¹⁶ Since the final determination of law was based not on their spiritual vision but on “down-to-earth” logical principles, the statement that “Torah is not in Heaven” was irrelevant. Whatever they saw in the spiritual realm was only a preface to the ruling of Jewish law that they arrived at after applying basic logic to the matter.¹⁷ With this premise in mind we can answer a well-known question concerning the role of Elijah the prophet in resolving matters of Jewish law. In response to questions for which the Talmud could not resolve, the Talmud often concludes: Teiku. Literally it means, “It remains unresolved.” There is, however, a well-known acronym that this word forms: “Tishbi yitaretz kushyos v’abayos-Elijah will answer [unresolved] questions and queries.”¹⁸ The question is asked, how does this reconcile with the principle that “Torah is not in Heaven?” How could Elijah the Prophet resolve matters of Torah law?¹⁹ In light of the foregoing analysis however, it is clear that Elijah will only answer questions and issue rulings of Jewish law based on logic and rational principles. His prophetic role will only serve as a prelude for the logical ruling.

All of this can be applied to the role of prophecy in our study and transmission of Torah. Notwithstanding the absence of prophecy in our day and age,²⁰ one must still resort to a form of prophecy in order to arrive at the correct decision in matters of Jewish law. In order to find the true meaning of Torah one must be a yerei shamayim, a G- d fearing individual.²¹ One must fear issuing an incorrect decision. Equipped with this sense of reverence for G-d, one will be much more cautious in the manner that they reach a legal decision. Utilizing the tools of logic, they will then be better equipped to discover the truth.

This will also explain why one cannot draw any definitive conclusions from a statement of law in the Talmud unless it was articulated as a “practical ruling.”²² A theoretical discussion of a legal matter is not reliable enough upon which to base one’s practical decision. The logic behind this is that when a law is discussed in a theoretical context one may not delve into the depths of the subject, as one would do when he knows that the subject relates to a practical matter. When one deals with a relevant and practical matter that will impact on the real life, one will acquire a far more profound understanding of the subject, owing to the trepidation of erring, G-d forbid. We can now also clarify a saying of our Sages²³ on the verse that was applied to King David: “And G-d is with him.” The Talmud explains that this means “the Halacha accords with him.” In order to accurately find the right decision in matters of law, one cannot rely on one’s intellect. One must also have “G-d with him,” the essence of yiras shamayim, the fear of heaven.

Once one has acquired the trait of “the Elders,” by investing one’s mind in the study of Torah, one must also possess the trait that is analogous to prophecy, i.e., yiras shamayim, awareness and fear of heaven, in order to See discourse entitled “VaHashem amar 5767 (in the series of discourses of 5766) and onward.

facilitate reaching the correct conclusions in matters of law.

The Mishnah then proceeds to the next and final step in the acquisition of Torah characteristics.

“The Prophets passed it on to the men of the Great Assembly.” After attaining the level of prophecy as it pertains to Torah study, one then reaches an even more advanced level of Torah study—the level of the “Men of the Great Assembly.”

We can understand how this body of Sages corresponds to a level of Torah study by citing the Talmud’s discussion about one of their key accomplishments. The Talmudstates that the Men of the Great Assembly “restored the crown to its original position.” When the Jewish people saw how the “Heathens were dancing in His Sanctuary” they ceased according G-d in their prayers the title “the Awesome one,” with the argument, “Where is His awesomeness?” Moreover, when they subsequently saw how the “heathens were oppressing His children,” Yoma 69b.

they stopped saying “the Mighty one,” in their prayers. “Where is His strength?”

Finally, the Men of the Great Assembly restored the recitation of the two appellations, awesome and mighty. Their rationale for this was that, on the contrary, “these is His might and this is His awesomeness.” G-d’s might and awesomeness is expressed in the very fact that the Heathens were dancing in His Sanctuary etc.

How does this apply to Torah study?

G-d’s Sanctuary still exists, despite the destruction of the Temple, in the form of Torah study. “G-d has nothing in this world, save for the four cubits of Halacha.”²⁴ It is possible, however, for the “Heathens to dance” in this Sanctuary, when man’s evil impulse cloaks itself in the mantle of Torah and perverts its true meaning and thereby attempts to drag a Jew off the proper path. The Rebbe Rashab’s aphorism echoes this sentiment: The Yetzer Hara-evil impulse, the animal soul of man “can be a pious animal soul and even a Chassidic animal soul.” Despite the pain and anguish the Yetzer Hara will experience by posing as a pious and Chassidic impulse, it is well worth his temporary pain if this will enable him to succeed in throwing a Jew of course.

In these precarious conditions, whereby the evil impulse has succeeded in most profound concealment of G-dly presence, the Men of the Great Assembly succeeded. Despite the degradation of G-d that occurs when one utilizes Torah—G-d’s wisdom, which is “one and inseparable from G-d”—to go against Him, the Men of the Great Assembly were able to retort the G-dly equilibrium. They provided us with the inspiration to not let this deplorable state of affairs deter us in our pursuit of Torah. Not only will the darkness not cause us to falter, but also, on the contrary, will elicit an increased measure light that comes out of darkness.

Despite the inclusion of “Men of the Great Assembly” among all the other levels of Torah study, from “Moses” through the “Prophets,” “Hayom Yom”, 23rd of Sivan.

nevertheless, there is a qualitative difference between the preceding levels and the “Men of the Great Assembly.” “Moses” and all the other levels through the “Prophets” represent levels of Torah study itself. In contradistinction, the “Men of the Great Assembly” represent the process of introducing Torah into the parameters of the world. Moreover, they were able to maintain the integrity of Torah even within the lowliest and most inhospitable aspects of the world—“Heathens were dancing in the Sanctuary”—and demonstrated that; on the contrary, “these are His strengths…” The Men of the great Assembly approach is what finally takes this world and transforms it into a dwelling place for G-d.

Now we can understand why the author of the Mishnah consolidated the section of “Moses received the Torah at Sinai,” the order of the transmission of Torah with the apparently unrelated section of “And raise up many students.” This directive of “raising up many students,” is directly related to the accomplishment of the Men of the Great Assembly. When one takes the world that is characterized as a “public domain,” a place that reflects a multitude of influences and directions, and transforms it into a world of unity, the hallmark of the realm of holiness, that is what describes the effects of the Men of the Great Assembly.

This then is what they taught. Take the many, the multifarious and conflicted nature of the world, and raise them up to the realm “students” who are unified by their role as G- d’s students. The word for “raise them up” is the original Hebrew ‘ha’amidu” also has the connotation of permanence. With the approach of the Men of the Great Assembly, the temporal world is instilled with a measure of permanence.

What is the connection between the Men of the Great Assembly and the other two directives: “Make a fence for the Torah” and “be deliberate in judgment?”

The approach of the Men of the Great Assembly, as stated is to introduce the Torah within the parameters of the world. When Torah confronts the world, there is a need to erect a fence to protect the integrity of the Torah. Otherwise the inhospitable nature of the material world can corrupt the integrity and purity of the Torah. This is analogous to the statement of the Talmud²⁵ about one of the Talmudic Sages who came to a place where Torah observance was lax and instituted new laws to safeguard the existing ones. In the words of the Talmud: “He found an open valley, and he (therefore) erected a fence around it.”

Similarly, the directive, “Be deliberate in judgment” is particularly appropriate for times when the Torah study engages the world, such as the period and the mindset of “Men of the Great Assembly.” When the world is shrouded in darkness, Torah knowledge—even theoretical knowledge—is hard to come by. As the Talmud states, “Torah cannot be found among those who travel around frequently.”²⁶ When one has to deal with practical applications of Torah, the difficulty is magnified. One of the requirements for rendering decisions of law is to “have a clear mind, as clear as a clear day.”²⁷ All of the directives of the Men of the Great Assembly were thus especially geared for the time period and mindset that demanded relating the Torah to the exigencies of time.²⁸ (Adapted from the talk of Shabbos Parshas Naso, 5723)

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. The division of the Mishnah is precise and is relevant to the way we understand a Mishnah. For example: There are certain rules that hinge on whether a certain law is mentioned in the beginning of the Mishnah or the end. There are also legal implications of the division of the Mishnah, whether or not a law is written as a separate Mishnah or is incorporated within another one. Chelkas Mechokek (Even HoEzer, 36:40) discusses the law concerning the laws of marriage. If a man marries a woman with the stipulation that he knows how to “learn.” Knowing how to learn means to know at least three Mishnayos. (This is consonant with the view of the Tur with respect to one whose stipulation is that he knows how to read scripture, wherein three verses will suffice.) That the number of Mishnayos is deemed important is evident from the Mishnah in Kilayim (Chapter 7) where one Mishnah is numbered “Mishnah 4 and 5.” See commentary Hon Ashir (by the author of the Mishnas Chassidim, cited in the commentary “Tosphos Anshei Shem” on that Mishnah) where this anomaly is explained according to the teachings of Kabbalah. One may suggest that this Mishnah would be regarded as two distinct ones with respect to the laws of marriage, where he stipulates that he knows how to learn. ↩

2. See Rambam’s introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah for a lengthy treatment of this matter. ↩

3. This thought is analogous to the statement of our ages that “only prophecies that were relevant for future generations were transcribed. Those that were not were not transcribed. (Megillah 14a). ↩

4. “No prophet has arisen like Moses” (Deuteronomy 34:10). Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, end of chapter 7 and beginning of chapter 8. From the discussion there it appears that the Moses’ Torah status relates to his prophetic prowess. This is not the place to discuss the matter further. ↩

5. Translated into the Kabalistic lexicon of Sefirot, “Moses” represents the attribute of Chochma I’la’ah, Higher-level wisdom. “Joshua”—who was Moses’ attendant—represents Chochma ta’ta’ah, lower level Chochma as it is incorporated within Chochma I’la’ah. “Elders”—the etymology of the Hebrew word for elder, zaken relates to the term that means, “he who acquired wisdom”—represents Mochin, the general intellectual attributes—from which also the emotional attributes derive. “Prophets “ correspond to the attributes of netzach and hod, victory and submission. “Men of the Great Assembly” corresponds to the attribute of Malchus, sovereignty. This is based on the fact that Malchus is also referred to as Knessess Yisroel, the Assembly of Israel, as is well known. When Malchus is elevated to its source by way of one’s service, it is then accorded the enhanced appellation of, “great assembly.” ↩

6. Sukkah 42a. Alter Rebbe’s Hilchos Talmud Torah, beginning of chapter one. ↩

7. [Deuteronomy 33:4] ↩

8. Vayikra Rabbah 7:3. See Likkutei Sichos Volume 22, p. 1-6. ↩

9. [In Chassidic thought the soul’s first expression is referred to as Chocmah which is a composite of two words: Coach mah, it is an amorphous non-descript power. In other words, when the soul first begins to manifest itself, its nature is still undefined, amorphous. If we had to characterize the faculty of Chochma, we would have to ay that it is a paradoxical non-force force. Its identity is defined by virtue of its submission to another identity that it is attempting to grasp. When you look at a Chochma driven individual you see a person who has no ego, and whose sole preoccupation is to absorb that which is higher than itself.-Translator’s note] ↩

10. The word “Sinai” also represents the ideal of humility and submission, as is explained in Likkutei Sichos, volume 1, Parshas Behar. See there for crossreferences. ↩

11. See Tanya, chapter 19. ↩

12. See Tanya, chapter 42. ↩

13. Bamidbar Rabbah, 21:14. Tanchuma, Pinchas 11. ↩

14. Mishlei 27:18. ↩

15. The Hebrew word for elder, zaken, the Talmud (Kiddushin 32b) states, comprises three words, zeh shekanah chochmah, this one who has acquired wisdom.” (This follows the version of the Toras Kohanim, and as cited by Rashi: “It is an expression of notrikon, as Ta’amei Hamitzvos, end of Parshas Kedoshim – that he is called zeh. ↩

16. Biurei HaZohar, Vayishlach 20b. See also Zohar, III, 244b. ↩

17. An analogy to this premise can be found in regard to the proscription against plagiarism (Magen Avrohom, 156. If one were to assimilate the material until it becomes totally absorbed within one’s mind, after hearing the idea from another, the prohibition would not apply. This premise is helpful in understanding why R. Eliezer the Great would make many statements without quoting the source of these teachings, which was his teacher, despite the fact that “he never said anything that he did not hear from his teacher (Sukkah 27b). Once he assimilated these teachings they did, indeed, become his own. It would be untenable to suggest that it was because he had only one teacher (Yevamos 96B) because he clearly stressed ”his teachers,” in the plural (Sanhedrin 68a). (Excerpted from the talk of the Festival of Shavuos, 5718. ↩

18. [SeeTosphos Yom Tov, end of Ediyot.] ↩

19. See the references cited in Sdei Chemed, entry: “It is not in Heaven,” and in several other sources. ↩

20. [See Likkutei Sichos, volume 10, Parshas Shoftim. Sefer Hasichos, 5751, Shoftim-Translator’s note]. ↩

21. See also Biurei Hazohar ibid, where it states that notwithstanding our inability to have the spiritual comprehension as did the Ta’naim and Amoraim, nevertheless, when we study the laws with the reasons provided for us by the aforementioned Sages, it can be compared to a blind person who follows a seeing person, who follows the correct path as does the one who can see. However, this will only be true if one studies Torah imbued with fear of Heaven. It is not so when… See there for a lengthy exposition of this matter. ↩

22. Bava Basra 130b. ↩

23. Sanhedrin 93b. ↩

24. Berachos 8a. ↩

25. [Eiruvin 6a.] ↩

26. Eiruvin 55a and Rashi. ↩

27. Eiruvin 65a and Rashi. ↩

28. [This does not mean that they advocated changing the Torah, G-d forbid, to suit the demands of their generation. As the Rebbe frequently would cite the language of Hillel (Avos Chapter One, Mishnah ) “Love all creatures and bring them close to the Torah.” The implication here is that one should bring people close to Torah, not bring the Torah close to them.” In this essay, the Rebbe is obviously stating that the Men of the Great Assembly were capable of finding the teachings of Torah that could relate specifically to the needs of their time-period. - Translator’s note.] ↩