Whose Fathers?

The Significance of a Name

The name. Avos literally means fathers, which begs the question, why would the rabbis of the Talmud name this tractate that deals with ethics, “fathers?” Wouldn’t there be a more suitable name that more clearly describes the content of this book?

And names are indeed significant even if the great Sages themselves did not give them. For even when a name is given to something by Jewish custom it carries some weight, for “the custom of Israel is Torah.”¹ In this case, the name Avos was given to this tractate devoted to ethics by the rabbis of the Talmud: “One who wishes to be a chasid, should observe… the words of Avos.”² We are compelled to conclude that the name is hardly arbitrary and that it is related to the subject matter of this tractate.

One can cite the Tractate Berachos (the study of which is mentioned in the foregoing passage of the Talmud as an alternative means of becoming a chassid) as a prime example. It is so named because the subject matter of that tractate is Berachos-blessings. Likewise Tractate Peah deals with Peah (the corner of the field one must leave for the poor). The Tractate that deals with the laws of the Shabbos is appropriately called Shabbos and the one that deals with Passover is called Pesachim-Passover.³ It follows then that all names given to all the Tractates of the Talmud are related to the subject matter of that particular Tractate.⁴ What then is the relationship between the name Avos-fathers and the subject matter.

Tosfos Yom Tov explains that the name Avos was given to this tractate because “in truth, it is the Sages that are called fathers, analogous to Elisha’s calling to Elijah, ‘My father, my father.’⁵ Likewise the students are (Biblically) referred to as children⁶…”

This explanation, however, does no suffice, because the notion that the Sages are re- ferred to as fathers is true in every part of the Torah and in every tractate of the Talmud, not just Avos. And while it is understandable why the Written Torah could not be called Avos, since it (the Pentateuch) was revealed to us by only one person, Moses, and cannot therefore be called Avos, fathers, in the plural. However, every Talmudic Tractate has been transmitted to us by multiple Sages. Why wouldn’t the name Avos have been appropriate for any of the other Tractates? Why single out this one—that deals with ethical issues—to be called Avos?⁷ Teachers and fathers One could possibly explain this in light of the comment of R. Ovadia miBartenuro as to why the first Mishnah opens with the order of the transmission of the Torah from Moses through the generations:

“[B]ecause this Tractate is not intended as a commentary of any of the Torah’s commandments, as are all the other Tractates of the Mishnah, rather, it is devoted to the discussion of ethics and proper character traits, exclusively. Even secular scholars have written books, based on their own ideas, on the subjects of ethics and how to interact with one another. This author thus teaches us that the ethical and moral teachings of this trac- tate were not made up by the Sages of the Mishnah, but were also given at Sinai.”

We can now perhaps understand why the selection of the name Avos was confined to this Tractate that deals with ethics. To justify the name father for a teacher, the subject matter that he teaches must involve Torah knowledge. As our Sages comment: “Whoever teaches his friend’s sons Torah, the Torah regards it as if he had fathered that child.”⁸ Thus to underscore the Torah nature of this tractate in particular—that we might have otherwise thought represented the personal wisdom of the rabbis, and not part of the Oral Torah that descended from Sinai—there was a need to call it Avos. For only with regard to actual Torah knowledge can we justifiably call these teachers fathers.

Upon reflection, however, this answer is deficient for several reasons. First, logic dictates that the appellation of “father” can be applied to any teacher of any subject, so long as the subject has some real benefit and contributes to the development of the student. For after all, the reason why a teacher can be called father is because the teacher, as the father, is responsible for the making of the child. The father contributes the genetic material, while a teacher contributes the knowledge that enables the student to function and grow.⁹ Second, when one wishes to emphasize that this tractate was given by the A-mighty (contrary to the made-up wisdom of humans), the name should have been “Sinai” or something similar that reflects the essential point that these teachings come from Sinai, not Avos that is merely a tangential function of a Divine teaching. And, on the contrary, the name Avos-fathers focuses on the Sages themselves, rather than on the Divine source of their knowledge. We are at square one: Why then is this tractate known as Avos?

The Gateway

The simple explanation is that Avos is indeed the foundation of and gateway to all of the other tractates of the Talmud. The “words of piety”¹⁰ that this tractate contains cultivate a keen awareness of G-d, which is a necessary prerequisite to the study of Torah. As our Sages, in Avos, put it: “Anyone whose fear of sin comes before his wisdom, his wisdom will endure.”¹¹ This is echoed by another saying of our Sages: “Anyone who has Torah, but is devoid of fear of heaven can be compared to a treasurer to whom the keys of the inner chamber were given, but not of the outer chamber. Which one will he enter?¹² Hence, this tractate is indeed the “father” that sustains and preserves the other teachings of the Torah.¹³ Conceptual Basis of Entire Talmud On a deeper level, one could explain the choice of the name Avos for this tractate based on the way the Talmud understands the meaning of the word Avos elsewhere.

When the Mishnah¹⁴ speaks of four Avosfathers of damages, or “Forty minus one Avos-fathers of labor that are prohibited on the Sabbath,”¹⁵ the Talmud observes: “[If the word] Avos [is used] it implies that there are offspring.”¹⁶ And the Talmud there proceeds to enumerate the “offspring” forms of damage for which one is liable, and likewise the “offspring” form of forbidden labor on the Sabbath.

Here too, the fact that the tractate is called Avos-fathers implies that there are offspring. What are they?

One perspective concerning this matter is that when one looks at the various ethical teachings and “words of piety” enunciated by various Sages, one can see how the particular character and approach of that author is reflected in his teaching. And conversely, by analyzing the saying of a particular Sage one can discern the unique approach to serving G-d of that Sage.

This is consistent with the way the Four Sons are introduced in the Haggadah: “The wise son, what does he say?” The original Hebrew word for “what does he” is mahu, which can also be rendered, “what he is.” Hence the Haggadah is revealing to us that a “wise son, (and analogously, the other sons as well) what he is, he says.” His own personality is expressed in his words.

This explanation can also be tied in with the explanation of the Tosfos Yom Tov cited earlier that the word Avos is an appellation for the Sages. However, now we can also understand why the Sages are referred to as Avos, specifically in this Tractate devoted to ethics, and not in any other part of the Talmud.

In light of the foregoing interpretation of Avos—that it suggests that the rabbis’ personalities and spiritual levels are reflected in their ethical teachings, this can obviously not be said about their other teachings that do not relate to spiritual and ethical matters.¹⁷ Therefore, other parts of the Talmud could not be called Avos.

One can take this point—that these rabbis’ personalities are the “fathers” of their sayings—a step further. Not only are their personality traits and levels of spiritual devotion reflected in their ethical teachings here, but moreover, these Sages’ attitudes highlighted in Avos are the fathers and sources of their opinions in all other portions of the Talmud.¹⁸ This approach is reinforced when one considers the novel approach of the Me’iri,¹⁹ who asserts that Avos is indeed the first Tractate of the Talmud and its very introduction. Me’iri’s opinion follows logically from the foregoing premise that the teachings of Avos serve as a conceptual basis for all their other teachings throughout the Talmud.

In a sense, Avos is a micro version of the Talmud, containing the conceptual basis for the teachings of these Sages scattered throughout Talmudic literature.

One can find an allusion to this parallel in the way the beginning and end of Avos mirrors the beginning and end of the Talmud. Commentators²⁰ have noted how the Talmud begins with the letter mem [of the word Mei’eimasai] and concludes with the final let- ter mem [of the word Shalom]. The same is true of Avos: It begins with the word Moshe, which begins with a mem and concludes with the word olam, which also ends with a final mem. This is certainly no coincidence, but it is a reflection of the way Avos represents the entire body of Talmudic literature, serving as it does as the “father” of all the other teachings.²¹ Fathers and First Fruit The name Avos can also be said to allude to the exalted nature of the Jewish people, to which many of the teachings in Avos calls our attention.²² While our Sages assert that both Torah and Israel [the people] preceded and transcend the order of creation, the Midrash queries, “which of the two—Torah or Israel—came first?” The Midrash answers: “Israel came first!”²³ The Zohar speaks of the “three things that are knotted together, Israel, Torah and the Holy one Blessed is He. Israel is knotted with Torah and the Torah is knotted to G-d.”

The question is asked, why the Zohar speaks of three knots, when there are three entities, but only two knots—the knot between Israel and Torah and the second knot between Torah and the Holy One Blessed is He?

The answer given in Chassidus is that there is, in fact, a third knot, the knot between Israel and G-d, which is distinct from the link Israel has with G-d through the Torah. Indeed, this bond supercedes the other bond, because while the other one can be severed or strained as a result of one’s lack of bonding with Torah, the other knot can never be severed. And it is this bond that we depend on when he have transgressed; it is where we get our ability to do Teshuvah.

However, Chassidus explains, even the higher relationship we have with G-d that supercedes our relationship we have to Him through Torah, must be revealed through Torah. Torah is the source where this connection is revealed to us, and Torah is the scope that makes this transcendent relationship visible.

Likewise Avos—which contains teachings that go beyond the letter of the law— “matters of piety- which enables one to become a chassid, one who goes beyond the law”²⁴ is also a part of Torah. It is the Torah that reveals that which transcends the Torah and it is the Torah that enables us to reach the Divine that is even higher than the Torah.

One of the sources for the notion that Israel preceded Torah is the verse: “As the first ripening fig in its beginning, so did I view your fathers.”²⁵ This alludes to the tithe known as Bikkurim (first fruits)—to which Israel is likened—that is to be separated before the Te- rumah,²⁶ also called “the beginning” and which alludes to Torah.²⁷ Thus, the name “fathers” hints²⁸ to the way G-d views the Jewish people, as His “First fruits” that even transcends the Torah.²⁹

From the book Introduction to Pirkei Avos (Biurim L’Pirkei Avos) by Rabbi Heschel Greenberg, adapted from the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe and published by the Jewish Discovery Center.

Footnotes

1. Tosphos, s.v. Nifsal, Menachos 20b. Maharil, cited by Rama, Yoreh Deah 376:4. Minhagim Yeshanim mudra, p. 153. See Yerushalmu, Pesachim 4:1. See also Rashba, Torat Habayit, cited by Bais Yosef, Yoreh De’ah sec. 39. ↩

2. Bava Kamma 30a. ↩

3. The fact that Pesachim is in the plural and Shabbos is singular is easily understood. While there is only one Sabbath, there are two Passovers, the regular Passover, and Pesach Sheni that occurs a month later. And while Likkutei Torah (Behar 41a ff.) describes two levels of the Sabbath, in a legal context there is only one Sabbath, hence the singular use. ↩

4. [Obviously the Tractates of Bava Kamma, Bava Metzia and Bava Basra do not conform to this principle. However, those three were originally known as Nezikin-torts that describe what they are about. However, since that volume was too large, it was subsequently subdivided into Bavossections. See Bava Kamma 102a, Avodah Zara 7a and the Introduction to Rambam’s commentary on the Mishnah; Preface to commentary on Seder Nizikin of Tosfos Yom Tov. – Translator’s note.] ↩

5. Melachim II, 2:12. ↩

6. Rashi, Devarim 6:7. ↩

7. [See Midrash Shmuel, introduction, where he cites several explanations: a) It refers to the generations of teachers that are enumerated in the beginning of Avos as the links of tradition. The difficulty in this approach is that why should the name of an entire tractate be based on only the theme of the first Mishnah? b) When one guides someone to go in the right path it is as if he was his father. The difficulty here is the same that is mentioned in the text with regard to the analogous explanation of the Tosfos Yom Tov that a teacher of Torah is called a father. This is true of any teacher not just the teacher of ethics. c) All ethical teachings that can be found in any other work, either in Jewish sources or in non-Jewish sources, derive from Avos. The difficulty with this explanation is that it says more about other tractates than it says about Avos. Wouldn’t it have been more fitting to call this tractate by a name that expresses the content of the tractate itself? See n. 17 for an analysis of the Rebbe’s explanation and why it is the preferred one. – Translator’s note.] ↩

8. Rashi, Bamidbar ↩

9. [While it is certainly true that the ultimate contribution that one could make to a student is to given him spiritual and G-dly knowledge and values, i.e., Torah, nevertheless, one cannot negate the usage of the term father for a teacher of some other useful area of knowledge. – Translator’s note.] ↩

10. Bava Kamma op cit. ↩

11. Avos, Chapter 3:9. ↩

12. Shabbos 31a ff. ↩

13. See Tiferes Yisroel ad loc. [This explanation obviously points to the special role of Avos see n 7 – Translator’s note.] ↩

14. Bava Kamma 2a.. ↩

15. Ibid. ↩

16. Ibid. ↩

17. [The Rebbe’s explanation is that the spiritual personalities of these Sages are responsible for their sayings. This tells us something about Avos itself and of its authors, that the ideal ethical person is one whose sayings are consistent with who they are. See above n. 7. for the difficulties that exist in the other explanations. – Translator’s note.] ↩

18. See Tosfos Chadashim (beginning of Avos) in the name of R. Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev for a similar explanation. It should be noted, however, that obviously, this explanation is limited to the Sages whose teachings are quoted in Avos. It does not include all of the Sages who preceded the Men of the Great Assembly, whose teachings are the first that are cited in Avos, nor does it cite all the members of the Men of the Great Assembly themselves, not is it exhaustive in terms of even the later authorities, whose opinions are cited in other sections of the Talmud. ↩

19. ? ↩

20. At the end of the Order of Taharos. See discourse of Rebbe Maharash (S.V. Me’eimasai, 5642). ↩

21. Adapted from the talk of Shabbos parshas Shemini and Bamidbar 5743, based exclusively on a listener’s account. ↩

22. [See Rebbe’s Commentary on Avos Chapter 2:1. – Translator’s note.] ↩

23. See Bereishis Rabbah 1:4. Tanna dvei Eliyahu Rabbah, Chapter 14. Likkutei Sichos, volume 34, p. 222. ↩

24. See footnote n. 2. ↩

25. Hoshea 89:10. ↩

26. Shemos 22:28. Mishnah, Terumot 3:6. ↩

27. See Or HaTorah, beginning of parshas Ki Savo. See there for cross references. ↩

28. [One might add, perhaps, that the term Avos suggests that this tractate that expresses the transcendent nature of Israel is the father of all other parts of the Torah because it expresses the preeminent nature of Israel, even in relation to Torah. It is also noteworthy that the idea of Israel’s preeminence is hinted in the beginning of the Torah (see Sichos Kodesh 5752. P. 248.), as well as at the end of the Torah (see Likkutei Sichos, volume 34 p. 222ff.). Likewise the beginning of the Talmud alludes to Bikkurim (See Hadranim al Hashas, Volume 2. P. 514). – Translator’s note.] ↩

29. Adapted from Toras Menachem, Shemini and Bamidbar 5743, ↩