The next pair to consider are Hillel and Shammai, probably the most famous of the zugot leaders of the Jewish people. Perhaps what made them so well-known was the continuing debate in the Mishnah between their respective students or "Houses," so that a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is a familiar fixture in Jewish lore, whether halakhic or aggadic (strictly legal or more related to Midrash/Jewish thought). Interestingly, the gemara says that it was in the time just after Hillel and Shammai, when the students did not study as they should have, that disputes became epidemic among the Jewish people. Although he doesn't explicitly mention that, Maharal does introduce his discussion of Hillel and Shammai by saying that these Mishnayot focus on avoiding mahloqet. This week's discussion, however, does not focus on that in particular.

HILLEL'S MISHNAYOT

We meet Hillel first, and Avot devotes an extraordinary amount of space to Hillel's thoughts. For this week, we will study the first two of the Mishnayot that record Hillel's ideas. Hillel's first recorded thoughts are perhaps his most famous-- to be one of the students of Aharon, a lover of peace, a chaser of peace, one who loves other people, and brings them closer to Torah. The following Mishnah is more difficult to understand, partially because it's in Aramaic (negid shema, avad shemeh, u-de-la mosif yasef, u-de-la yalif, qetalah hayyav, u-de-ishtamesh be-taga halaf, which usually means "one who strives to gain fame will lose his fame, one who does not add to his Torah learning will die young, one who does not learn at all is liable for the death penalty, and one who uses the crown will pass away). In addition, Maharal has to identify the connection between the two, which is not at all clear.

UNITY AS THE MAIN FUNCTION OF PRIESTS

Maharal questions why Hillel chooses to group the traits in the first Mishnah under the rubric of being "mi-talmidav shel Aharon, among the disciples of Aaron." Couldn't Hillel just as easily have skipped that introduction and urged people to love peace, and so on?

Maharal suggests that bringing peace is the essential task of the priests, and particularly the High Priest. As the ones who offer sacrifices in the Temple, priests make peace between people and their God. So, too, Aharon created peace among people by his various peacemaking activities. In calling a person who engages in such activities a student of Aharon, then, the Mishnah is reminding us that this was Aharon (and all kohanim’s) central mission—to reunify those who are separated, whether it was people from each other, from Torah, or from God.

Just a point about what Maharal has done here. His question seemed to focus on why the Mishnah would bother referring this set of actions to Aharon. His answer, that this was Aharon’s essential contribution, doesn’t really answer the question, since we still don't know why the Mishnah chose to stress that. Rather, Maharal's answer explains why it's true that someone who has these characteristics is mi-talmidav shel Aharon. Why the Mishnah puts it in these terms for us remains unanswered. I would guess that, once we know it’s correct to characterize Aharon this way, and that these were the essential characteristics of a priest, one who adopts these traits is acting as a priest (regardless of his actual lineage), qualifying him as a student of Aharon. Some people might even ignore the adjuration to chase peace, etc., but would adopt these qualities to emulate Aharon the High Priest.

One more side point. Maharal's view of the priesthood is far from the ritual version we might assume from the facts of halakhah. As far as a strictly legal view would have it, priests are the guardians of the Temple, teachers of Torah, and people whose lives were unnaturally dedicated to Torah, mitsvot, and ritual purity-- by which I mean that they did not live, or attempt to live, ordinary lives. Rather, they lived lives of purity, perhaps as an example to others of what the ideal is, so that those others could have a full picture to attempt to actualize in as much of their real lives as possible.

Maharal has added an extremely important dimension to the kohanim's functions-- peace. While their Temple service certainly increases the peace between Jews and God, Maharal has generalized that to assuming peace seeking was part of the kohanim's role in general. They were not, then, just holy-men in our midst; they were the cogs of society, working to insure peaceful coexistence among all Jews.

THE WAY TO BRING PEACE-- CHASING AND LOVING

Having explained the search for peace as a way to repair ruptures, Maharal can now explain why peace needs "chasing (rodef shalom)." Since people who are arguing tend to be far apart from each other (at least emotionally, if not physically), someone seeking to bridge that gap will have to race back and forth to unify them.

An alternative explanation for the need for chasing is the unnaturalness of peace. Peace for Maharal means the distance among disputants has been bridged and unity has been created. Maharal insists, however, that true peace-- a situation of unity and mutual connection-- is a Divine phenomenon, not a natural one. To absorb some Divine element always requires chasing for Maharal and connects to our general search for the Divine in human endeavors, as we will mention in a moment.

Beyond the search for peace among people is the search for bringing people closer to Torah. Part of any attempt in this direction, Maharal notes, must be a feeling of love for the people receiving one’s ministrations. It is not fully possible to bring peace among people or guide them back to Torah observance unless the person attempting to wield influence actually loves the people themselves. [This reminds me of a notion that I mentioned in this year's Rosh haShanah sermon, that Alcoholics Anonymous members look for others to help because of their own need. The founders of AA, who realized this, looked for a third person because they felt it to be true that they themselves would not manage to stay sober without sharing their ideas with others. Maharal is really going one step further—he’s not saying that it’s enough to try to bring peace among others because of our personal needs, but out of a love and concern for them, the others who are arguing or not as Torah-observant as would be desirable].

HOW A PERSON LIVES UP TO THESE GOALS

Moving beyond just explaining the words of the Mishnah, Maharal says that these activities all require a person of modesty and humility. A person with a strong concern for him or herself will be unable to submerge his or her wants and rights to the goal of bringing the two disputants closer together.

This precludes the ba`al serara (who we met in earlier Mishnayot) from adopting the path of Aharon (I wonder if Maharal thinks that this is why Moshe Rabbenu also could not have performed Aharon’s functions among the Jewish people? While Moshe is described as humble, he was undeniably a person of power as well), since the ba`al serara generally seeks to further his own power, rather than to help others and follow their needs.

SERARA AND THE CONNECTION AMONG THE MISHNAYOT

The recognition that serara stands in opposition to fulfilling Hillel’s wants explains his attention to that aspect of life in the next Mishnah. While Maharal cites Rambam’s interpretation of negid shema avad shemei(one who attains fame will lose it), Maharal reads it instead as "one who seeks fame, his name is avad," meaning he will bring loss to himself by virtue of that search.

Since continuity, like peace (as mentioned earlier) is a Divine notion—the physical is a world of cessation and stopping, and it all keeps going because of the Divine—people’s lives only continue by virtue of their connection to the Divine, a connection forged by Torah. Someone who ends that connection (by ceasing to learn Torah at some point), thus loses the ability to continue their lives, and deserves to die young. Someone who does not learn at all goes one step beyond losing a connection; he is presumed to stand in opposition to Torah, an attitude that itself is deserving of death.

RABBI TARFON "USES" HIS TORAH

The last clause, u-de-ishtamesh be-taga halaf, is generally taken to mean that if one uses the Torah for inappropriate purposes, one will pass away from this world. In this connection, Maharal quotes a story where R. Tarfon was kidnapped, and, in his anguish cried out "Oy le-Tarfon! Woe is Tarfon!" The kidnapper, recognizing the name and realizing whom he had abducted, put R. Tarfon down and ran away. For the rest of his life, the story goes, R. Tarfon bemoaned his inappropriate use of his fame as a Torah scholar for personal reasons. Perhaps because of R. Tarfon’s continued anguish over his conduct Maharal assumes that misusing Torah would lead to a worse punishment than just halaf, passing from the world. He therefore prefers the interpretation of Resh Laqish, that taga means talmidei hakhamim, wise men, and that it is impermissible to use such people for our own personal needs, since they represent Torah and Torah ideas.