Following R. Judah the Prince, the Mishnah reports the words of his son Rabban Gamliel. Maharal her e mentions that he recognizes that the Mishnah is really just following a chain of tradition, so that in some sense he does not need to link the Mishnayot, meaning he does not need to explain why this Mishnah follows the one preceding. Nevertheless, he points out that Rebbe had spoken about mitsvot in general (which is a general area of life, justifying having Rebbe start a new chapter). His son takes up the question of derekh erets, involvement in matters of livelihood and making the world work, which is a necessary part of a life of mitsvot. While Rebbe spoke most generally, then, Rabban Gamliel his son addresses a secondary issue within the same realm. Derekh Erets here functions as preparation for service of God.

WHY SEEK CONTINUITY AMONG THE GENERATIONS?

Although Maharal does not address the issue directly, his recognition of a simple reason for the order of this Mishnah-—Rabban Gamliel was Rebbe’s son, so his words should follow those of his father—raises the question as to why he also seeks some other explanation for their juxtaposition. (This is actually a question that could have applied to the entire first chapter). It strikes me that if we think of these statements in Avot as reflecting central religious concerns of the person involved (and perhaps of his time period as a whole), then it makes sense to see some continuity from one generation to the next. Barring significant changes ("paradigm changes" is the more common term), the investigation of any area proceeds logically. So, if Rebbe was concerned with mitsvot generally, it would make sense that his son would continue that investigation, picking a neglected detail to study in greater depth.

Once we think of generations of Torah leaders as sequential investigators of topics of Torah, we understand that buried in Maharal’s view of the first chapter of Avot (or anybody’s, really) is a whole history of the Jewish relationship to religion in the Tannaitic period. In each tanna’s statements, we can see which areas of Torah and Judaism were most alive for comment in his time. By stringing them together—even if we do not insist on an identifiable connection among them—we can see how those concerns changed and developed from one generation to the next. Without trying to flesh out that history now, I thought it interesting enough to note.

That view of Torah study also raises the question as to when and why paradigm changes occur. For example, Maharal had pointed to Rebbe as speaking very generally, making him a worthwhile place to start a new chapter. What made Rebbe think so generally (as opposed to others)? Is this similar to a paradigm change in scientific endeavors, where the traditional modes of thought are overturned (or absorbed into) some other picture? If so, Rebbe—who converted the study of Torah she-Be`al Peh from a somewhat haphazard endeavor into a systematic corpus to be analyzed—is a prime candidate to have forged such a paradigm change. Then, his son (our main topic this week) would be fleshing out aspects of his legacy that he (the father) did not fully analyze.

Perhaps one more contemporary example might help. Rabbi Soloveitchik, zt"l, came out of the Brisker tradition, but was fairly clearly a groundbreaking thinker and teacher of Torah. Many of his students have continued his work, applying his ideas and ways of thinking more rigorously and systematically than perhaps he did himself. Their contribution lies not in developing a new way of thinking about Torah as in applying the Rov’s system to texts and areas where he had not . The one who creates the revolution is not always the one who sees to all its details, and thus it makes sense to look for continuity from one generation to the next. At the same time, it’s interesting to wonder why the Rov was groundbreaking where other, perhaps equally talented people, were not.

TALMUD TORAH WITH DEREKH ERETS

Rabban Gamliel’s actual statement was "yafeh Talmud Torah im derekh erets, she-yegi`at sheneihem mashkahat avon, ve-khol Torah she-ein imah melakhah, sofah betelah ve-goreret avon. Ve-Khol haOsqim Im haTsibbur yehu Osqim le-shem Shamayim, she-zekhut avotam mesayatam, ve-tsidqatam omedet la-`ad; ve-atem ma`aleh ani aleikhem ke-ilu asitem, 1)The study of Torah should be combined with involvement in livelihood and the world, for laboring in both areas causes one to forget sin. 2) Any Torah that does not have work with it will in the end cease and lead to sin. 3) All who work for the community should do so for the sake of Heaven [i.e. with pure motives], since the merit of their [the community’s] Fathers aids them and their [the Fathers’] righteousness lasts forever. Furthermore, I will credit it to you as if you brought about the community’s success.

THE NEED TO SUPPLEMENT TORAH WITH DEREKH ERETS

Maharal points out that it is unreasonable to focus only on the need for yegi`ah, toil, as the cure for sin, since if that were true, toiling at either Torah or Derekh Erets should be just as effective as toiling at both. Rather, Maharal says Torah and Derekh Erets address two different aspects of a person, and it is the involvement in both that saves a person from sin. In keeping with that notion, Maharal asserts that there are two kinds of yetser hara, of evil inclination, one for ervah, sexual misconduct, and one for avodah zarah, idol worship. Derekh Erets, Maharal says, combats the yetser hara for ervah while Torah combats the yetser hara for idol worship.

Being involved in these two areas, then, for Maharal actually means being involved in attaining perfection. If a person is only involved in Torah or Derekh Erets, he (or she) might be very busy, but that person is not working towards perfection in its different realms. Maharal quotes a Talmudic statement that says that a fetus develops a yetser hara when it begins to move to leave the womb. Why then? Maharal suggests that until then the fetus has been involved in self-formation; only once the process of formation was complete was there room for a yetser hara. The same applies to an adult—as long as he’s working on self-formation, he’s free from a yetser hara. Self-formation, however, has to progress along two lines, Torah and Derekh Eretz.

THE ESSENCE OF SELF-DEVELOPMENT

Not that Maharal explains this, but his presentation raises a couple of interesting points. First, if Derekh Erets is the complement to Torah, it suggests that involvement in the world and Torah are two complementary parts of life, that Torah is not complete without involvement in the world and vice verse. (This is an idea I believe you can also find in the last chapter of the Moreh Nevukhim, but it’s interesting to see Maharal, even by inference, subscribing to that point of view).

A second point is that Maharal’s reference to the yetser hara of ervah and of idol worship should probably be taken as types of inclination. In other words, throwing oneself into Derekh Erets is supposed to make us immune to the inclination for sins having to do with this world. Torah, on the other hand, protects against sins against God (the archetypal one of which is avodah zarah). Of course, without both neither is fully effective—we all know people heavily involved in Derekh Erets and yet fully capable of conducting scandalous ervah relationships. The notion of two types of yetser hara, though, is an interesting idea worth pondering further.

ALL TORAH WITHOUT WORK LEADS TO SIN?

Maharal points out that there have always been some Torah scholars who were not deeply involved in working for a living, yet their Torah did not become batel, nor did it lead to sin. He suggests that either these scholars were involved in business, which is not quite as time consuming as most Derekh Erets, but suffices for protecting against the yetser hara of ervah. Secondly, he suggests that these scholars were so involved with their Torah, it ended up taking solid root even without Derekh Erets. Again, he does not discuss the issue thoroughly, but he at least suggests that there are some people who do not need both Derekh Erets and Torah to achieve complete self-formation. Some people are so attuned to Torah that it takes root in their being without the element of the real world to it. Who those people are, and how they can identify themselves to themselves, are topics Maharal does not address.

COMMUNAL WORKERS—ATTACHING TO THE KELAL

What is the connection between the first part of the Mishnah and the advice for those who work for the community? Maharal says that for such people, their work itself will lead them to perfection. While ordinary work is only for the private individual, and therefore needs Torah to produce completion, when working for the community at large, that is less necessary.

It is the aspect of the general community that Maharal stresses, and that is what is meant by zekhut Avot, the merit of the Fathers. It is not the Fathers as individuals that the Mishnah is referring to, but rather to their standing as the forebears of the Kelal, of the community at large. That is also why Rabban Gamliel warns against having personal motives in working for the community; as individuals, there is no reason these workers should succeed, but as workers for the general body of the Jewish people, they will succeed.

That explanation of their success—that it is the merit of the larger body of the Jewish people, as personified by Avraham, Yitshak, and Yaaqov—explains the need to promise these communal workers that they nevertheless accrue merit for their efforts. Since they have been told that it is not their work that creates the success, they could decide to work on other projects. Rabban Gamliel therefore says that in attaching to the broader community, the workers will still get credit as if it were their efforts that produced the communal salvation.

MISHNAH 3

This Mishnah continues the statements of Rabban Gamliel the son of Rebbe, and in this one, Rabban Gamliel warns against becoming too comfortable with the "rashut" which probably refers to the government (or at least those with political power). The Mishnah simply warns that they care only for themselves, and do not support even their friends if those friends find themselves in a time of need.

Maharal, of course, wants to connect this to the previous Mishnah, so he points out that the Mishnah is contrasting oseqim im hatsibbur with rashut, communal workers with those who have political power. The former, if they follow the dictates of the previous Mishnah, are working for the sake of the community. The latter, who generally are simply looking to amass personal power and/or wealth, are concerned only with themselves (which Maharal had previously identified as a problem in self-formation). While we might have gotten the impression that involvement with the broader community will be productive, Maharal sees Rabban Gamliel in this Mishnah as pointing out that that depends on the agent of the community. If the agent has positive motives, then it will, but if not, then it won’t.

To sum up: Maharal sees two main and complementary areas of life, one beset by the inclination for sexual immorality (and similar sins) and one by the inclination for rebellion against God. For each area, there is a cure, Derekh Erets for the former and Torah for the latter. Some, unidentified, scholars can gain that advantage through Torah alone. In addition, attachment to a broader group helps in this area, so communal workers, with the proper motives, can also achieve the same results. In contrast, rulers, despite their position with a broad group, are working for their own benefit, so they do not reap those rewards, nor is it productive to attach oneself to them.