This Mishnah, which continues the sayings of Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabbi Judah the Prince begins with the words "Hu Hayah Omer, He was wont to say." Maharal assumes that these words at the beginning of the Mishnah indicate that we are to connect this Mishnah to the previous one, which leads him to question that connection. After all, the previous Mishnah had discussed not relying too much on the government, since they only care about themselves. This Mishnah recommends that we fulfill God’s will and avoid disobedience, as we’ll see in a moment—how do the two connect?

WHEN IS CONNECTION INTERESTING?

Before seeing how Maharal answers the question, I wanted to pause to note the question itself. As I believe we have noted before (although if you don’t remember it even after I write it, it’s new to you), Avot does not make an overt claim to be structured in a careful fashion. Particularly starting from here, it seems to present various Rabbis’ statements with no obvious plan or order. Maharal’s assumption that the Mishnah was carefully structured to reflect certain themes and ideas is therefore not obvious and interesting in and of itself.

Here, actually, Maharal seems to recognize his leap in assuming a thematic connection between the Mishnayot, because he explains that the words "Hu Hayah Omer, He used to say" come to stress that connection. The problem with that claim is that Maharal has also drawn connections between seemingly unrelated Mishnayot (such as the previous two to this one), even when they do not start with the phrase "Hu Hayah Omer."

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GROUP AND THE INDIVIDUAL

To see the problem in drawing a connection between the two Mishnayot, let’s look at this week’s text:

"He was wont to say—Do His Will as you would do your own, so that He will do your will as if it were His own; Negate your desires in accord with His Will, so that He will negate the desires of others in favor of yours."

This is not a text that immediately, intuitively, or obviously connects to a Mishnah about the government. Maharal suggests, however, that this Mishnah comes to tell individuals how to get God to provide for their personal needs. The community does not need that information, because the community qua community already has God's continuing good will (in Maharal's eyes, the community can never lose God's favor, only particular individuals in that community).

WHICH MISHNAH IS TEACHING ABOUT WHICH?

In Maharal's reading, though, it means that the words "Hu hayah omer" in our Mishnah are really telling us about the previous Mishnah, that the community did not need the techniques we are about to mention. That means that the later Mishnah is teaching us about the earlier one rather than building on it. I just thought that was an interesting reversal.

GAINING GOD'S FAVOR AS AN INDIVIDUAL--MITSVOT AND AVOIDING SIN

As individuals, Maharal points out we have two types of needs, and the Mishnah gives us a way of getting each. First, we need to have our various lacks fulfilled-- clothing, etc. Second, though, we need protection from those who would attack us and take away what we have. Maharal reads the two halves of Rabban Gamliel's statement as showing us how to gain each-- performing God's Will (actively, through the vehicle of mitsvot) will elicit from Him the concern to give us our needs, while restraining ourselves from sin will elicit from Him protection from others.

Although Maharal does not elaborate, his view then is that the performance of mitsvot elicits favor from God in an active way-- providing our needs-- while restraining ourselves earns God's restraining others for us. There is a parallel here not just in getting results, but in the kinds of results we get.

Maharal also suggests a deeper meaning to this, in that the word `aseh can mean "make" in addition to "perform". He thinks, therefore, that the Mishnah might be saying "Make His Will into your own" meaning that we should shape ourselves to the point where our desires are only those that God wants. For the other side, we should nullify all those parts of our will that are not for the parts of life God wants. If we successfully mold our desires and inclinations in that way, we will certainly earn the reward promised in the Mishnah.

THE CASE OF THE MISPLACED HILLEL

Having explained the 1st clause as discussing individuals as opposed to groups, Maharal can now explain why the Mishnah placed Hillel's statements here. As you may recall, the first pereq quoted Hillel extensively in his place in the chain of the Mesorah-- so why place some of his sayings here? Maharal shows how each statement reflects another aspect of human changeability, so that it fits best here, in the discussion of the individual's differences from the community.

Hillel's 4 statements are

"Don't separate yourself from the community, don't believe in yourself until the day of your death, don't judge your fellow until you reach his place and don't say that something cannot occur, for in the end it will occur, and don't say I will learn when I get some free time, lest you not get any free time [Editor's Note: and R.. Lichtenstein used to add "vadai lo tipaneh" you certainly won't find the time]."

The first of those statements clearly relates to the individual qua individual, saying he should not separate from the community. Maharal interprets this straightforwardly, just with the explanation that it is the general community that is the central focus of life, the community is all, and the individual is simply a part of that. The kelal's main advantage, for Maharal, is that it is unchanging-- the individuals who make it up are subject to constant change, but the community as a whole is eternal and unchanging. While this is a view that certainly doesn't fly too well in modern America, it's not particularly surprising in context.

KINDS OF CHANGE-- PERSONAL

From recognizing the individual's constantly changing nature, we can understand the warning against believing in oneself prior to death. Since change is always part of a human being, he can never be sure that he won't sin, until he has left this world. This is the element of personal, internal change.

Recognizing the changeability of humans and the effects of circumstances on all of us inherently means that we cannot judge someone else. Since we cannot know the various changing factors that impact upon them, we cannot know how they should have reacted unles we are exactly in their situation. This is a modern defense of not judging others-- it's not denying that they do wrong, it's noting that the impact of various pressures is often incalculable unless we actually experience them.

From recognizing personal changeability and the effect of external factors, the Mishnah moves to mentioning the complete changeability of the human condition generally. The way Maharal interprets the obscure statement in the Mishnah-- which literally reads "Don't say something impossible to hear, for in the end it will be heard." Maharal reads that statement by adding in an "about", so that it reads "Don't say about something, etc." In that reading, the Mishnah is saying that we should not rule out any possibilities, no matter how remote they seem, because under the correct conditions they might come true. Again, in the modern era, those words seem prescient, since we have accomplished so many impossible tasks.

Finally, the statement about Torah learning comes to rule out the expectation that we can control our lives even in the very short term. Maharal doesn't think the Mishnah means to say "Don't push off learning till much later"; he thinks the Mishnah means if you have a minute to learn now, don't push off learning for a short time until you're really free, because you cannot control events, and cannot guarantee yourself even that period of time.

In Maharal's scheme, the Mishnah has dealt with several kinds of changeability in humans-- personal (going from sin-free to sinning), situational change (ruling out judging others, since we do not know what's happening with them), changes in the world at large (making it impossible to rule out even the most seemingly outlandish possibilities), and short-term change (so we cannot guarantee control over even our short term schedule). It is these points, in contrast to the previous 2 Mishnayot about the community, that Rabban Gamliel and Hillel combine to provide-- a recognition of human fragility and malleability, leading to the need to work within our boundaries as changeable humans.