RABBI YOHANAN B. ZAKKAI’S RECEPTION OF THE TRADITION

The Mishnah opens up with a statement we were used to seeing in the first chapter—Rabbi Yohanan b. Zakkai received [the tradition] from Hillel and Shammai. The problem with this opening is that it appears here, clearly out of order (Hillel and Shammai were mentioned in the first chapter, and the tradition continued without mentioning R. Yohanan). In the first chapter, after Hillel and Shammai, the Mishnah had jumped to Rabban Gamliel, and had not said that he received from Hillel and Shammai. Why does the Mishnah leave R. Yohanan b. Zakkai for here?

Maharal notes a tradition that says that the tradition was poorly received by the students of Hillel and Shammai. In that statement, the spread of disputes among Torah scholars was blamed on their not having fully absorbed the tradition. Because of that circumstance, Maharal suggests, Avot left R. Yohanan out of the direct chain, since he (and the other members of his generation) actually did not succeed at transmitting the tradition whole from one generation to the next.

Without taking Maharal’s comments any further than he does—I have no idea as to what it would mean that R. Yohanan b. Zakkai did or did not manage to receive the whole tradition from his teachers and pass it on to generations that followed—Maharal’s awareness of the problems in passing along a tradition whole are somewhat poignant. We will see later in the commentary that Maharal lived at a time when there was a furious debate over the proper way to study, and that Maharal was of the view that the common form of Talmud study ended up being intellectual gymnastics, at the cost of knowledge of gufei halakhot, essential elements of Torah. (This is an issue in our day as well, between those who emphasize beqiut, breadth of knowledge, and those who emphasize iyyun, depth of understanding.)

In that context, however, when we see Maharal noticing moments of breakdown in the passage of the tradition, there are some personal echoes as well.

EARLY INTERPRETATIONS OF R. YOHANAN

The comment of R. Yohanan b. Zakkai’s that is included in Avot is "Im lamadta Torah harbeh, al tahaziq tovah le-atsmekha, ki le-kakh notsarta, if you have learned a great deal of Torah, do not account it as a credit to yourself, for it was for that that you were created." Earlier commentators had read this Mishnah relatively narrowly, as primarily looking to prevent pride in one’s accomplishments in Torah study. Rashi, for example, notes here that the gemara in Sukkah discusses the students of Hillel and notes that R. Yohanan b. Zakkai, although the "least" of those students, knew Miqra, Mishnah, Talmud, Halakhot, ve-Agadot—the entire corpus of Torah knowledge. Rashi doesn’t explain why he chose here to give the background of the Tanna being quoted; it is not a general tendency of his (R. Shimon b. Zemah Duran, on the other hand, did precisely that—he opened each Mishnah by collecting the Talmudic evidence that would reveal interesting biographical information about the Tanna whose words are recorded in that Mishnah).

Given the content of the Mishnah, it seems plausible that Rashi wanted to let readers know that R. Yohanan b. Zakkai was fully qualified to judge this issue. If a person who has only learned a bit of Torah were to say "if you’ve learned a lot, don’t be proud of it," the statement would not carry too much weight, since the speaker is not an expert in the issue. Rashi, I believe, therefore tells us that R. Yohanan b. Zakkai in fact had learned a great deal of Torah, and nevertheless rejected pride in that accomplishment, since it was for that that we were created.

Rabbenu Yonah, on the other hand, comments here that R. Yohanan was recognizing that, despite his great knowledge, he had in no way managed to learn all of Torah, which is "arkhah me-eretz middah, u-rehavah mini yam, longer than the Earth in measure and broader than the sea." In R. Yonah’s reading, then, R. Yohanan’s point is that you can never accurately claim that you’ve learned a great deal of Torah—the Torah is infinitely long, broad, and deep, so no matter how much you’ve learned there’s much more to go.

In both of those readings, the reason that we may not pride ourselves in our accomplishments in Torah is that we are required to relate to Torah that way, it was for that that we were created, the study of Torah.

MAHARAL’S READING

I thought it worthwhile to precede our reading of Maharal with the two oearlier interpretations of this Mishnah so that we could see the shift in the way Maharal expresses the ideas. Maharal notes other Talmudic sources, particularly a gemara in Sanhedrin that, after much discussion, conclude that people are born le-amal Torah, for the work of Torah study. He further notes the three souls that make up a human being (the belief in three souls is not in any way Maharal’s—Rambam has versions of it, as did the Greeks).

In Maharal’s version, there is the soul, which even animals have, the life force that creates animated beings. Then there is the speaking soul, which is particularly human, in that animals do not have that capability. (In modern terms, that soul would be whatever set of intellectual capabilities divides humans from animals, whether that is or is not speech—there are now scientists who believe they can teach higher levels of the primate family to speak, or at least communicate through sign language. That has no relevance to here, unless we move to claim that there is no essential difference between humans and animals, a view I believe Judaism rejects).

The third soul, Maharal says, is completely separate from the body, it is the sekhek nivdal, the separate intellect. Developing this intellect, Maharal says, is the goal of human existence, and it is primarily through Torah that one develops that sekhel nivdal. He notes that it cannot be that developing our nefesh hamedaberet, our abilities to speak, that are the core of our existence, since babies have that capability as well.

THE PHYSICAL/SPIRITUAL CLASH AGAIN

Note that in Maharal’s description of the separate intellect, he stresses not only the capabilities of thought involved, but it’s separation from the body—another example of his struggle with the role of the physical in human life.

In any case, Maharal sees the development of that intellect as the goal of human existence. Since that intellect is never perfect, one can never take pride in how far one has come. More than that, the unreachable nature of perfection explains for Maharal the dynamic nature of human existence. Animals, he says, are born with just about all of their capabilities and never develop further than that. Humans, however, live a life of constant change and development—change, for Maharal, is a sign of continued striving for perfection. (He explains the rotations of the heavens that way as well; since the celestial spheres are working towards perfection, they are constantly in motion). Our nature, then, is to grow, develop, and come ever-closer to perfection. Since that is our nature, we should not take pride in simply expressing it in our Torah study.

TWO RAMIFICATIONS OF MAHARAL’S VIEW

Maharal’s view of Torah’s role in the constant human progression towards perfection explains a Scriptural verse and the Talmud’s view that the Torah was given on Shabbat. First, the verse in Qohelet says "tov…, ve-yom hamavet mi-yom hivaldo" loosely translated as the day of death is better than the day of birth. With the understanding of the dynamic nature of human existence, its constant striving toward perfection (without ever reaching it), we see the advantage of the day of death. On that day, when the person’s growth will stop, he will have reached his own level of perfection, and can finally allow himself to be static.

The notion also explains for Maharal the gemara’s discussion of the Torah being given on Shabbat. According to the gemara, we might have thought that Shabbat was a day for complete rest, from the study of Torah as well. To forestall that notion, Hashem gave the Torah on Shabbat, to show that our striving towards the perfection of the sekhel nivdal, the separate intellect, need not stop on Shabbat. The cessation of creative activity we need to do is only in the other realms of human existence.