THE VALUE OF GOVERNMENT

There are two distinct parts to this Mishnah, so we’ll take them separately (within this e-mail). In the first, R. Hanina Segan haKohanim (the Segan haKohanim was very much like the Vice President in that his primary function was to be there in case the Kohen Gadol became unable to fulfill his responsibilities—such as by becoming ritually impure. In one important difference, the Segen was expected to stand near the Kohen Gadol on official occasions, as part of the pomp and circumstance surrounding the Kohen Gadol) orders us to pray for the welfare of the government, for without it, people would swallow each other alive.

HOBBES’ VIEW OF PEOPLE?

In the simplest reading of the statement, R. Hanina was simply expressing his view of human nature, that people cannot coexist smoothly without some well-established form of government. That, however, is not enough for Maharal. He cites an interesting gemara in Sanhedrin, which questions why God created a simgle human rather than many, as happened with all the other species of animals. The gemara says first, that by creating one human being, God showed the importance of people, that if anyone kills a human being, it as if they have destroyed an entire world. Second, had God created many human beings, people would have each claimed his or her superiority over the other by virtue of their lineage; since we all came from one person, there is no support for such a claim. Third, had God created many people, heretics would have claimed there was more than one God. Fourth, the gemara points out that creating humanity through one person effectively contrasts God’s creations to people’s. When people want to mint many coins, they make one mold, producing a multitude of objects that look exactly the same. God made one mold (Adam) and produced a multitude of people, all of whom differ recognizably from the other. Therefore, the gemara says, every person has to say "The world was created for me."

Maharal questions several aspects of this piece of gemara, which will lead him back to the main topic, the Mishnah about the need for government. First, he says, the notion that creating one person only shows that at the start of Creation, had anyone killed that person, it would have been like killing an entire world. If, however, there are millions (or billions and billions) of people, what is the relevance of the original creation? Second, the point about lineage again only works in that generation--- there are certainly differences of lineage nowadays, so what did God’s Creation help? Third, why should creating two or more people have led to the theory that there’s more than one God? Finally, why does God’s ability to produce different people from the same mold seem so impressive.

THE SELF SUFFICIENCY OF MAN

The key to all those questions—and to the question of government—lies in Maharal’s view that man (meaning humanity) could have been fully self-sufficient as one. That is, while all the other animals were created in multitude because they were there to populate the Earth, man (in theory) could have run the world on his own, much as a single king rules over many subjects. Maharal cannot (I think) mean this literally, since God gives Adam and Eve the command to be fruitful, etc., before the sin in Gan Eden, so it seems that procreation was a part of humanity’s role even before they were removed from the Gan.

I believe instead that Maharal is making a theoretical statement, although no less true. While the Earth as a whole was meant to be fully populated and fully conquered, man (and here I assume he means the man-woman unit, since its fairly clear in the gemara that they were either created together and separated or that man was incomplete until woman was created) is a self-sufficient creation, without any necessary need for others. (This, by the way, is in sharp contrast to Rambam, who agrees with Aristotle that people can only flourish in a social context).

Once we know this view, we can see that the gemara means that it was to make that point clear that God created a single human unit, rather than many. By doing so, He made clear the value of each human life (although I suppose in my formulation you could claim that only if one killed or saved a man-woman unit would that be considered as saving or destroying an entire world—any thoughts?). So, too, had several such units been created—each theoretically self-sufficient and capable of ruling the world—it would have suggested rival powers, each putting a representative on Earth, etc. Of course, in this view, "bishvili nivra ha`olam, for me the world was created" is just an expression of our basic humanity, in which each of us is a world ruler.

PRIDE—THE REASON FOR GOVERNMENT

That understanding of human self-sufficiency explains why government is necessary to prevent people from destroying each other. Every person’s legitimate ability to view him or herself as a complete whole, without any essential need for others, could easily lead to anarchy, where nobody feels any need to respect the rights of others (we’re back to Hobbes, only now Maharal has identified the underlying attitude that would lead to that view—each person’s self-reliance and narrow frame of reference). Government thus reminds us not to think that way.

In this reading, Maharal can also explain why R. Hanina came right after Aqavya—since both were talking about pride. You’ll remember from last week that Aqavya gave three ideas to consider and Maharal saw them all as ways to avoid pride. Now R. Hanina comes along to point out that pride in oneself (and here it might even be somewhat accurate pride), is the reason for the breakdown of civilization.

OR, IT’S JUST A TIME THING

Having created such a nice connection between R. Hanina and Aqavya, Maharal concedes that they might be juxtaposed simply because they lived around the same time. What’s interesting about this (to me) is that Maharal has based his whole interpretation of this Mishnah on the attempt to show that it’s pride in themselves and their self-sufficiency that lead people to mistreat others and to need government to rein them in. The beauty of that structure was that it then connects back to the previous Mishnah. When he now concedes that it might simply be an accident of chronology, that means his whole structure might not be necessary. (Theoretically, that could have meant that he could give an alternate reading of why people would kill each other unless restrained by government, but he doesn’t. Also theoretically, he could combine the two points, conceding that the two rabbis are placed near each other because they lived at the same time, but that it was their chronological coincidence that fueled their thought—in other words, that both were concerned with issues of pride precisely because they lived at a time when that was a problem for their community. In that reading, it wasn’t their thematic connection that led to their juxtaposition, but the same cause that led them to be near each other also led to their concern with the same life problem).

TWO WHO SIT TOGETHER

The Mishnah continues with the saying of another tanna, R. Hanina b. Teradyon, who says that two who are sitting together without words of Torah, that’s a moshav leitsim, but two who have words of Torah between them, the Shekhinah (the Divine Presence) is among them, and even one who sits and studies, Hashem is qov`a lo sakhar, sets aside a reward.

Maharal first questions why the Mishnah starts with the negative—two who don’t have Torah between them. Second, he questions the difference between two and one, in that two merit the Divine Presence, whereas with one the Mishnah only says that God establishes a reward. The crux of Maharal’s answer is that Torah is most complete when it is communicated to someone else. While a single person could speak out loud when studying (and there are gemaras that seem to indicate that one should study out loud), Maharal does not seem to place too much emphasis on such study. Ordinarily, or at least often, he says, a single person will not speak out loud when studying. Even if he does, speaking words of Torah does not simply mean vocalizing them, it means sharing them with someone else.

THE COMPLETE TORAH

Therefore, Maharal says, when two sit together, there is the first expectation that there will be the opportunity for complete Torah. When that is available, neglecting to study that Torah will call down upon oneself the opprobrium of being considered a gathering of idlers. In reverse as well, when two study together, they have complete Torah (meaning not just Torah that is understood, but Torah that is communicated), and God joins complete Torah.

There are two beautiful aspects to this idea that are worth lingering over. First, Maharal’s idea that Torah is incomplete unless communicated is extremely important, in that it wipes away the possibility that Talmud Torah is an activity engaged in for personal growth (I don’t mean what the people’s motives are, I mean what the Torah’s motives are in requiring it). It is, rather, an activity that is meant to increase the presence of Torah in the world at large—when one person understands some piece of Torah, that is not even half as good as if two share it together. It is only when it is communicated that the Torah quotient of the world is raised, and (therefore? Maharal doesn’t quite say that, but it works) that the Divine Presence attends to what they are doing.

Second, Maharal discusses why it is that the Divine Presence connects to Torah and he sees it as because of Torah’s unitary and necessary nature. That is, Maharal claims that Torah is necessarily the way it is and could not be any other way. That unity of Torah (meaning that it all hangs together perfectly and could not be otherwise) is what connects it to God. I find that claim interesting because it suggests—and this is a long-standing question, but it’s always interesting to see another perspective—that there is really only one Torah, and that disputes within Torah are all attempts to discover that original intent of the Divine Will.

Historically, many traditional scholars have had more pluralistic perspectives—beginning with Ramban and Ran (an interesting, though intellectually challenging discussion of this concept is a book by A. Sagi, called Elu va-Elu; Moshe Koppel’s Meta-Halakhah also deals with many of these issues, suggesting that there is an open element to Torah that was not pre-determined). Maharal’s assumption that Torah is as it is and could be no other way takes a firm stand the other way.

THE LONE STUDENT

Since Maharal has made it clear that he does not see the lone student of Torah as reaching the level of having divrei Torah, a full Torah study experience, what is that person doing and how does that relate to his reward? Maharal notes that the verse that the Mishnah quotes to support its contention about one person is not about study, it’s about qabbalat ol malkhut shamayim, accepting upon oneself the yoke of Heaven. He suggests, therefore, that in sitting and studying, the person is refraining from negative activity and responding to a Divine command to involve oneself in Torah, akin to accepting the yoke of Heaven upon himself (obviously, I hope, that person is also making possible a later communication of his Torah to somebody else, but that is not what he’s doing right then). He therefore gets reward in that way. This again highlights Maharal’s view that in studying all alone (without communicating with another), a person is not fundamentally engaged in the study of Torah that God sought; that Torah was a Torah that raised the presence of Torah in the world, a feat that can only be accomplished by sharing with another.