Pirkei Avot 3:2

Pirkei Avot 2:3

Pirkei Avot 1:10

A transcript of this episode will be available soon.

Sponsor an upcoming episode of TEXTing!
Click here to learn more.

Subscribe on all major platforms

TEXTing with Elana Stein Hain delves deeply into Jewish texts to guide and inspire us as we grapple with the concerns and meaning of this moment. Join Elana as she addresses the issues of our day through the lens of classical Jewish texts, in conversation with Hartman scholars Christine Hayes, Yonah Hain, and Leora Batnitzky.

TEXTing. Where ancient wisdom meets contemporary relevance.

The Ruling Authorities Transcript

Note: This is a lightly edited transcript of a conversation, please excuse any errors.

Elana: Welcome to TEXTing, where we consider issues relevant to Jewish life through the lens of classical and modern Torah texts. I’m your host, Elana Stein Hain. We’re recording on Wednesday, October 30th, 2024. If you’d like to follow along with today’s texts, you can find the link to our source sheet in the episode description.

So I’d really like to throw out my phone. I’ve been spammed for the last three months, alternatively, by family members who want me to vote for their candidate, and by the Democratic Party, who are telling me about their desperation and how could you not have given us money yet? So I want to throw out my phone.

I am going into this election and I’m here in New York and I’m to be voting early while I’m here. I feel like in this election, for me, in terms of my own vote, I feel that there is a wrong answer to who I should vote for, but I am not so confident that my answer is the right answer in terms of who I’m voting for. And yet, I’m going to cast my vote for that person anyway, because my problems with the other candidate are much more intractable.

I actually don’t think I’m alone, even though I’ve been met with a lot of certainty. I think that for many in this election, the stakes are incredibly high and people will go to the polls certain about who they’re voting for, but with deep misgivings, regardless of which candidate they’re voting for.

And maybe my skepticism is just a coming of middle age moment, but I also see it as an opportunity to break me and to break us out of this all consuming nature of political affiliations these days. We shape our own identities around choices of party and candidate. And yet here I am voting for my party and my candidate, and I still worry about the future if my candidate wins.

So to think a little bit more minimally about government, I want to look at some very foundational Jewish texts, three musings on government, its necessity, and also its foibles. And they all appear in Pirkei Avot, which I’m now starting or trying on a translation for that as teachings of the founders. I really like that translation. They’re not going to wax poetic about government, but instead they’re going to challenge us to think about its necessity, about its parameters, about its character.

And to do this, I’m joined by Leora Batnitzky.

Hi, Leora.

Leora: Hello, great to be here.

Elana: Okay, so we’re gonna do something interesting. We’re gonna offer the teachings about government that show up in Pirkei Avot. We’re gonna offer them backwards, the opposite, the reverse order of how they appear. And the reason why we’re gonna do this is because I’m very sensitive to the arc of the argument that, at least I wanna make, or we’ll see if you wanna make it also, which is basically that government is necessary, but it also has to be understood as laden with interests and transactionalism rather than intimacy and selflessness. And government is in everything and there’s important work that takes place beyond and even circumventing government.

And by going in this order, that’s, by going in the reverse order of how it shows up in Pirkei Avot, we’re going to get to that arc. And then maybe we’ll return and see what would happen if we flip it around. Okay, so let’s start with the first teaching, which is really the last teaching: Pirkei Avot chapter three, Mishnah 2. I would say this teaching is about basic freedom from domination and that’s the role of government, but you’re the philosopher, Leora, and I’m excited to hear what you have to say.

Here’s how it goes. Rabbi Hanina, who was the vice high priest said, havei mitpalel beshelomah shel malchut, pray for the welfare of government, she’ilmale mora’ah, for were it not for the fear that it inspires, ish et re’eihu chayim bilado, every person would swallow their neighbor alive.

Now, before I turn to you, I just want to say this is shocking for a few reasons. First thing is, Rabbi Hanina lives under the Roman government or maybe the end of the Hasmoneans and they’re kind of puppets to the Romans anyway. This is, it’s not like he’s under a government that he likes. It’s almost like the alternative is anarchy and we don’t want that. So it’s a little bit like the Jeremiah, you know, the Yirmiyahu, for those who want to look it up, 29:7, when he says, you know, you should pray for the welfare of the place where you are because if it’s peaceful, you’re going to have peace, right? Like there’s something, and these are the people who destroyed the temple that he’s talking about, he’s not talking about his friends. He’s not talking, so that’s one reason why it’s shocking.

Another reason why it’s shocking is because this is actually playing off a verse in Tehillim in Psalms. If you look in Psalms 124, the second and third pesukim, verses, they actually talk about if not for God, azzai chayim bilauni, the other nations would swallow us. So, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. He’s taking a verse that is about God protecting the Jews from the other nations and saying, well, actually, if people are scared of government, they won’t hurt the Jews or won’t hurt each other, right?

And then the last thing is, to be honest, it’s not really clear. Maybe he’s talking about the Jews ourselves. Like, if we weren’t under a government, we would swallow each other whole. So I see this as tremendously subversive, which fits in with my general opinion on teachings of the ancestors, which is, it’s not so simple when you look at it. So I’m curious what your take is.

Leora: So I think it is really interesting. I think, in general, there’s a Jewish view that order is better than chaos, almost always, right? And so I think what we’re seeing here is that claim on a very basic level. This is not revolutionary. It doesn’t mean that Jews like the government under which they live, certainly not the Roman government, but it does suggest that without some kind of order, things are only going to get worse. And I think that’s, I would say I agree with that.

I think these texts are not revolutionaries. They may be reformist in various ways. We can have reform, but reform is always also about conservation. But I think the sense is that revolution, or let’s even say messianism, we can connect it there, is dangerous. Now, of course, we have other texts where chaos is seen as something more positive. Messianic texts, specifically Kabbalistic texts where anarchy is actually seen as necessary before a final redemption. But I think for the most part, the mainstream Jewish texts think that order is better than chaos. And I think that’s what’s represented here.

Elana: Yeah, yeah, sorry. No, was just going to say, you know, here I am. I’m going to the polls. I’m very afraid of, that my candidate’s not going to win. I’m also nervous if my candidate wins, what’s going to happen with certain policies, very concerned and the stakes are very high. And yet, better than not having a democratic process, right? Like it’s imperfect, but you got to vote. You shouldn’t be complacent.

Leora: Absolutely. And at the same, well I think at the same time one thing that is particularly unnerving at this moment is that unfortunately, I think we know that no matter who wins there’s not going to immediately be order, there’s going to be some chaos. And then the question is going to be the level of that chaos, how much chaos. I think this is, I suppose at this point not unprecedented because of our last election, but this is, unfortunately, the election isn’t going to bring about, resolve everything, no matter who wins.

Elana: Right. Look, it might be the difference between, in a way, in very broad strokes, it might be the difference between the fact that they’re talking about a monarchy, where the monarch just sort of says, my way or the highway, versus a democracy, where people have become empowered and when they realize that that power only got them so far, they kind of explode against each other. So I don’t know, meaning, broad strokes.

Leora: Yes, yes, but I mean, again, this, though, goes to the necessity of the peaceful transfer of power and how important that is in a democracy.

Elana: Yes. But I also want to talk for a minute about the function of government here, right? Because it does seem very minimalist. And I’m curious from your perspective, you know, is the function of government, should we be looking at it as something that’s pretty minimal? Should we be thinking in a more maximalist kind of way about what government does for us or doesn’t do for us?

Leora: So this is a big question and I think it’s been a big question for centuries.

Elana: And by the way, I want to be clear, I’m not asking you a Republican, small government versus a Democrat, you know, safety net. That’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking what is ultimately the purpose of government.

Leora: No, of course. I think what you’re asking is, the purpose of government ultimately just to keep the peace, to make sure there’s not war, or is the purpose of government to somehow form citizens in certain virtues and certain perfections? I mean, it’s the way people would talk about it in political theory, perfectionism, that politics itself is about perfecting ourselves as human beings. So I think that this verse certainly suggests something pretty minimalist, that the role of government is in fact just to keep the peace.

Elana: I actually like it in conversation with what I think feels like the prevailing sense that, it’s about perfecting, government is gonna perfect society, government is gonna perfect individuals. And it’s sort of like, hold on, it isn’t doing all that. And in fact, it’s leading us in other directions. And I like this challenge of, wait a minute, maybe government is not everything. I’m not saying government doesn’t have important powers that can impinge on other things. But I do like the idea of saying government know your place, right? Know your place.

Leora: Absolutely. No, I agree. I agree with you. I mean that there’s a lot to be said for keeping the peace.

Elana: Yes, and we have a big problem because there are also situations in which governments don’t keep the peace. And I’m not just talking about peace-able transfer of power, I’m talking about active oppression on the part of governments against their own citizens, which is clearly a… this Mishnah wants to consider that an aberration, even as it’s talking about a Roman government. Meaning, like, it recognizes that that might happen too.

Leora: That’s right. But I think that a minimalist view of what politics does or what government does, I think, is very important for our ability to pursue other kinds of goods in our lives.

Elana: Yes. Well, so let’s say that this is sort of a stake in the ground and this is why we went backwards. It’s a stake in the ground. Government is important. Don’t be complacent. You have to vote. We have to recognize the importance of order. And we should ensure that what government is doing is actually it is ensuring order at, the very least. And then we get into some of the deep concerns about the dangers of power.

So to go to the cautionary tale about what government is and isn’t, we move back to Pirkei Avot 2:3, right? Chapter two, Mishnah three, which is really talking about the importance of recognizing that government interests are at the center of politics, not intimacy, not selflessness, interests. And so it goes as follows: Be careful in your dealings with the ruling authorities, havu zehirin barashut, and I love that word for a number of reasons, but we’ll get back to it, I know, she’in mekarvin lo le’adam elah le’tzorech atzman, because they only befriend a person for their own needs. They seem like they’re friends, nir’in ke’ohavin b’sheat ha’na’atan, they seem like they’re friends when it’s in their interest, when they gain something from it, but, ve’ein omdim lo le’adam b’sheat dachko, they don’t stand by a person in their hour of distress.

And this to me, this is very natural. I do not understand people being like, so and so that’s our guy, or she’ll never abandon X. Never say never about a political candidate. Like, really, I mean, interests are so much a part of this.

Leora: No, I agree with you completely. This strikes me as very wise. It’s important to understand, right, that, as you said, politics is about interests. Part of what that means is that in a democratic society, we have the opportunity to vote for our interests, and we should. That’s entirely legitimate. But recognizing our rights in that way also should make us understand that politicians and other people have their own interests.

Elana: You want to know something amazing? There’s somebody I love to read on Mishnah as a contemporary commentator. His name is Avigdor Shinan. And he made this point that I just didn’t think about when I was looking at this, which is the Mishnah right before this, same speaker, okay? The Mishnah right before this actually speaks to those who are in leadership directly and says, anybody who is working on behalf of the community, like leading the community, should do so for shem shamayim, for altruistic, right, godly reasons. And the merit of our ancestors, you know, push them forward and their righteousness stands forever, right?

It’s kind of amazing to see the same person, or at least we assume it’s the same person, because no new speaker is suggested to say, look, when I’m talking to the leaders, if you go into politics, and he’s talking about even to Jewish leaders here, right? If you go into politics, I want you to do it for all the right reasons, with all the altruism you can. And then he turns around and says, hey, hey, hey, everybody come over here. I need to tell you something, which is they’re going to get into this. And it’s going to be about interests and you can’t forget them, right?

Leora: It’s great. Some people, of course, would look at this and say it’s contradictory. But I think it’s not contradictory. It’s exactly, I think as you’re describing it, there’s an ideal. Of course, this is the way we expect leaders to act. But on the other hand, leaders are people. We’re just people. And as people, we will tend toward not being able to always meet our ideals. That’s the most generous we can be.

So I think what’s interesting is it’s not a wholly with a W negative view of human beings. It’s a realistic view of human beings.

Elana: Right. Yes, yes. And it’s sort of like you, you reminds me of Walzer’s dirty hands piece where he essentially said politics is going to involve dirty hands, meaning there are interests at stake. If you want to be able to remain in power, you’re gonna have to make alliances with people with whom you don’t agree. If you want to be able to get certain things done, you’re going to have to, you know, sometimes do things that are even unsavory, but at one and the same time to be able to look at that split screen, I think again, it’s sort of saying, I’m not telling you that going into politics and wanting to serve the community, I’m not telling you that that’s a bad thing. It could be a great thing and you should do it with the best of intentions and other people should not be, you know, again, I would say it’s transaction, transactionalism and interests on the one side, and intimacy and selflessness on the other. Politics is not about intimacy and selflessness, right? Which I think is, I think it’s really hard for people to think about that right now.

But can we go to the word rashut, because I know when we were talking about it, you were intrigued by it. By the way, I will say, and I’m not gonna speak for him, I have a spouse who’s working on this as his doctoral dissertation. So when you noticed it, I was like, let’s talk about it. Okay, so talk to me.

Leora: So I think what’s really interesting in Pirkei Avot is the way rashut and reshut are used in these seemingly potentially contradictory ways. I mean, so if we look at what we’re going to do next, our final one, which is the first one, okay, we see that rashut, l’rashut is about, is translated as ruling authority.

Elana: Like rosh. Like “the head.”

Leora: Yes. Okay, so what’s interesting, yes, that’s right. So what’s interesting is there’s a very people, some of our listeners I think are probably familiar with this. There’s a very famous part of Pirkei Avot in three, chapter three, verse 16, which is, hakol tsafui veharashut netunah, which basically says everything is determined, but freedom is also given.

So this term reshut, what I think can be translated, is translated there often as permission. So you have this word that seems to be either two ends of the same spectrum or even potentially opposites, ruling authority and permission. And so how do we, I think this happens a lot in Hebrew, especially in classical sources, that we have these words that seem to mean almost their opposite or can mean almost their opposite in different circumstances. But I think in this case… Yeah, go ahead.

Elana: Yes, I’m thinking, you know what I’m thinking about? I’m thinking about shoresh, a root, and lehashrish, I think means to uproot. If I’m not mistaken. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Leora: Yeah. Yes. That’s right. Exactly. Yeah. There are many

Elana: Many, just to give another example.

Leora: And it’s just, right. It’s, I mean, another one would be chet, yud, lamed, which you could say is chayal, valor or even chayal, as a soldier, but could also mean chayal as sort of anguish and fear. So both these two internal states, I mean, just as another example of one.

Elana: Well, that’s fascinating.

Leora: Yeah, so that’s another, we should talk about that sometime.

Elana: I was going to say I know a lot of khayalim who, I know a lot of soldiers who have plenty of fear.

Leora: Yeah, yeah. That’s right. But you see how it is, these two ends. So I would say instead of seeing them as opposites, maybe to see them as two ends of the same spectrum. And so similarly here, this notion of ruling authority and permission, or freedom, really, can be seen as two ends of the spectrum.

So one thing that government does do is it limits our freedoms, but it limits our freedoms in order that we can be free in other ways. Of course, I’m talking about democratic government in this context, not all government.

Elana: Right. Right. Meaning it’s, it’s really the best way. It’s the best way to get rashut, meaning authority, to give people reshut, permission. Because when they set their parameters around what people can’t impinge upon you with, it actually gives you more room to do and to be, freedom of religion, for example. Right? Like all these sorts of things.

I think that’s really, it’s, it’s another insight into the function of government, right? Meaning the original mission that we read was people would swallow each other whole, which sounds very Hobbesian. It sounds like, you know, people would just take each other down, bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy style.

This is a little bit more the way that you’re viewing it is look, people have differences. They want to try to, they, they may want to try to, force their view perspective way onto society. And government should actually make sure that the freedoms of others are protected. I think that’s really intriguing.

Okay. Let’s go to our last and I think most skeptical. I think it’s our most skeptical text. And yet I know that you always make something positive out of it. I think, I think we’re going to be okay. Okay. It goes like this. So we’re back in Pirkei Avot, first chapter. Okay. And this is the earliest speaker, right? This is the earliest speaker. And so they’re probably talking about like under the Hasmoneans, maybe, you know, under Herod, maybe, right? The end of the Hasmoneans, maybe under Herod.

It goes like this: Shemaia and Avtalion are the next in the chain of tradition. Then in the first chapter we go chains of pairs, right? And Shemaia says, ehov et hamelacha, love labor, u’snah et harabbanut, and hate acting superior, or gaining some sort of superiority, v’al titvadah larashut, there’s that word again, and don’t draw near to the ruling authority.

So by the way, I just want to, I just want to set out, this may by the way, be talking to, as Pirkei Avot generally is, talking to young scholars and saying to them, hey, we want you to work, right? We don’t want you to make money off of Torah. It may be more general and essentially saying, hey, elite class, you should also be working and don’t just spend your time being, you know, the elite in some way, but it is really, it is very skeptical about power and authority, right? I’m curious. What do you think?

Leora: Yeah, it’s definitely very skeptical about power and authority. And sometimes the truth is it is good advice. Do your work. Don’t get noticed too much. Especially if the people who are doing the noticing are not the nicest or best or most honorable people. I mean, that I think it’s important to see that there’s kind of realism there.

But I actually see it as positive and actually quite relevant to our moment. Not because we shouldn’t deal with government authority, we should vote. But I think this also reminds me of yet another, probably the most famous verse in Pirkei Avot, which is in 2:16.

Elana: I know exactly where you’re going.

Leora: You know, I’m saying, exactly. So, you know, it’s almost too famous that I almost hesitate to quote it. But I think it’s important here because it uses the same word for work. So that’s 2:16. Lo alecha hamelakha ligmor, velo atah ben chorin lebatel mimenah.

So basically, you know, it’s not up to you to finish the work, but you’re not a free person to basically, I suppose it’s usually translated, desist from it, or to not do it. And so I think that actually is extremely relevant to the current moment. We’re not going to, unfortunately, this election is not going to solve everything. We’re going to be continuing to live in a very contentious world and a very contentious country. But that doesn’t mean that we are free to not vote.

Elana: Right. And I think it’s interesting, you know, the experience that I’ve been having in Israel, there are many, people who are very disillusioned with the Netanyahu government, and yet Israeli civil society has risen up and done so much, right? You might say they’ve done work, even if they’re not engaging with that government.

And I do wonder when I look at this, it actually might not be a general statement about, “Don’t engage it with government.” It actually might be about a particular, this might be like an anti-Hasmanian, this government is bad, and don’t engage with them, do something else. Or it might be what you’re saying, which is, government just can’t, it can’t do everything. And we need to actually, as individuals, as communities, as NGOs, there’s a lot of work that we’re going to have to do.

It’s funny, I would ask you, know, Leora, as we’re coming to a close, I would ask you, what would happen if we flipped the order, right? Because the arc that we offered here, was government is necessary. Don’t forget that government is necessary. But government politics are about interests, and don’t forget that. And sometimes, you got to remember that there are other spheres where there’s work that needs to be done, and is critical, and you can’t rely on politics for all of it.

What if we flipped it, which is a different direction? It’s said by three different people, right? How would you sort of, what would your messaging be there then?

Leora: Well then it seems as if we get two very negative sentiments about government and then the third sentiment with which we began, which maybe initially appears as not so positive about government, actually looks much more positive because it says the government does something. So I think that’s interesting.

I do want to say something about this, but before I do, I want to go back to one more thing about 1:10, which is the ohev et ha’melacha. I think that the love, think this is really, yeah, ohev. I think this is really important because we do need to love our work. We do need to be committed to what we’re doing and what we think is right. And that’s essential.

And I think what the verse is suggesting is that if we do that, the rest of it will or won’t fall into place, but we need to keep our eye on loving in the sense of being devoted to, not in terms of liking, but devotion to our work.

Elana: Right. That’s beautiful.

Leora: Daniel Elazar, who was a very important political theorist of, specifically of the Jewish people, he described Jewish thought as charismatic or looking through a prism rather than systematic. And I think this is maybe really helpful for us here.

So if you think about what it means to look through a prism, it means looking at the same thing, but through a different lens each time, and you see different aspects of it, and you don’t necessarily expect those aspects to always hang together, but what you do see is how when you look at it in one particular way or say in one particular context, you see something very concrete as opposed to something systematic, and you can think of maybe a pyramid as being systematic, where something has to build on something else and be completely connected in order to reach an apex or if you start with the top of the pyramid, you know, the seed leads to everything that comes.

Elana: Well, I, yeah, I think that’s a great way to end because there are a lot of people who are feeling very charismatic about this very moment and a little bit unsystematic and people may be voting reluctantly. They wish they had a little more coherence. So whether you are voting reluctantly or you are voting with certainty, go out and vote. Thank you, Leora.

Leora: Thank you.

Elana: Thanks for listening to our show and special thanks to my chavruta this week, Leora Batnitzky.

TEXTing is produced by Tessa Zitter with production assistance from Gabe Scherzer. Our senior producer is Louis Gordon and our executive producer is Maital Friedman. This episode was mixed by Ben Azevedo at Bear Cave Audio with music provided by Luke Allen.

We’re always looking for ideas for what we should cover in future episodes. So if you have a topic you’d like to hear about, or if you have comments about this episode, please write to us at [email protected]. For more ideas from the Shalom Hartman Institute, sign up for our newsletter in the show notes, and subscribe to this podcast. Everywhere podcasts are available. See you next time and thanks for listening.