Torah Community Connections

Week 138 - Sunday - 14 July 2002

PIRKEI AVOT: CHAPTER 5: MISHNAH 16

All love which depends on some thing, when the thing vanishes, the love also ceases; but if it does not depend on any thing, it will never cease. Which love depended upon some thing? The love of Amnon and Tamar. And which did not depend on any thing? The love of David and Jonathan.

Kehati

Our Mishnah differentiates between two kinds of love: 1. Love which is prompted by external factors, and 2. love which flows from a spiritual affinity, independent of external causes.

All love which depends on some thing - of which it is a function e.g., material advantage or physical gratification, when the thing vanishes, the love also ceases - once the motive power has lapsed, there is nothing to sustain it; but if it does not depend on any thing - when love is not generated by an external source, but flows from an inner well of mutual appreciation, it will never cease.

Another version reads: All love which depends upon some transient thing, when that thing vanishes, the love also ceases: but if it does not depend upon a transient thing (but rests upon a solid basis, like the love of the righteous and the wise) it never ceases (Rambam, Bartenura).

Which love depended upon some thing?' Tbe love of Amnon and Tamar - once the source of Amnon's love for Tamar declined, we read that (II Samuel 13:15): 'Then Amnon hated her with exceeding great hatred." And which did not depend on any thing? The love of David and Jonathan - which was spiritual in character, like the love of a father for his son, as it is written (I Samuel. 18:1): "The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul."

PIRKEI AVOT: CHAPTER 5: MISHNAH 17

Any dispute which is for the sake of Heaven, shall in the end be of lasting worth; but that which is not for the sake of Heaven, shall not in the end be of lasting worth. Which dispute was for the sake of Heaven? That of Hillel and Shammai. And which was not for the sake of Heaven? That of Korah and all his company.

Kehati

Whereas the previous Mishnah enumerated two kinds of love, the present Mishnah teaches us regarding two types of controversy.

Any dispute which is for the sake of heaven - whose participants are motivated by an honest search for truth and do not merely plead for the sake of argument and provocation, shall in the end be of lasting worth - such disputation is destined to produce positive insights and permanent solutions of the issues under investigation; but that which is not for the sake of Heaven - where the basic motive is the achievement of power, or mere obstinate self-assertion', shall not in the end be of lasting worth - such disputes fail to yield substantive results.

Which dispute was for the sake of Heaven? That of Hillel and Shammai - whose debates clarified each problem and determined the Halakhah for the subsequent generations. - And which was not for the sake of Heaven? That of Korah and all his company who challenged Moses and Aaron to gain personal glory and power; but their schemes were foiled, as it is written (Num. 16:32-33): "And the earth opened its mouth, and swallowed them up, and their households, and all the men who joined Korah ... and they went down alive into Sheol; and the earth closed upon them, and they disappeared from the midst of the congregation." No mention is here made of the opposite party in this confrontation, i.e., Moses and Aaron, whereas in the previous instance the Mishnah mentioned both sides in the dispute of Hillel and Shammai. However, in the case of Hillel and Shammai, both sides pursued equally positive goals, whereas here (in the negative example) they did not, seeing that Moses strove entirely for the sake of Heaven, without harboring any ulterior motives whatsoever (Tosefot Yom Tov quoting Midrash Sh'muel).

Others explain: We often witness disputants who proudly and contemptuously rise up against their teachers. How are we to determine whether they plead for the sake of Heaven, as they often claim, or whether their arguments merely serve to embarrass their mentors? The criterion is provided by the relationship of the pleaders. If they display a Unity of purpose and an intense personal attachment toward one another, this is evidence that their statements are genuine, and that their efforts are for the sake of Heaven. But if, apart from the opposition that unites them, they are divided amongst themselves, and there is jealousy and hatred in their hearts, this proves that they are not genuine, and only their evil hearts provided a common denominator for this dispute. Hence, the Mishnah states: And which dispute was not for the sake of Heaven? The dispute of Korah and all his company - for they were two hundred and fifty men, each one seeking the office of High Priest for himself. Thus their own ranks were driven by dissension, i.e. the dispute of Korah and all his company - and only in their rebellion against Moses did they find a common cause (Noam Elimelekh, based on Matnat Avot).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives