The Five Pairs: Reading Between the Lines of Avot Chapter 1

Introduction

From 4×2 to 5×2

In the previous article we examined a compact passage in Avot Chapter 3—eight statements by the Men of Kfar Hananya—and found that they form a 4×2 matrix. Two cycles of four statements each, running in parallel. Warp threads and weft threads, producing meaning at every intersection.

We now turn to a more complex structure in Avot Chapter 1. Here the Mishnah presents five consecutive pairs of leaders who received and transmitted an esoteric tradition from Sinai. Ten aphorisms, one per leader, arranged in five rows and two columns. The matrix is 5×2. But as we will see, the literary sophistication of this passage goes well beyond anything we found in Kfar Hananya. In fact, the author has built into the text a five-step process of education—one that trains the reader, step by step, to read what is written between the lines.

In a later article we will ask where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi learned this structural method—what the source of his "literary table" might be, and what connection it has to what Moses received from Sinai. For now, we stay with the text itself and ask a simpler question: what has the author hidden in the structure of these ten sayings, and why did he hide it?

Tractate Avot

Tractate Avot stands alone among the sixty-odd tractates of the Mishnah. It contains no laws. Its first four chapters appear to be a loose collection of aphorisms quoted in the names of rabbis who lived in the centuries before the Mishnah's publication. It is probably the best known and most loved of all rabbinic writings.

The first chapter is organized chronologically. It begins with Moses and ends with the father of the Mishnah's author, a span of more than 1,500 years. "Moses received instruction (torah—not the Torah) at Sinai and handed it down to Joshua, and Joshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets to the men of the Great Assembly." Whatever was transmitted to the spiritual leaders of the Jewish community, it was in addition to the written Torah. So the stated subject of the chapter is the transmission of knowledge that originated at Sinai but was never written down—knowledge accessible only to the select few in each generation. If this description is accurate, the subject of at least this first chapter is esoteric knowledge.

From Simon the Just to the Five Pairs

After establishing this framework, the chapter quotes one aphorism in the name of each recipient, beginning with the Great Assembly and Simon the Just, its last surviving member. This is the same Simon the Just who reputedly had conversations with Alexander the Great. Even without mentioning Alexander, the author has made it clear that we have entered the Hellenistic period, because Simon's successor is "Antigonos of Soco"—possibly named after Antigonos Monophtalmos, Alexander's general. Like his Greek namesake, the Mishnah's Antigonos is a transitional figure who ushers in a new epoch based on a formal division of power. While the Hellenistic world realigned under the diadochs, the Jews of Palestine, according to the Mishnah's author, instituted the dual leadership of the President (nasi, נשיא) and the Chief Justice (av beit din, אב בית דין). The individuals who held these two positions over the next several centuries are presented as the recipients of the esoteric tradition.

Pseudo-History and Pseudo-Aphorisms

Five consecutive pairs of leaders span a period of nearly four centuries, from the demise of the Great Assembly to the fall of the Second Temple. One aphorism is quoted in each leader's name. These ten aphorisms form the literary structure we will examine.

It should be clear that the author is not writing history as we understand it. Five pairs presented as consecutive generations could not have spanned nearly four hundred years. The author's concern, it appears, was to create the five-pair structure of aphorisms rather than deliver an accurate chronology. The literary structure that appears subservient to the history is in fact more important than the purported history.

The author has used a literary device—a pseudo-history—to place his composition within the framework of an esoteric tradition. It is also likely that the aphorisms themselves are pseudepigraphical, crafted to fit the author's plan. What then was so important that the author of Avot felt he could play free with history and put words into the mouths of previous generations' leaders?

The Puzzle

While it is not difficult to see that the author is not primarily concerned with history, it is not at all clear what his actual concerns are. One who looks for an answer in the content of the aphorisms will be disappointed. They contain sound advice—"distance yourself from a bad neighbor"—but they can hardly be seen as justifying their appearance as the sole surviving exemplars of the wisdom of those who inherited the esoteric tradition from Moses.

The key to unlocking this puzzle is found in a little-read sixteenth-century commentary on Avot.

The Five Pairs According to the Maharal of Prague

The Maharal of Prague (Rabbi Judah Loew, 1525–1609) viewed the Mishnah as a composition rather than a collection. He did not use such terminology, but this view is clearly implicit in his explanation of how the various parts of the text are related. In his commentary Derekh Hayyim, he demonstrates that this passage must be read as a literary and philosophical composition. Perhaps because of the obscurity of his language and the complexity of his ideas, the implications of his reading have not been fully appreciated. After analyzing the Pairs according to the Maharal, we will return to the question of why this passage was placed in the framework of esoteric transmission.

The Text

Reading the Pairs as a Sequence

The Pairs passage is a literary unit with clear principles of organization. The most obvious is chronological: each Pair "received tradition" from the previous one. This permits two different approaches. One could maintain that the contents of the statements are not related to the sequence—each aphorism stands on its own merits. This is how the text is usually read. Or one could take the approach of the Maharal, looking for the connection between each statement's content and its place in the sequence. The Maharal's reading implies that the text was arranged to reflect a meaningful rather than chance relationship among the aphorisms.

The Maharal's comprehensive reading does not necessarily conflict with the narrower approach. He too is concerned with the philosophical views of each speaker. But he adds two levels of possible meaning. First, he relates the content of a given statement to a specific stage. Second, he gives a broader overview that adds its own level of meaning—the forest rather than just the trees.

The Maharal demonstrates two interrelated rules of organization. One is dynamic and the other static. The first relates to the flow from Pair to Pair and parallels the historical progression. I call this dynamic because it defines the movement from one Pair to the next. The static rule points to a fixed relationship between the members of each Pair.

The Static Rule: Love and Fear

We know from the Mishnah itself (Hagiga 2) that each Pair comprised the two highest officials of its generation: the President (nasi) and the Chief Justice (av beit din). The order is consistent: in each of the five Pairs, the President precedes the Chief Justice. The first of the Maharal's principles relates to a uniform distinction between the content of the President's statements and those of the Chief Justice.

Here is the Maharal's explanation:

You must know that the first, Yose ben Yoezer, was the President and Yose ben Yohanan was the Chief Justice. Now the presidency is exalted, and one whom the Lord has exalted and glorified will love the Lord for the exaltation bestowed upon him and will serve Him out of love, for he must be thankful for the goodness done to him, and therefore his instruction concerns the love of the Lord. The Chief Justice, as is implied by his title, is responsible for justice, and his instruction is connected with fear. For insofar as his characteristic quality is justice, it is based on fear. For it is stated of Isaac, whose chief attribute was justice, "The fear of Isaac filled me" (Gen. 31). For litigants are afraid of seeming to show insufficient respect. And so the Chief Justice's admonitions concern fear.

— Derekh Hayyim, p. 37

Each Pair, then, has a common frame of reference, with positive and negative aspects. Within this frame, the President (Column A) emphasizes the positive; the Chief Justice (Column B), the negative. In the Maharal's terms: the President speaks from the viewpoint of love (אהבה) and the Chief Justice from the viewpoint of fear (יראה). This is consistent with the traditionally cited difference between Hillel and Shammai, the fifth Pair. Hillel the President is considered lenient and forthcoming; Shammai the Chief Justice, strict and aloof. The Maharal points out that this distinction may have been one of role rather than personality. In each of the five cases, the President is more positive and lenient than the Chief Justice.

In some of the Pairs the distinction is quite obvious. It is the President who asserts in positive terms, "Acquire a comrade" (קנה לך חבר), whereas the Chief Justice confines himself to the negative injunction, "Do not associate with the wicked" (אל תתחבר לרשע).

Literary analysis corroborates this insight. Each Chief Justice except Nittai the Arbelite urges limiting one's speech: "Do not speak too much," "Watch your words," "Watch your words," "Say little." This pattern of restriction is consistent with the Maharal's concept of יראה—fear or awe—which implies negation or limitation.

The Dynamic Rule: Spreading Out

The basic structural unit in our text is a Pair. Insofar as it is a Pair, the two members must have something in common. And since they are two distinct elements, they must also differ. As we have seen, all the Pairs differ in the same way—the static rule. We must now examine each Pair to define what its members have in common.

The author has left no doubt as to the common element in the first Pair. Both statements begin with the identical phrase "Let your house be" (יהי ביתך), defining the home as the common frame of reference. The home provides the origin for a conceptual process that runs parallel to the chronological order.

The Maharal points out that each succeeding Pair "adds" to the previous one. By "adds" he means the social framework widens from Pair to Pair:

For the first Pair ordained correct behavior in regard to those members of one's household to whom he is most closely related. After this, the second Pair ordained behavior toward one's teacher, friends and neighbors, who are more distant but still close to one. Then the third Pair ordained behavior toward those one judges and leads, for they are yet more distant. And after that, the fourth Pair spoke of the behavior of one who gives orders, who is even further removed, for being over the others he is set apart from them. Finally, the fifth Pair ordained correct behavior in regard to all men, that the bond of peace be not broken; for there is no greater order than that of the world as a whole.

— Derekh Hayyim, p. 52

The progression is clear: from the total privacy of the individual home to an overview of all society. The Maharal refers to this movement from Pair to Pair as "spreading out" (התפשטות). There is thus a complete progression from privacy to universality, running parallel to the outward historical progression. We are confronted with two parallel processes sharing only the sense of forward motion: the transfer of knowledge from the leaders of one generation to the next, and circles of social concern expanding steadily outward. Someone put a great deal of effort into constructing this literary document.

The Pairs Draw Apart

The Maharal repeatedly refers to the foregoing rules when discussing the relationship between the Pairs. But he also hints at a third rule, one that differs in kind from the first two. He speaks of a gap between the President and the Chief Justice that develops over the course of the five generations. The members of the first Pair start out "close" to each other. The succeeding Pairs draw farther apart: "והזוגות הבאים אחריהם יותר רחוקים." The process culminates in the establishment of the separate schools of Hillel and Shammai.

The Maharal, uncharacteristically, does not explain in detail what he means. It sounds as if he were superimposing the first two rules upon each other. From the static rule we learned that the President and the Chief Justice have a fixed relationship stemming from their different roles. Over the course of five generations, as the common subject area broadens, the relationship also "broadens"—the two positions polarize. One might speculate that as matters become increasingly substantial, the differences between the positions become more pronounced. But as we shall see, this theory is at best only marginally relevant to the composition before us. As the Maharal might say, this would be an attractive explanation if we read the words of the sages as mere speculation (סברא ואמד דעת). However, the respect due to the sages (חכמים) and their wisdom (חכמה) demands that we look for a deeper level of meaning.

The Progression of Literary Devices

Close analysis reveals a subtle device that conveys the sense of a widening gap between the Pairs. In each of the five Pairs, the common frame of reference is expressed differently. And the devices themselves change from Pair to Pair, creating a progression parallel to the one described in the dynamic rule. The overall effect is a sense of increasing distance between the members of each Pair. We will derive this "rule of literary devices" from the first three Pairs and then use it to understand the fourth and fifth.

The First Pair

The statements of the first Pair begin with the identical words "Let your house be" (יהי ביתך). This has two effects. It gives them an absolutely common frame of reference. And it is the basis for the Maharal's description of the Pairs as beginning "close" to each other, using the same words. Their statements are also structurally similar: both have three parts, both speak of who should be in the home, and in the third element both relate to conversation—"Drink in their words," "Do not speak too much."

The Second Pair

The statements of the second Pair do not share as clear a linguistic link as the first, but structurally they are identical. Each has three parts. The first two point to close personal contacts, and the root חבר ("connect," translated here as "comrade" and "associate") appears in the second element of each. The third part of each statement speaks of a general attitude rather than a specific relationship. The two statements have been cast in the same mold, even though they do not share the same opening language. Because they lack an explicit common element, they can be described as "farther apart"—in line with the Maharal's observation.

The Third Pair

The statements of the third Pair have neither a linguistic nor a structural common denominator. It is clear from their contents that both are addressed to a sitting judge. While the statements have diverged in form, they are still close in substance.

The Pattern So Far

Each of the first three Pairs indicates its common subject in a different way:

In the Maharal's terms, the Pairs grow farther apart, the differences between them become more pronounced. Evidently he is speaking in terms of form, not content. Both speakers in the third Pair clearly address the same audience—their common subject is even clearer than that of the second Pair. Only when we analyze the devices themselves does it become apparent that they are logically ordered.

The similarity in the first two Pairs is based on structural and linguistic parallels—elements of style, extrinsic to the content. The statements of the third Pair have no common structure or linguistic element, but there is an intrinsic parallel in their content. We began with an obvious linguistic parallel and have been drawn more and more into the content in order to see what the two statements share. The text seems to be leading somewhere—toward the conclusion that analysis of the structure itself reveals additional layers of meaning.

A Digression: The Progression of Names

Before turning to the fourth Pair, it is worth noting that the names themselves undergo a parallel process of simplification. The first Pair both have three-part names: first name, father's name, place of origin. Both start with the same first name, Yose, just as their statements begin with the same words. Both have a place-marker, as does their content—the home. The second Pair is intermediate: one name in the standard "A son of B" form, one with a place-marker. The third Pair uses only the standard two-part form. The fourth and fifth Pairs are introduced by first names only—and the fifth Pair's names are shorter than the fourth's.

In Hebrew, the word for this process of progressive simplification is the same word the Maharal uses for the conceptual expansion of social circles: התפשטות. The same term describes seemingly opposite movements, expansion and contraction. This is more than a linguistic curiosity. We are about to see that the interdependence of these concepts is built into the text.

The Academic Pyramid

Social Circles and Social Roles

Each of the expanding social circles is associated with a social role. The range of the first Pair is the home, and the role is that of householder (בעל הבית). In the third Pair the range is the court of law, and the role is that of judge. An inverse relationship holds between the size of the sphere and the number of people in the role: householders are far more common than judges, but their individual influence is less.

The second Pair, as before, is intermediate. If we derive the role from the common linguistic element, it is the חבר—"comrade" or "member." This is the formal title of a student in the time of the Mishnah: a "member" of the academy. After the student comes the judge, the subject of the third Pair. An academic pyramid begins to take shape:

Each Pair Addresses a Different Audience

We have jumped from a "social circles" pattern to one defined in terms of academic standing. This could imply that the basic standard for social groupings is academic, or that the text forces a quantum leap—a new level of differentiation. Now comes the internal verification: all of the statements in the Pairs are imperatives. The speakers in the third Pair are not describing an abstract theory of justice—they are giving advice to judges. Every Pair directly addresses specific role requirements. The academic pyramid is a closer representation of the text because it acknowledges that each Pair addresses a different audience.

The Literary Device Suits the Audience

Each of the literary devices is suited to the role being addressed. The layman is the least sophisticated and must be addressed with literally identical language—"Let your house be"—in order to grasp that both members of the Pair are speaking about the same subject. The student or "comrade" (חבר) is more advanced, and as his title implies, deals with connections—another form of the Hebrew root (חיבור). He is equipped to appreciate the more subtle structural parallel. The judge is told to examine carefully what the witnesses say; he involves himself with content. The first two stages use superficial similarities; the judge is limited to the testimony itself. Superficial resemblances have no significance for him.

From this reading of the link between device and role, we are prepared to predict something about the fourth Pair. We are looking for a role higher than that of the judge, and a literary device that goes beyond the content of the two aphorisms.

A Word to the Wise

The author has left no room for doubt as to who is next up the ladder. Avtalion's statement is addressed directly to "Sages" (חכמים). Proof that the next category is indeed the Sages also appears in Shemaia's statement—and it solves a textual problem. He says שנא את הרבנות, which can be taken literally as "hate authority." But Shemaia is hardly telling the average citizen to rebel. If, however, he is addressing the Sages—those who could become leaders—his admonition makes sense: "Those of you who have been chosen to lead must commit yourselves to the task—'love labor'—and not become enamored of the perquisites of the role—'hate domination.'"

There can be no doubt that both members of the fourth Pair address leaders. And yet it is virtually impossible to reach this conclusion without going through the process of analyzing the previous statements, abstracting the academic pyramid, and then seeing that Avtalion addresses "Sages." Only because our prediction told us that both members of the fourth Pair address people in a higher role than judges were we prepared to extend Avtalion's salutation to Shemaia's speech. The fact that one of the Pair addresses "Sages" verifies the existence of the academic pyramid and discloses the audience of Shemaia's statement.

Literally: "a word to the wise is sufficient"—if the word is "the wise."

The Reader Becomes Active

The device employed by the fourth Pair is not limited to the content of their statements, as was that of the third Pair. This new device requires the reader to be "wise" and integrate the content of the fourth Pair into the rule determined by the first three. The fourth Pair demands that the reader be aware of the previous Pairs. It dictates active participation on a level beyond the isolated parts of the text—the level of comprehensive overview.

In terms of the progression: the Sage transcends the limitations imposed on the Judge, who was directed only to the evidence before him. The Judge could determine that both statements of the third Pair supported each other and were addressed to a judge, thereby fulfilling the requirements for testimony. The Sage does not limit his judgment to the evidence presented in the fourth Pair alone. He is wise because he integrates their statements within the context of all that preceded them. The device is his inclusive reading of the text.

Avot Is Not a Collection

It is no longer sufficient to say that each Pair independently addresses a particular role. The fourth Pair requires the context of the first three in order for its common subject to be comprehensible. This has implications for authorship. We must concede that we are reading a text written by one hand. Avot is redefining itself. Far from a collection of popular aphorisms, the text has revealed itself as a sophisticated literary composition. And this revelation takes place in the framework of statements addressed to Sages. The exoteric collection has been replaced by an esoteric composition, one reserved for the initiated.

Avtalion's statement, which otherwise seems inscrutable, begins to make sense if read as a warning to those who have begun to probe the esoteric level of the text. The key is in the reading of the word galut (גלֻת), "dispersion," as galot (גלֺת), "revealing." Read this way, the warning says: "Choose your words carefully lest you be forced to reveal more than you should." Not all knowledge can or should be transmitted openly. The free transmission of certain knowledge is dangerous, both to the teacher—as implied by Shemaia—and to the student, as stated by Avtalion: "the disciples who follow you drink and die."

The image of knowledge as water already appeared in the first Pair: "sit in the dust of their feet and drink in their words thirstily." The beginning student, the layman of the first Pair, lacks the tools of discernment to understand the teacher fully. Because of his "thirst" he may "drink" ideas he cannot digest. The teacher must be careful not to expose the unprepared student to ideas that could harm him.

Reading Between the Lines

The process analyzed across the first four Pairs can be considered a process of education. The author has taught the reader how to read "between the lines." The reader gradually discovers that the text is two-faced, exoteric and esoteric. The exoteric text appears in the ostensible quotations—common-sense aphorisms such as "stay away from an evil neighbor." The esoteric text develops between the lines, in the structure created by the flow from Pair to Pair.

As we discovered this process, we also found internal verification: the fact that Avtalion addressed "Sages." The same speech can be read as indicating that the education of the reader is in some way completed with the fourth Pair. The reading is based on the literary device of closure.

Closure is created when the end of a composition recalls the beginning. In our text it is created by the repetition of the "wisdom as water" metaphor. It first appears in 1A: "Let your house be a meeting place for the Sages; sit in the dust of their feet, and drink in their words thirstily." It reappears in 4B: "Sages, watch your words, lest... the disciples that follow you drink and die." In both cases the Sages speak and the disciples "drink." But there is a shift of perspective. In 1A the reader is addressed as a thirsty disciple. By the time we reach 4B, the reader has become a Sage. The closure indicates that the education of the reader has been completed.

Having successfully completed the required analysis, the reader-student learns that he or she is being addressed by the author. Proven ability has earned the title חכם, "Sage." The fourth Pair addressed Sages; if the reader understood their message, the reader must be one of them. This awakening is at the heart of the process we have been tracking. The devices were not simply meant to acquaint us with the common elements of the Pairs. Their function was to make us aware of the teacher, just out of sight, who whispered encouragement at every step—and finally revealed himself with the fourth Pair. The last step is the student's self-realization. At the pinnacle of the pyramid stands just one: the reader who has come this far.

For seventeen hundred years, readers have delighted in the collected aphorisms of the Sages—the exoteric Avot. Rabbis have found inspiration for countless homilies within each of its sayings. Yet the scholar who grasps the text as a whole is forced to say that it is a composition written by one hand, not a collection. Is the scholar free to declare this in the marketplace? This is the very question the author is addressing through Avtalion. He has created a vehicle for transmitting esoteric knowledge to the few who can profit from it while keeping it hidden from the masses. At the same time, he has created a popular work that the general public uses profitably, reserving its treasures for the initiates. The continued popularity of Avot attests to the author's skill.

Predicting the Fifth Pair

The fifth Pair is the last step up the academic pyramid. As such, it presents the apex. If we follow the pyramid metaphor, we reach a point that differs in kind from the previous stages. We have followed a progression of classes: layman, student, judge, sage. Each was more restrictive, containing fewer members. At the apex there is room for only a single individual, not a class. We should ask the obvious question—who is on top of the pyramid? The answer, as we will see, is just as unavoidable as the question: "I am."

We have been following two parallel developments. The first—the revelation of the academic pyramid—was a corollary of the Maharal's description of the flow from Pair to Pair. The second was the discovery of the literary devices associated with each level. The common elements of the first two Pairs were superficial. The third Pair depended solely on similar content. With the fourth Pair we made a quantum jump: the device was no longer within the Pair itself but required the reader to abstract the rule from the first three Pairs and anticipate its application. In this sense, the text became "interactive." Only an active reader who identified the progression would receive the internal verification in Avtalion's speech.

Creating Torah

Once the reader becomes aware that this ostensible historical collection is a composition, the text must be reread and reevaluated. Each reader must create a new integrated reading—one that will be a function of the reader's own ability to analyze and talent to synthesize. The academic pyramid effectively self-destructs when the reader grasps its full implication: it was constructed in order to place the individual reader at the apex. From this point, the reader must develop a reading that integrates all ten speeches into a composition addressed to the singular reader rather than to the classes of the academic hierarchy.

Even before reading the speeches of the fifth Pair, it is clear that the integrating reading must have a theme consistent with the emergence of the individual reader as the recipient of the esoteric content. "Self-realization" may itself be the theme of the composition as a whole, as well as the specific subject of Pair 5. The unique reader who reads the whole text as a composition written between the lines will develop a unique reading—one that arises from individual creativity while adhering to the framework of the text. By applying individual creativity to the esoteric message of Avot, the reader becomes a partner in the creative process of maintaining and developing the tradition handed down from Moses, as described in the opening of Avot.

Integrating the Two Rules

In developing the academic pyramid we focused on the dynamic rule—the progression of the Pairs. To develop a fully integrated reading, we need to bring the static rule—the rule of the columns—together with the dynamic rule. The author has aided us by embedding several hints within the text. Two are linguistic and one is formal.

Hint 1: The Root רב

One linguistic hint is based on no less than a form of the titular name the author was known by: רבי, Rabbi, teacher par excellence. In each of the five Pairs, one of the speakers uses a form of the root רב, which has two basic meanings: "much" and "master, authority." Each column uses one meaning exclusively. In Column A, 2A contains "רב" (teacher) and 4A contains "רבנות" (authority). In Column B, 1B and 3B contain the verb form meaning "much" and 5B has a similar meaning in an adverbial form. The two meanings alternate from column to column: 1B much, 2A teacher, 3B much, 4A authority, 5B much. Two pieces of evidence show that this is not arbitrary: the root appears in one speaker per Pair but never both, and the two meanings alternate columns.

Hint 2: Restrictions on Speech

Four of the five speeches in Column B contain warnings about speech: 1B) "Do not speak too much"; 3B) "watch your words"; 4B) "watch your words"; 5B) "say little." None of the Column A speeches contain similar references. Since all the occurrences restrict the speech of the person addressed, Column B addresses people with a need or tendency to speak. This points toward the outward, social dimension of Column B, as opposed to the inward focus of Column A.

Hint 3: Consequences

Five of the ten speeches refer to consequences of actions: 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, and 5A. In the first four Pairs—the academic pyramid—Column B exclusively points to consequences. Combine this with the speech restriction: Column B focuses on interactions with others, while Column A focuses on the self. Column B deals with manifoldness; Column A with a more unitary subject.

Three Speeches and Three Speakers

This distinction is locked down by one more structural consideration. Two speeches in the text are visibly "enlarged." In 1B, Yose ben Yohanan's speech is followed by two external additions: "They said this of one's own wife..." and "Hence the Sages said..." In 5A, Hillel has three speeches: the normal one introduced with "Hillel said," and two more introduced with "He also said." These two enlarged units sit at opposite corners of the table: 1B is the first speech in Column B, and 5A is the last speech in Column A. The placement is chiastic.

The additions to 1B are outside commentaries—extrinsic to the speaker's voice. The additions to 5A are by the same speaker, Hillel—intrinsic to a single voice. I then saw that the distinction between "external and internal" or "extrinsic and intrinsic" or "other and self" could replace the Maharal's "fear and love" as the dyad that best characterizes the distinction between the columns in an integrated reading.

The expansion of 1B indicates that the emphasis in Pair 1 is on "the other" or "the external." The expansion of 5A indicates that the emphasis in Pair 5 is on "the self" or "the internal." The five-step process can then be read as a transformation of the individual from a state of dependence on external influences to one of independence—capped by Hillel's "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?" Each of the three intermediate Pairs facilitates the shift from Column B's dependence on the external to Column A's creative independence. The static and dynamic rules integrate into a tightly woven fabric.

Summary of the Integrated Reading

Each of the five Pairs contains one speech pointing "inward" (A) and one pointing "outward" (B). Column A focuses on the individual; Column B on the individual's contacts with the outside world. As the individual develops internally, dependence on the outside diminishes, reaching full "self-actualization" in Pair 5.

In the first stage, the individual is considered a vessel that needs filling—a tabula rasa. Hence the metaphor of the house. There is complete dependence on the external world: "Let your house be open wide" (1B). Even the inner person is dependent on input from others: "drink in their words thirstily" (1A). At the other extreme, Hillel asserts "If I am not for myself, who will be for me" (5A). The individual has morphed from the tabula rasa, totally dependent on input from others, to an independent self-starter.

(This polarization of extremes is reflected in a similar five-part structure in the second chapter of Avot. There, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai describes each of his five students. He calls the first "a sealed cistern which loses not a drop" and the fifth "a spring that ever flows stronger." Both employ a water motif: the first student merely contains "water," while the fifth is an ever-growing source.)

Hillel and Shammai

The fifth Pair are a class apart from the previous four, about whom we know very little and whose rulings had minimal influence on the development of Jewish law. Hillel and Shammai are both transitional and seminal figures—leaders of the last generation of Second Temple scholars and founders of two schools whose disputes constitute the bedrock of the oral law's development. Over three hundred of their disagreements are recorded in the Talmud.

It is not inconceivable that the entire five-Pair structure was constructed to present Hillel and Shammai as the final stage of a five-step process. Consider: the word "house" (בית) in the first Pair's "Let your house be" is the very same term used for "school" in "the school of Hillel" (בית הלל). The private domicile of the first Pair is transformed through the five-stage process into a historical reality capable of affecting not just those within the houses of Hillel and Shammai, but their spiritual descendants for millennia. If the transformation of the reader in the five-part process culminates in a demand to shape the future—like Hillel and Shammai—it is clear why the author hid this message deep within layers of structure. It is a call for the continuous development of tradition. The beloved little book of aphorisms has transformed into something far more demanding: an invitation to become a partner in shaping ever-changing reality.

Pair 5: Self-Actualization

If the whole Pairs structure has been contrived to place the individual reader at the apex of the pyramid, as a participant in the creation of tradition, then the beginning of the fifth Pair would be the appropriate point to welcome the reader. Hillel's opening speech—"Be of the students of Aaron, loving peace, pursuing peace, loving one's fellowmen and drawing them close to the Torah"—reads as the author's welcome, as well as an example of the creation of tradition. This is the first reference of any sort to the historical Torah in the Pairs structure.

At the very point where the author begins to address the self-aware, uniquely creative reader, he does so through the persona of the most rigidly defined role in the Torah: the High Priest. Yet while seemingly expressing the character of Aaron, Hillel in fact expresses a totally new understanding of Aaron and the High Priesthood.

Aaron as High Priest occupied the highest position in the formal religious hierarchy. He was required to leave the community in order to enter the Holy of Holies and stand in the presence of God, both as an individual and as the representative of the entire nation. Aaron thus possessed a manual, a method, for entering into the closest possible contact with the holy. The author may have had Hillel invoke Aaron both to restrain and encourage the reader who has begun to engage the esoteric. The image of Aaron restrains the reader from rushing into the holy place with strange fire like Aaron's sons, while assuring the reader that there is a method for developing intimacy with the divine—a method known to "the students of Aaron."

Aaron had no students in the biblical narrative. They are clearly Hillel's invention. It is as if Hillel has given the name "students of Aaron" to the esoteric society which the reader has just joined: "Welcome to the society of the students of Aaron." The preconditions—"loving peace, pursuing peace, loving one's fellowmen and drawing them close to the Torah"—apply to two realms: the private and the public. "Loving peace, pursuing peace" refers to the private realm, since "fellowmen" are mentioned afterwards. Like the High Priest, students of Aaron must first pursue inner peace in order to stand before God as individuals, and then return to the community to extend the experience of the holy to them.

While the invocation of Aaron in Hillel's first speech confirms our prediction that we have reached the top of the pyramid, it is Hillel's third speech that confirms the reader has become a participant: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?" The first person places the onus of self-realization squarely on the reader, as if Hillel were saying, "Repeat these words after me: if I am not for myself..." The reader has been activated.

Lest the now "realized" reader, who has become an ever-growing source of water, cause a flood, Shammai has the final word. Hillel addressed the final stage of the individual's inner development. Shammai describes the face this individual shows the world. The Hebrew phrase translated "greet everyone cheerfully" contains the word "face" (פנים). A more literal translation: "receive all of humanity with a pleasant face." The permanent pleasant face could be seen as a mask to hide the inner turbulence of the bubbling waters.

Conclusions

From Collection to Composition

We began by noting a dissonance: while the stated subject of Avot Chapter 1 is the dissemination of esoteric knowledge from Moses, the individual aphorisms seemed trivial—sound advice, but hardly the wisdom of an esoteric tradition. With the aid of the Maharal, we found that there are two ways to read the Pairs. The exoteric reading sees each aphorism as a self-contained unit. This is how virtually all commentators except the Maharal approached the text. The esoteric reading combines the ten aphorisms into a single dynamic structure containing a five-step process. By following the five steps, we found that the process ultimately empowers the reader to hear the voice of the author from within the text.

Perhaps the clearest statement by the author is that there is an author—not an editor or a redactor. The text is not what it initially presents itself to be, a compendium of wise aphorisms organized by an historical key.

The Literary Table

On a purely technical level, the Pairs structure is a composition constructed in the format of a table. Only a reader who deciphers the tabular structure—the organizing principles of the columns and the rows—can begin to explore the substance of the composition. To all others, the composition is invisible. The composition must therefore be viewed as esoteric: its inner message is accessible only to very careful readers, and in some way contradicts its outer message, which is available to the general audience.

This observation helps resolve the dissonance we noted at the start. The framework of the chapter is the transmission of esoteric knowledge, and the author has demonstrated a method of transmitting esoteric knowledge through the Pairs structure itself. Framework and content are consonant—both concern esoteric knowledge.

Looking Forward

We have now seen the literary table at two scales. In the Men of Kfar Hananya, a 4×2 matrix. In the Five Pairs, a 5×2 matrix. In the next article, we will see how these two principles combine in a single, far more elaborate structure: Avot Chapter 4, where the same five-row progression meets a four-column architecture—and at the center, the silence of Shmuel HaKatan carries meaning that no single statement contains.

But a question remains. Where did Rabbi learn this method? What is the source of the "literary table," and what connection does it have to what Moses received from Sinai? We will take up that question in a later article—and the answer will lead us back to the very first composition in the Torah: the Ten Words spoken at Sinai.