During the months between Passover and Rosh Hashannah, it is customary to study a chapter of Mishna Avot (or Pirkei Avot) on a weekly rotation. Avot, a mishnaic tractate, is unusual because it is entirely non-legal in content within the highly apodictic context of the larger corpus of the Mishna. It contains a variety of maxims as well as other interpretations of biblical ideas. This coming Shabbat we (re)read chapter 5, a chapter that is mostly organized by numerically organized statements, until we get to the following passage in mishna 16:
כָּל אַהֲבָה שֶׁהִיא תְלוּיָה בְדָבָר, בָּטֵל דָּבָר, בְּטֵלָה אַהֲבָה
וְשֶׁאֵינָההּ תְּלוּיָה בְדָבָר, אֵינָהּ בְּטֵלָה לְעוֹלָם
Love that is dependent on something, once that something is negated, so the love is negated.
[Love] that is not dependent on something, it is never negated.
Most commentaries that I have seen tend to approach this mishna from a literal level. Love that depends on some form of gratification, whether it is material or physical, is destined to failure as soon as the gratifying factor is no longer evident. Taken on that level alone, it would seem that this statement is little more than a truism.
But there are layers to this statement that, when peeled back, reveal deeper meanings than the surface meaning. Take, for instance, the noun דָּבָר . It can be understood as a thing, something physical or material, and hence the literal interpretations of this passage. But דָּבָר can also refer to words. Words can be full of meaning, but words can also pass through the air as little more than sound waves. As important as communication is to a healthy relationship, it cannot be based on words alone. Words need to be a prelude to actions that have significance. Words can be an expression of affection or romance, but love cannot exist on that alone. How often does love take root in a situation where words are spoken and promises are made, only to find those words sooner or later to become בָּטֵל, unfulfilled, wasted, abrogated, meaningless? Yes, this mishna can be telling us that love which is dependent solely on words but otherwise unsubstantiated is doomed to failure when those words are devoid of meaning, when they are little more than sweet sentiments. But the relationship that goes beyond words, where there is a good faith effort to honor those words, (bearing in mind that sometimes our best efforts fail,) the effort has meaning that allows the relationship to survive its many trials and tribulations.
There is yet another level to this passage, this one dependent on the concluding statement: Love that is not dependent on something, it is never negated. The word לְעוֹלָם translated above as never, has deeper implications. לְעוֹלָם is eternal - forever. When love is real and meaningful, even death cannot abrogate it. I can recall seeing people who have lost a mate, but for whom the love of the lost mate remained palpable and even sustaining for the surviving spouse, even when that survivor went on to find a new partner.
The mishna can also teach us an important lesson about the relationship between the individual and God. That relationship is not one that should be founded upon what material benefit one derives from it, but rather as a true relationship, even though it is not a relationship between equals. It is typical for people to turn to God in a time of need, but what about between those times? It is a tremendous challenge to build a relationship with God, who is at once omnipresent yet invisible. We may believe in God as Creator and Provider, but sometimes those very attributes get in the way of developing a relationship that goes beyond self interest.
It is interesting that this mishna does not condemn love that is dependent on something. In fact, it is love, but it is self love, a love that does not extend beyond meeting the egoistic needs of the lover. Self love is not necessarily wrong, but self love alone is not sustainable, and in fact can lead to self loathing. Such is the example of Amnon’s “love” of Tamar. Once love can surpass the love of self and be given in full to another that it becomes mutual, and with that it becomes something that can become eternal. Jonathan’s love for David exemplifies the negation of self interest in the face of a relationship. Saul told his son Jonathan that David stood between Jonathan and his would-be eventual kingship, yet Jonathan did not let the thought of crown and power to interfere with his love for his friend.
When it comes to love, this mishna challenges us to look beyond the ourselves and our own needs in order to make a loving relationship that is lasting and meaningful.
שבת שלום!
No comments:
Post a Comment