Home

Pirkai Avot

Pirkai Avot, ’Ethics of the Fathers’, (Perek} is a part of the Talmud comprising six chapters. One chapter is read each week on Shabbat afternoons from Pesach to Rosh Hashanah. I have often read it for it contains many interesting lessons. Recently, whilst reading the Chumash I came across some verses which disturbed me greatly for they drew my attention to the fact that the contents of these two verses are in direct contradiction to the first paragraph of the first chapter of Perek. I have mentioned these contradictions previously in essays about The Pharisees/Sadducees conflict but I repeat them here for easy reference. These contradictions continued to intrigue me and so I decided to delve into the subject somewhat further.
 
 The two verses in the Torah state: -
In Deut. xxx1, verse 7 “And Moses called unto Joshua and said to him in the sight of all Israel: ‘Be strong and of good courage; for thou shalt go with this people into the land which the Lord hath sworn unto their fathers to give them; and thou shalt cause them to inherit it.’ 
And verse 9 states ‘And Moses wrote this Torah, and delivered it unto the priests, the sons of Levi, that bore the ark of covenant of the Lord, and unto all the Elders of Israel’.

By way of contradiction, the first paragraph of the Perek says: -
‘Moses received the Torah at Sinai and handed it down to Joshua, and Joshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets handed it down to the men of the Great Assembly.

What is intended by this paragraph? I believe that it was introduced by the early rabbis (say circa 100 BCE/100 AD) to show that there exists an unbroken chain of Oral Law stretching from the time of Moses through to their own times (and so on to today) and that they were the rightful recipients of this Oral Law. The definition of a chain is that it has a connected series of links passing through each other so as to form a strong but flexible ligament.  I will try to show that the status of those early rabbis does not conform to this definition.      
 
 An analysis of the first paragraph of Perek illustrates the contradictions phrase by phrase.

‘Moses received the Torah at Sinai and handed it down to Joshua’. This statement is incorrect for the Torah states that Moses gave the Torah to the Priests and the Elders, not to Joshua. What the Torah actually says about Joshua (see above) is that Moses gave him the leadership of the people in order that he may lead them into the Promised Land.

‘Joshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the Prophets’.  This statement, too, is incorrect for Moses gave the Torah directly to the Priests and also to the Elders, not through Joshua (See above). The Perek make no mention of the Priests. I believe that the reason for this omission was for political reasons as a reading of Jewish history of the period will show and as explained in the attached essays. 

The Elders and the Prophets. I suggest that the Elders and the Prophets could not have acted as links in the unbroken chain. The most likely candidates for the links would have been the Priests who existed in office from the time of Moses until the destruction of the Second Temple.  My reason for dismissing the Elders and the Prophets is by reference to the chronological chart sent to me by a rabbi who said it had been prepared by Maimonides.
----------------------------
Mount Sinai (1312 BCE)
1. Moses
2. Joshua
 The Elders (l260-860 BCE)
3. Pinchas and the 70 Elders
4. Eli the Kohen
5. Samuel the Prophet
6. King David
 
 The Prophets (860-360 BCE)
---------------------------------------
Moses, Joshua, Pinchas and 70 Elders are mentioned in the Torah so they would have been at the beginning of the chain. During the course of research I tried to find mention of the ‘Elders’ after their mention in Sefer Devorim but could find no such mention even though I referred to several Jewish encyclopaedias.

However the ‘Elders’, according to Maimonides’ chart, ceased with the death of King David circa 970 BCE and not 860 BCE as implied by the chart‘s sub-heading i.e. he died some a 100 year before the era of the prophets.

Eli the Cohen was a Priest who died circa 1100/1200 BCE.

That leaves only Samuel and King David as part of the alleged Elders’ chain spanning some 300 years from the time of Eli’s’ death, circa 1150 BCE to the start of the Prophet era in 860 BCE. All in all, the Elders, as dated by the chart, do not appear to constitute an unbroken and reliable chain.

Nor could the Prophets have constituted a more a reliable chain than did the Elders. They were persons born in different periods, with different backgrounds and often unknown to each other. From my reading of their biographies they were mostly concerned with preaching Ethics, Morals, Justice and the abandonment of Idol Worship. Rarely do we read of them being involved in teaching details of the Oral Law.

Prophets handed it down to the men of the Great Assembly. Very little is known of the Great Assembly and whilst the rabbis claim that it was a religious forum, orthodox Jewish historians whom I quote in my previous essays think that it was a forum dealing with a range of matters of communal interest including, of course, religious matters. 

In my previous essays I tried to show firstly, that the rabbis had introduced an entirely fictitious account of our history which was to be the basis of their claim to authority. Secondly, by reference to the précis extracts of the writings of the orthodox Jewish historians, it appears that the early rabbis usurped the authority of the Priests’ successors, Sons of Zadok, i.e. Sadducees, because many of the priests had become corrupt.  After sending the essays to various rabbis I learned that what I had written was already known to them. Here is what three of them replied. 
From one rabbi.
“Dear Mr. Abrahams,
Thank you for sharing your three short essays with me regarding Ancient Israel and the Sadducee/Pharisee conflict. I have now read all three carefully, I apologise for the delay in responding to you.

While the material is familiar to me, however, I am sorry to disappoint you. I really do not think that I have much to add. Suffice it to say that modern historiography views the development of rabbinic law rather differently than the way it is presented in traditional religious sources. If one feels compelled to substantiate Jewish tradition using modern scientific method, then the evidence that you cite is quite disturbing.

Alternatively, one can look at the Sages and modern historians as two groups who speak very different languages. As such, efforts at creating a fluid discourse between them are likely to fail.

You may respond that I am skirting the issue. By the same token, the approach that I am suggesting may actually be closer to the truth than either of the two languages, viewed independently.“

 From a second rabbi.
“What is in fact happening, as far as I can see, is that there are two groups attempting to utilise Rabbinic sources. For one of these groups, theRabbinic sources are the only reliable ones, and for others the rabbinic sources need to line up with all other sources to pass a reliability test.Of course the results obtained by the two groups differ. Whilst Rabbi Sacks is towing the traditionally accepted line, there are historiograhical problemsthat from an academic stand point cannot be ignored.Regards‿

From a Professor in a Jewish Studies Department of one of the world’s leading universities.
'I spoke with the professor by phone and he did not fault my analysis of the chain of Oral law set out in my previous essays. To summarise his comments, he believes, I gathered, that we orthodox Jews have to be somewhat schizophrenic in our beliefs. Whilst we must accept the finding of the Modern scientific method of teaching history we must continue to behave in accordance with tradition.'

 I find this advice very reasonable and suitable for those who have thought the matter through. But is it honest or reasonable or sensible to continue teaching the traditional version of the ‘Unbroken Chain of Oral Law’ without comment when we know that it is probably not wholly correct?

Should our more learned and influential rabbis not openly and clearly explain and distinguish between our two sources of Oral Law? Should they not teach that, both in practise as well as in theory, the Oral Law from Sinai and Rabbinic Oral Law are not of equal status, since even today some of their colleagues continue to suggest that they are. As shown above, other colleagues have acknowledged that Rabbinic Oral Law may well not be what was originally intended.

Your comments on this essay would be welcomed.

 March 2005.