by Rabbi Yisroel Rubin

Shavuos marks the yahrzeit of King David. His exemplary behavior, detailed in the sixth chapter of Ethics of the Fathers, is particularly relevant for the holiday.

The sixth and final chapter of Pirkei Avos, known as Ethics of the Fathers, is traditionally studied on the Shabbos before Shavuos. Unlike the first five chapters, which are identified only by number, the last chapter is also known by the specific name Kinyan Torah, “The Acquisition of Torah.”

The preceding chapters of Avos discuss matters of personal behavior and inter-human relationships. They recommend good ethics, self-improvement, and a positive attitude toward life and people. The sixth chapter’s focus is not on personal relationships, but on Torah. As the name “Kinyan Torah” indicates, Torah study is the theme of this chapter — so timely before Shavuos, when we receive the Torah.

The sixth chapter lists the highest levels of piety and purity that one can attain through Torah lishmah, Torah study for its own sake. We read how the Torah reigns supreme, and we are taught the forty-eight good qualities and habits conducive to Torah study. We learn about the physical self-sacrifice necessary to study Torah, and that Torah’s value exceeds all the world’s gold, diamonds, and precious stones. The chapter concludes that Torah is first among G-d’s acquisitions and is the very purpose of creation. Certainly here is an appropriate vehicle of study before Shavuos.

Shavuos marks the yahrzeit of King David, making the third Mishnah of this chapter, which highlights David’s exemplary behavior, particularly relevant. It states: “He who learns from his fellow a single chapter, or a single rule, or a single verse, or a single expression, or even a single letter must honor him, as we find with David, King of Israel, who learned only two things from Achitophel, and yet called him his master, his guide, and his dear friend.”

Just a Matter Of Good Manners?

At first glance, this Mishnah simply teaches us that respect by a student for his mentor is not restricted to a scholarly master with volumes of knowledge. Rather, we should also address a small-scale, non-professional teacher respectfully. A closer look, however, reveals how this teaching addresses the essence of Torah.

To prove its point, the Mishnah uses the precedent of King David, who expressed reverence for his advisor Achitophel, despite learning only two things from him. Says the Mishnah: “If David, the King of Israel, who learned only two things from Achitophel, termed him his teacher, his companion, and his dear friend, then one who learns from his fellow a single chapter, or a single law, or a single verse, or a single expression, or even a single letter certainly must pay him honor.”

The Mishnah is employing the classic Talmudic method known as kal vachomer (argument from minor to major). This reasoning assumes that a standard applying in a minor case will certainly apply to a major case. Thus, if David called Achitophel — a commoner — his master and dear colleague, then certainly anyone who learns from a friend should honor him.

But the application of kal vachomer here seems to exceed its logical limits. David learned two things from Achitophel. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to argue that anyone learning two things from his friend should honor that friend. But it would seem illogical to say that the same honor must be extended to a friend from whom one learned only one thing. (The Talmudic expression for this limitation is “dayo laba min hadin lihyos kanadun.”) And yet this is precisely what the Mishnah does! It extrapolates respect for a teacher of “even one letter” from King David, despite the fact that he learned two things from Achitophel. As logically convincing as a kal vachomer may be, it cannot give a new teaching greater strength than the teaching whence its originates.

The inconsistent phraseology of this Mishnah also presents a problem. Now that we have learned the importance of a single word, let us carefully examine the Mishnah’s phrasing. We find that our Mishnah adds the word bilvad, “only,” in stating that King David learned “only two things” from Achitophel. Yet the word bilvad is not used when stating that one must respect the teacher from whom he learns one letter. The word bilvad would logically apply to the smallest quantity being discussed. Isn’t “one letter” smaller than “two things”? Why does the Mishnah go out of its way to term Achitophel’s two teachings “bilvad”? Indeed, the Mishnah uses the same expression twice, clear evidence that the term is meant very precisely.

Actually, our Mishnah chooses its words carefully. The Ba’al Shem Tov, whose yahrzeit also falls on Shavuos, explains that the Mishnah could not use the phrase “only one letter” because a Torah letter is not limited.

The Torah is not merely a collection of separate, random letters that spell out words, which then develop into paragraphs and chapters. Rather, the Torah is one indivisible essence, and each part of it is a microcosm that reflects the whole. The worth of a Torah letter is not limited to its face value. As an intrinsic part of the Divine essence, each letter is infinite in itself. As the Ba’al Shem Tov taught: “When you hold part of the essence, you are really holding all of it.” Indeed, the Talmud and the Zohar explain that each Torah letter is full of meaning and deep insights on many levels.

The Scope of the Atom

The significance of the Torah’s smallest component can be compared to the atom, that tiny component of physical matter. (Again let us utilize the words of the Ba’al Shem Tov: “Everything that we see or hear carries a message that can be useful in our service to G-d.”) The world was once assumed to be made of a multitude of different elements. We know today, having examined substances at the sub-atomic level, that elements are all built of the same matter, demonstrating a common unity throughout creation. Small as an atom may be, it is certainly not insignificant. Seen under the microscope, we discover how the tiniest atom is teeming with energy and action that can burst forth with the greatest force. An atom contains within it a planetary system of its own, complete with a nucleus, electrons, and protons.

The focus of our Mishnah is not only on King David, but also on Achitophel, the teacher who taught him only two things. Unfortunately, Achitophel had a one-dimensional appreciation of the Torah, so his teaching was very limited.

Who was Achitophel? History shows that he was a brilliant person with a dark and dangerous side. A devious conspirator, he encouraged a rebellion to topple the House of David. A tragic figure who committed suicide, Achitophel was a sad exception to the fine tradition of genuine Torah scholars. Achi- tophel’s appreciation of Torah was superficial; it did not fully penetrate his heart and mind.

Caring only for the letter of the law, he had no regard for its inner soul and spiritual dimension. Achitophel taught only two things — “bilvad” — for that was all he could offer. Devoid of G-dliness, his study was an intellectual exercise that lacked a spiritual dimension. His teachings were limited and quantifiable. In no way did they approach the holiness and power of even one letter of Torah. Therefore, the use of the kal vachomer principle is perfectly acceptable here. While Achi- tophel taught two things, one letter of Torah is of infinitely greater value than these. The Mishnah is quite justified in stating that if Achitophel was honored for teaching two things of lesser value, then certainly the teaching of one letter of Torah, with its much greater value, earns the teacher respect. What a powerful lesson, especially as we prepare for Shavuos, the holiday that celebrates the giving of the Torah.

The Divine spirit of Torah helps us appreciate the depth of wisdom that lies beneath the surface of the words. As we approach Shavuos, we eagerly anticipate the day that Mashiach will reveal the inner secrets of Torah presently concealed from us.

Copyright by Rabbi Yisroel Rubin, Director, Chabad Outreach Centers, Albany, NY.