In the Ethics of the Fathers, Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel (1:17) said "All my days I grew up amongst wise men and I never found any benefit derived from silence." Is this statement able to be applied generally or only in some circumstances. If the latter, what circumstances do you think these might be?

I think you may have translated it incorrectly. What he says is that silence is a very good thing, and the Bartneura comments that this is referring to someone who is insulted and remains silent.

Rav Shimon then goes on to demonstrate the quality of silence, that even learning Torah (which involves a lot of talking) is nothing compared to the actual performance of Mitzvos.

Yes, I think you are right. I am shocked and I will explain why:-

I didn't translate that myself. I found it tonight (here) on what I thought was a good Orthodox site and so I just accepted it as given. What was said was:

"from the Ethics of the Fathers ...

All my days I grew up amongst wise men and I never found any benefit derived from silence."


Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel (1:17)

In contrast to some texts which present this as a praise of silence in response to insult, this version is a critique of silence on the part of a student sitting before his teacher. Such failure to speak up never produces any benefit for the student and is even counterproductive for three reasons. His lack of response will be interpreted by his fellow students as either a sign of being too dull to understand the lesson or too haughty to bother discussing it; his lack of give and take with his teacher will prevent him from fully understanding the lesson; and finally, his ability to internalize the information and remember it will be adversely affected by his failure to verbalize what he has studied."

I thought this was food for thought and it interested me also as it was relevant to a dilemma I have been experiencing in some interpersonal situations (not to do with a "teacher") and still have not altogether been able to resolve.

After receiving your reply, I went to my own Artscroll Mesorah Series "Pirkei Avos" and found that it certainly supports what you said.

I did a quick Goole search and straight up I found:

"Simeon, the son of Rabban Gamliel, said:
'I was brought up all my life among the Sages,
and I have found nothing as good for the body as silence,and it is not the study/explication that is the essence – but the practice/doing,
and whoever is profuse of words occasions sin.'
Pirke Avot 1:17" This was on http://www.ncjh.org/downloads/QuotesPirkeAvot.doc.

I am out of my depth here. In my studies in other fields I could go in deeper and maybe get something more to add. But I am out of my depth here.

Thank you for drawing this discrepancy to my attention.

Is it common to find even gross mistranslations on the net and even on good sites?

quote:

Originally posted by Yisroel Phillips:
I think you may have translated it incorrectly. What he says is that silence is a very good thing, and the Bartneura comments that this is referring to someone who is insulted and remains silent.

Rav Shimon then goes on to demonstrate the quality of silence, that even learning Torah (which involves a lot of talking) is nothing compared to the actual performance of Mitzvos.

OK, I've found the web site where you found what seemed to be a mistranslation. It's the JLE (Ohr Sameach) and it seems to be quoting from the Tiferes Yisrael commentary on the Mishna (found in the "Yachin uBoaz" versions of the Mishna). If I remember I'll try and look it up this evening.

Yes, you are right. I didn't say as I didn't want to say the wrong thing.

Thanks for your help. I am seriously interested in this matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Yisroel Phillips:
OK, I've found the web site where you found what seemed to be a mistranslation. It's the JLE (Ohr Sameach) and it seems to be quoting from the Tiferes Yisrael commentary on the Mishna (found in the "Yachin uBoaz" versions of the Mishna). If I remember I'll try and look it up this evening.

OK, I checked in the Tiferes Yisrael. The thing of it is that he didn't mistranslate the Mishna, rather he had a different textual reading [girsa].

Whereas our sefarim have the words "except (or only) silence" [ ela sh'tika], the Tiferes Yisrael's Mishna had it as "from silence" [MiSh'tika], that there is nothing to be gained from silence.

Thanks very much for bringing this to our attention. It shows how changing just one word or even one letter can make all the difference.

By the way, "velo matzati leguf tov ela shtikah" - "and I did not find to/for a body good but silence", or "...anything better than silence".

What does the "leguf" - "to/for a body" - mean here?

"leguf" I think is meant literally.

By ignoring people when they are verbally abusing you and not responding back, i.e. being quiet, can stop the end result of possible physical abuse.

The Gemara in Kiddushin 70a says:

And what is a sign of pure birth [Yichus]? One who hears insults about himself and keeps silent, as Rav Ada says – The pure lineage of a Babylonian is silence.

I would like to reply to this by building on an inclusion what was recently posted on another "topic" started by anonymous, after the previous post here and to which "anonymous" refers. The reason for the inclusion is that this other topic actually belongs on this one, as becomes clear when one reads it.

What was said on the other "topic" was (I've copied and pasted it exactly, but the HTML got taken out by this site so it looks weird) :

=======


(Post1)


" Anonymous Member

Posted February 24, 2006 04:26 PM
I would have liked to add this to the "silence or to speak" forum but it seems Anonymous Members can post initially only.

Yisroel had just said "The Gemara in Kiddushin 70a says:

And what is a sign of pure birth [Yichus]? One who hears insults about himself and keeps silent, as Rav Ada says – The pure lineage of a Babylonian is silence." I am not sure what a " Babylonian" is but the message seems to be that, if one is a good type of person, one keeps quiet after being insulted.

I am wondering if one SHOULD speak after being insulted such as when an older child is abusing oneself, the parent. The child could do it for the first time, occasionally or very often and very badly. It is the last type I am most concerned about. I am seeing this from the view that it is the duty of the parent to try to guide the child to behave well. Some children can speak very abusively indeed. Such as (yes, in one long rant)" Why do you ask that? You're stupid and crazy! What's the matter with you to talk like that? But it's what I'd expect of you. You can't even.... All you do is... You never will.. And do my washing before I get home. And I need a lift to the shops now, right now!" Of course there are different ways one could speak in return. But I can tell you that nothing except " Yes, dear" would get a good response in the case I am talking about.

Another example is whether to keep quiet when abused or ignored (which seems like a kind of abuse) by her husband when she tells him calmly that she wants a change to how he will not do something (that it is reasonable to expect) such as to ever give her money to buy food or to allow her to plan the meals. We are not talking about a wife who could not cook appropriately or shop well. The man seems to have always had some issue about giving housekeeping money and instead does all the shopping and doesn't do it well so that what is bought is as needed ,easy to make meals from, or as is wanted by the family.

If the woman keeps silent in these circumstances, what is the difference between her and the doormat that people wipe their feet on and walk on and over?
Posts: 25 | Location: The Global Yeshiva | Registered: February 13, 2005


(Post2)


Yisroel Phillips
GY Moderator


Posted February 24, 2006 04:57 PM
quote:
I am wondering if one SHOULD speak after being insulted such as when an older child is abusing oneself, the parent. The child could do it for the first time, occasionally or very often and very badly. It is the last type I am most concerned about.


These are not the sort of insults the Gemara is talking about. Cetianly, parents have a duty to educate their children in the ways of the Torah, which include not being disrespectful to parents.
Posts: 367 | Location: London, England | Registered: June 10, 2005

(Post3)

Yisroel Phillips
GY Moderator


Posted February 24, 2006 04:58 PM
quote:
If the woman keeps silent in these circumstances, what is the difference between her and the doormat that people wipe their feet on and walk on and over?


You are right; any wife must expect, and has the right, to be treated in a respectful way by her husband.
Posts: 367 | Location: London, England | Registered: June 10, 2005 "

=======

I have used blue for what I am saying in this post to hopefully stop things becoming too confusing.

I am hoping that the three posts from the "other" topic will clarify what I had in mind when I started the topic in this forum. I am and was trying to locate the relevant Torah source(s) for the abuse situations that Yisroel says Gemara does not cover, ie, bad abuse. Obviously "bad" needs further definition, but that definition will come from the other "end", ie, Gemara and whatever. It gets confusing when one reads what the Gemara said, or the liturgical siddur (which I have read is an excellent teacher of Torah) which says: " To those who curse me, let my soul be silent; and let my soul be like dust to everyone" ("The Complete Artscroll Siddur,1984-2002, p.431).

As observant Jews, we need the appropriate guidelines, but it can be hard to locate for the "uninitiated". Without these guidelines, a person seems caught with a choice between unsophisticated decision making or the secular psychological literature.

quote:

Originally posted by Yisroel Phillips:
The Gemara in Kiddushin 70a says:

And what is a sign of pure birth [Yichus]? One who hears insults about himself and keeps silent, as Rav Ada says – The pure lineage of a Babylonian is silence.

quote:

Originally posted by Yisroel Phillips:
The Gemara in Kiddushin 70a says:

And what is a sign of pure birth [Yichus]? One who hears insults about himself and keeps silent, as Rav Ada says – The pure lineage of a Babylonian is silence.

Does this Babylonian lineage apply today? If not, what is considered a "pure lineage" today?

Quote "Does this Babylonian lineage apply today? If not, what is considered a "pure lineage" today?"

We didn't Paskin like that then either. That was the opinion of R' Meir. The Rabanan say that all families are B'Chezkas Kosher and that's how we Paskin, unless we see extreme Midos problems in that family. See Even Haezer 2:2

(The reason that the Babylonians was considered purer Yichus was when Ezra went to Eretz Yisrael, he didn't want to leave any non-Miyuches behind in Baval, lest they get mixed into the populace, so he took them to keep track on them. So Baval started then with pure Yichus.)

David,
Does the Gemara mean a Babylonian Jew? Usually the insulted person is the one least capable of defending himself against insults. Usually a third person speaking on his behalf does a better job. That's why we have spokespersons.

The latest cartoon outrage that has ravaged the world is a good example. People feel insulted by a drawing on a piece of paper. Their violent response on something so trivial shows the purity of the Yichus....and yes, some of them are Babylonians.

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
(The reason that the Babylonians was considered purer Yichus was when Ezra went to Eretz Yisrael, he didn't want to leave any non-Miyuches behind in Baval, lest they get mixed into the populace, so he took them to keep track on them. So Baval started then with pure Yichus.)

Rav Chaim,
My humble understanding of Kiddushin 70a - 72b is that Ezra did not leave Babylon until he made "solet naki" of the existing exiles, meaning he arranged each family according to their pedigrees, those that were known and those that were unknown (asufi,etc.). Having done this, he came up to Eretz Yisroel. Since not all Jews came up with him at that time, some of the families that were "miyouchas" remained behind. Not all families that chose to remain behind in Babylonia were of ignoble families. Take, for example, the families of the exilarch (Resh Galutha), etc.

Sincerely,
David

Could you explain about this (the quote at the bottom, that you said) please?

This proved rather hard for me to research. But one interesting thing I came up with was the following from http://lazerbrody.typepad.com/lazer_beams/character_development/ :


"Other people's faults
Our sages tell a story about a family who was accustomed to finding faults in other people's lineage, saying that so-and-so was an illegitimate child, etc. When the local Dayanim (rabbinical judges) heard the slander, they investigated the gossiping family's background, and discovered that they were not only illegitimate themselves, but the descendants of slaves.

Jewish law states (Shulchan Oruch, Even HaEzer 2:2) that a rabbinical court must be suspicious of one who finds a blemish in another person, namely, that the one who finds blemishes is indeed blemished in the same way. An old Hebrew expression says, Berosh haganav boer hakova, or the hat burns on the thief's head. In other words, dishonest people think that everyone is a crook.

The Melitzer Rebbe told me that the a real tzaddik (righteous person) thinks the whole world is fine and dandy except for one person - himself.

In practical terms, those who see faults in others are actually looking at themselves. So, if the other guy appears to be a chimpanzee, then we ought to buy ourselves a bunch of bananas and a bag of peanuts. The faults we see in others are those we need to correct in ourselves."

And midos is such a big subject. I did find a site I am going to return to. This is http://www.skokiekollel.org/midos/

quote:

The Rabanan say that all families are B'Chezkas Kosher and that's how we Paskin, unless we see extreme Midos problems in that family. See Even Haezer 2:2

quote:

Their violent response on something so trivial shows the purity of the Yichus...

Moshe, would you explain this further to me please?

Rob,
Torah says that Ishmael is a wild animal. Apparently his descendants have kept his Yichus pure.

Quote "My humble understanding of Kiddushin 70a - 72b is that Ezra did not leave Babylon until he made "solet naki" of the existing exiles, meaning he arranged each family according to their pedigrees, those that were known and those that were unknown (asufi,etc.). Having done this, he came up to Eretz Yisroel. Since not all Jews came up with him at that time, some of the families that were "miyouchas" remained behind. Not all families that chose to remain behind in Babylonia were of ignoble families. Take, for example, the families of the exilarch (Resh Galutha), etc.

I will quote the Kollel Iyun Hadaf's paraphrase of the Gemarah 69b (the easiest way to quote)

"

1. (R. Elazar): Ezra didn't leave Bavel until he made

it as clean flour (by taking all improper lineages

with him).

(e) (Abaye): The Mishnah says, (people of improper

lineage) 'came up' - on their own volition.

(f) (Rava): It says, (Ezra) forced them to come.

1. Rava holds as R. Elazar, Abaye does not.

2. Alternatively, we can say that both hold as R.

Elazar;

(i) Abaye holds that Ezra publicized the people of

improper lineage, then they came up on their own

volition; Rava holds that he forced them to come.

(g) (Rav Yehudah): All other lands are as dough (a

mixture) compared to Eretz Yisrael (there are many

disqualified lineages among them); Eretz Yisrael is as

dough compared to Bavel.

1. According to Abaye, they came on their own - this

is why Eretz Yisrael is as dough compared to Bavel

(the bad lineages intermarried in Eretz Yisrael, since

people did not know about them ).

2. Question: According to Rava, Ezra forced them to

come - surely, they were known in Eretz Yisrael, Eretz

Yisrael should also be pure!

3. Answer: They were known in the generation of Ezra,

but not in later generations."



So we see, one way or another they all went up.

"The Rabanan say that all families are B'Chezkas Kosher"

All it means that you can marry any family and we don't worry that they come from "Mamzeirim" (child and his descendants from certain illigit marriages, who regular Jews cannot marry)

It is amazing how easy it is to get the wrong impression if one doesn't check out something thoughly. Thanks for the help, Rav.

Well, I'm off for a while to study midos on the website I found http://www.skokiekollel.org/midos/. Need to left my "game". Those pasted links sure make life easier to find stuff.