Print
PDF FormatStill, during this period “righteousness” was already fading out of use. The old Israelite conservatism increasingly lacked any sovereign-national application, and the Jewish people no longer shared the common experience of living in one land, under self-rule. This era saw the gradual rise of the phrase “the way of the world,” which to a large degree symbolized the new reality and would supplant the biblical “righteousness.” As mentioned above, this term was employed by the Rabbis in reference to the exile and the return after the destruction of the First Temple. At that time, according to the tradition, the people possessed the “way of the world,” something which was no longer true by the time of the Second Temple’s destruction.135 This usage reflects a post-biblical perspective, because it relates to the people’s separation from the land of Israel. The rabbinic concept of the “way of the world” describes the complex of values and deeds originating in that land which, by the time the statements were made, was no more.136
Although “righteousness” was still mentioned in the mishnaic period, by then the term clearly belonged to the past. It would be replaced by the “way of the world” in statements like that of R. Nehunya ben Hakana: “Whoever casts off the yoke of the Tora, upon him are placed the yoke of government and the yoke of the way of the world.”137 This dictum already assumes a dichotomy between political leadership (“the yoke of government”) and a proper way of life (“the yoke of the way of the world”), since apparently no single term now encompassed both concepts—as had the biblical “righteousness.”138
The disassociation of the “way of the world” from political concerns paralleled the loss of the common political and geographical experience that the Jewish people had enjoyed. The effect was to transform the Tora from being the shared but specifically spiritual heritage of Israel, into being the people’s only shared existential realm. The Tora and its study became, to an increasing extent, the only experience common to Jews living in communities dispersed across the diaspora, in such distant places as Yemen, Persia, Italy and Spain. The result was a strong, steady erosion of the ancient Israelite conservative tradition.
Cognizant of the danger, the rabbis struggled against this erosion to the best of their ability. They repeatedly issued clear calls, which were surprisingly forceful at times, reminding the people of the vital importance of the “way of the world” to maintaining a proper way of life, no less vital than the Tora itself.139 In rabbinic teaching, the “way of the world” is generally represented as a discrete topic, separate from the Tora and its study, but nevertheless a part—and even an essential element—of the proper way of life, which is needed for Tora study as well. A prime example of this is the well-known dictum of R. El’azar ben Azaria: “Where there is no Tora, there is no way of the world; where there is no way of the world, there is no Tora.”140
Certainly the rabbis always viewed the Tora as the source of ideal morality and good. They were also aware, however, that exclusive occupation with Tora at the expense of other things—something which the circumstances of exile encouraged—was liable to lead to attacks on natural morality and common sense, under the justification of a presumed adherence to the Tora. In the rabbis’ opinion, it was just this phenomenon that had led to the destruction of the Second Temple. This understanding is concisely summarized in the statement: “One who is well-versed in Bible, Mishna and the way of the world will not be quick to sin, as it is said, ‘A threefold cord is not easily broken.’141 But one who lacks Bible, Mishna and the way of the world does not belong to civilization.”142 In accordance with this precept, the “way of the world” recurs in the Mishna, the Talmud and the commentaries on them, and is even the subject of two entire tractates of tannaitic statements, Derech Eretz Raba and Derech Eretz Zuta.143
But the reality of the Jews in exile was not static. As time passed, the difficulties of exile intensified, from the division and isolation of communities to religious persecutions and restrictions on Jewish occupations and residence areas. Despite the rabbis’ efforts, as more of the Jewish people’s existence was limited to the realm of the individual and the small community, the entire “way of the world” idea was gradually stripped of weight and depth, and increasingly narrowed in application.144 Thus, its use in the sense of “manners”—the most well known and widely accepted meaning of the term today—can be found in such dicta as: “R. Yehoshua knocked on the door [at that time an uncommon courtesy], and the philosopher thought to himself and said, ‘This can only be the way of the world of a rabbi.’”145 It was also used in related contexts, such as hygiene and appearance (“The Tora taught the way of the world: In the garments in which one cooked a dish for his master, one should not pour a cup for his master”146), and modesty in public (“He said to them, ‘Whoever drinks from the hand of a bride is regarded as if he drinks from the hand of a harlot.’ They said to him, ‘But all Israelite maidens possess the way of the world’”147). Another principal use of the term in the Talmud is to describe a balanced and worthwhile way of life (“It is the way of the world that a man should first build a house, plant a vineyard, and then take a wife”148), and in other contexts the term is synonymous with labor, occupation and livelihood.149 This is how, for example, the earlier mentioned teaching of R. Nehunya ben Hakana (“Whoever casts off the yoke of the Tora, upon him are placed the yoke of government and the yoke of the way of the world”) had come to be interpreted by the time of R. Ovadia of Bertinoro in the sixteenth century: “The yoke of government—the burden of a king and government ministers; the way of the world—the labor and trouble of livelihood, so that one’s labor will be blessed.”150 In later generations, the term frequently appears with the limited meaning of a person’s profession, as in Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud: “The way of the world—if he is an artisan, this refers to his craft; if he is a merchant, to his goods; if he is a warrior, to his war”151—to which may be added other uses, reflecting various shades of meaning for the term.152
Other Tora scholars, such as R. Menahem ben Shlomo Meiri in the late thirteenth century, still understood the “way of the world” in a sense close to its original meaning, as related to the biblical idea of “righteousness.” Meiri writes in his commentary on the Mishna:
It is known that the “way of the world” is the term for attributes and morals a man requires for his political behavior. The Tora clearly states on this matter: The commandment of the Tora that is meant to lead a person on the righteous path in his behaviors. It must be stated at the outset that if it were not for the commandment of the Tora and man’s subjugation to it, he would not be perfect in the “way of the world” that comes to him by himself and by natural means, even if he were perfectly prepared, because he cannot reach the completion attained by Tora methods for those who uphold them. Similarly, if a person has no natural preparation for this, the commandments of the Tora will not suffice for him to attain this perfection, because the commandments cause a person to be upright generally, and they cannot take notice of the small details that are constantly renewed, and which require ethics and the “way of the world.”153
At the time this was written, however, the reference to “attributes and morals a man requires for his political behavior” had already become the exception that proved the rule. Over time the exilic experience continued to drain more and more meaning from the “way of the world,” leaving in use only those few aspects known today. These were inherited from the reality of the Jews’ living in communities scattered in foreign societies, and having only restricted ties with the broader social and political orders of the countries where they dwelled.
The limitation of its original meaning has made the “way of the world” today mainly a synonym for manners (in Hebrew, nimus)—a synonym, however, that may contain the beginnings of the road toward renewing the original sense of this term. In modern Hebrew, nimus, like the “way of the world,” refers primarily to accepted conduct towards others, but initially it, too, had a much broader import. It came into Hebrew from the Greek nomos, meaning law or set custom. In Greek philosophy, this term was understood as the opposite of logos, meaning “word” or “rational wisdom,” from which “logic” is derived. In other words, these terms present the same fundamental distinction concerning how human affairs can be conducted most properly: The “logical,” revolutionary way of pure intellect, or the conservative approach of custom and common sense—of the “way of the world.” Thus, in the spirit of Meiri’s statement that “the other nations do not have Tora, only nimus,”154 the Jewish nation may learn from other peoples which have successfully maintained a worthwhile national way of life over time, by keeping faith with the roots of their nomos—their conservative tradition. In order to construct a lasting, proper society, the Jewish people as well must once again connect with the roots of their “way of the world.”
