Beauty vs? knowledge
Avot Ch. 2: R. SIMEON SAID: WHEN ONE, WALKING ON THE ROAD, REHEARSES [WHAT HE HAS LEARNT], AND BREAKS OFF FROM HIS REHEARSING, AND SAYS, ‘HOW FINE IS THIS TREE!’ [OR] ‘HOW FINE IS THIS NEWLY PLOWED FIELD!’ SCRIPTURE ACCOUNTS IT TO HIM AS IF HE HAD INCURRED GUILT [EXPIABLE] BY HIS LIFE.
This has been a subject of big controversy: "Jews hold the beauty of nature (or of the world, or of the creation) in contempt and deem appreciation of it sinful." The Soncino Talmud edition offers an apologetic note: MV and R. emphasize ‘as if’ because actually he does not thereby forfeit his life, as, after all, exclaiming ‘how fine, etc.’ is a form of adoration of God. It is only because learning is so much more important that the breaking off therefrom deserves severe condemnation. In fact, a distraction for the sake of a fine tree or field is usually OK or good for learning, so the mishna does pose a challenge.
Today we've learned that admiration of beauty and acquisition of knowledge are separate things, likely enough to positively influence one another. It may therefore be unclear that the mishna actually warns against substituting the former for the latter. Cognizance of God is cognizance of His deeds, which are the essences of things that he creates and does. The mishna admonishes us that knowledge of the essence ought not to be replaced by, or to depend on, the aesthetic appreciation of the phenomenon, for all the value and significance of the latter. After all, the phenomenon is not yet ‘very good’, ‘tov meod’; it is only ‘very good’ in potentia, to become ‘very good’ in actu when it becomes identical with its essence and purpose, i.e. when the work of creation has been finished and man's knowledge of it has attained completion. (And Rashi's commentary on Gen. 1:31 is essentially to the same effect.)
mkitross aptly employed the word paradise for nature's beauty: whether missed (lost) in the past or to be regained in the future, "paradise" is not an actuality here and now.
It seems that the FINE TREE as the first example of a delightful distraction is not accidental in the mishna; compare Gen. 3:6: And the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes, and the tree was desirable to make one wise (לְהַשְׂכִּיל, “for learning experience”); so she took of its fruit, and she ate, and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
This has been a subject of big controversy: "Jews hold the beauty of nature (or of the world, or of the creation) in contempt and deem appreciation of it sinful." The Soncino Talmud edition offers an apologetic note: MV and R. emphasize ‘as if’ because actually he does not thereby forfeit his life, as, after all, exclaiming ‘how fine, etc.’ is a form of adoration of God. It is only because learning is so much more important that the breaking off therefrom deserves severe condemnation. In fact, a distraction for the sake of a fine tree or field is usually OK or good for learning, so the mishna does pose a challenge.
Today we've learned that admiration of beauty and acquisition of knowledge are separate things, likely enough to positively influence one another. It may therefore be unclear that the mishna actually warns against substituting the former for the latter. Cognizance of God is cognizance of His deeds, which are the essences of things that he creates and does. The mishna admonishes us that knowledge of the essence ought not to be replaced by, or to depend on, the aesthetic appreciation of the phenomenon, for all the value and significance of the latter. After all, the phenomenon is not yet ‘very good’, ‘tov meod’; it is only ‘very good’ in potentia, to become ‘very good’ in actu when it becomes identical with its essence and purpose, i.e. when the work of creation has been finished and man's knowledge of it has attained completion. (And Rashi's commentary on Gen. 1:31 is essentially to the same effect.)
mkitross aptly employed the word paradise for nature's beauty: whether missed (lost) in the past or to be regained in the future, "paradise" is not an actuality here and now.
It seems that the FINE TREE as the first example of a delightful distraction is not accidental in the mishna; compare Gen. 3:6: And the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes, and the tree was desirable to make one wise (לְהַשְׂכִּיל, “for learning experience”); so she took of its fruit, and she ate, and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.