We now arrive at the end of the fifth chapter and at the conclusion of the mishnayos of Avos before us. We have already finished the tens, the sevens and the fours, and the coming mishnayos can be viewed as the count of "twos" - since each one of them lists two categories - even though the Mishnah itself does not use that language. (According to one count this is mishnah 16, and in some versions mishnah 19.)
The text of the Mishnah:
"Kol ahavah shehi teluyah b'davar - batel davar, betelah ahavah" - any love that depends on something: when that thing passes, the love passes along with it.
"V'she'einah teluyah b'davar - einah betelah l'olam" - a love that does not depend on anything else will never cease.
"Eizo hi ahavah shehi teluyah b'davar? Zo ahavas Amnon v'Tamar" - this is the example of a love that depends on something.
"V'she'einah teluyah b'davar - zo ahavas David v'Yonasan" - this is the example of a love that does not depend on anything. Both examples will be explained below, im yirtzeh Hashem.
The version of the Bartenura and the Rambam:
The Bartenura explains the Mishnah as though the word "batel" appears in it twice, that is: "Any love that depends on a thing that is batel" - on something temporary and fleeting; "batel davar, betelah ahavah" - once that thing has passed, the love has passed as well. According to the Toldos Yitzchak of Yodfat, this stems from the fact that the Bartenura had a version in which the word "batel" was written twice.
The Rambam explains the Mishnah in exactly the same way, but it does not appear that he had such a version, and nowhere has a version been found that doubles the word "batel." What emerges from his words, and from the Bartenura who follows him, is that there is no variant text here at all, but rather a double play on words: the word "batel" has two meanings, and both are being applied here - a "davar batel" is something temporary, fleeting, that is quickly used up; and "batel davar" means that the thing itself ceases and goes away, and then "betelah ahavah" - the love goes away too.
It seems that the Rambam understood it this way, and the Bartenura followed him, because it is difficult to understand what a love that depends on nothing at all would be. According to their approach, if a person loves another, it is necessarily on account of some reason, and the question is what that reason is:
If the reason is something physical in this world, here today and gone tomorrow - then the love too is temporary, and it will ultimately disappear.
If the love is built upon something eternal - love of wisdom, love of truth, love of Hashem and the like - then the thing upon which it depends is not eroded by time, and therefore the love endures and stands forever.
The love of Amnon and Tamar:
Although our Mishnah says "Amnon v'Tamar," in other versions the text reads "Amnon l'Tamar" - Amnon's love toward Tamar, since Tamar did not return his love. The story is told in Shmuel II: David HaMelech had two children from two mothers - Achinoam, whose son was Amnon, and Maachah, whose daughter was Tamar. Amnon desired Tamar and in the end violated her. Before that terrible act he was obsessed with her, and afterward he despised her and could not bear her at all.
The Mishnah is therefore bringing an example in which what is called, in quotation marks, the "love" that Amnon felt for Tamar was nothing more than a love built upon desire - something temporary; and once the desire disappeared, the love disappeared with it. True, in the case of Amnon and Tamar it reached the point of contempt and hatred, but one should not learn from here that every love that depends on something will necessarily lead to contempt toward that person; the lesson is only that such a love does not last over time. A man who marries a woman because of her looks or because of her money - once the looks fade or the money is lost, the love will disappear as well.
It is worth noting that the Gemara in Sanhedrin daf 21 discusses details and fine points regarding Tamar and where she came from, and for all sorts of technical reasons the matter is more complex than it has been presented here. But that does not change anything: the principle is the principle, and for the purposes of our Mishnah this is enough. Whoever wishes to delve deeper should study it there.
The love of David and Yonasan:
David and Yonasan were soulmates from the very start. Shaul was the first king of Israel, and his son Yonasan was supposed to reign after him as the second king; in the end it was David who became king in place of Shaul, since Shaul forfeited his right to the monarchy. One would have expected Yonasan and David to be enemies, but the opposite was true: even during the conflicts between David and Shaul, Yonasan helps David. They were friends from beginning to end, out of mutual support, and not because of any particular thing; they loved one another for qualities that do not fade - advantages, benefits and enduring traits that are not worn away by time.
The straightforward reading:
In light of all this, my preferred reading of the Mishnah is the simpler and more common one, since we do not in fact have the word "batel" twice: if your love depends on something, it is vulnerable, and once that thing disappears the love is lost; whereas a love that depends on nothing at all lasts forever. It seems that the Rambam did not incline toward this reading, because within his approach there was no room to understand how one could love a person for no reason whatsoever.
But according to this version, the explanation runs as follows: if we ask a person why he loves his children, he will be hard pressed to point to any particular reason - it is not on account of any specific thing. So there does exist a love with no reason at all, simply because the person is who he is. And this is the meaning of our Mishnah: one who loves another because of something that other person can do for him - his love is temporary; and one who loves him for no reason at all - his love lasts forever.
The moral point, which has two aspects:
Regarding other people: Many commentators explain that one who loves another for a particular reason - because of his money, because of what he can do for him, or because of his appearance - does not love him at all; in truth he loves himself and is seeking his own benefit. That other person can do something for him, and so he takes an interest in him because of the benefit involved, but his love is directed at himself. Therefore, once the other can no longer supply what he wants, the interest ceases and the love disappears - for there was never love for him, only self-love.
Regarding the Almighty: From here we can also learn about the ultimate love a person must acquire - the love of Hashem. This love should not be on account of anything else, but from the point of truth: because the Almighty is the Almighty. And more than that, the love is meant to be "bechol levavcha uvechol nafshecha uvechol me'odecha" - with everything you have, even if it costs you all your money and even if it costs you your life. It does not depend, then, on what you receive, but on the fact that the Almighty is the source of all good, the source of your life and the source of everything that is real, and you seek to connect to Him, to understand Him and to have a relationship with Him.
This is a warning to all of us regarding the people we choose to love - our friends, our spouses and the like: one should seek a person whose qualities that you love are his own qualities, and not what he can do for you, for that is not love but self-love, and it builds a friendship or a marriage on a shaky and unstable foundation.
It emerges, then, that the conclusion of our Mishnah is that a person must work on his love for the Almighty until it becomes a love that depends on nothing at all; or at the very least, according to the Rambam's approach, that it should not depend on anything he receives in a physical, temporary and perishable way.