meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Commentary/Tosafot Yom Tov/Seder Nezikin/Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot/English/merged.txt"}
text: Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot
  תוספות יום טוב על משנה אבות
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Tosafot Yom Tov on Avot, trans. Dov Dukhovny, 2018
  -
  
  Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot
  
  Pirkei Avot, Introduction
  
  Rambam writes in his commentary to this mishna: <i>When Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi, the chief redactor of the Mishna, had covered all the laws a judge must know, he went on to tractate </i>Avot<i> for two reasons. First of all, to show that the accepted legal interpretations and traditions were genuine and well-established, and that they had been passed on from one group of scholars to another; and that, for this reason, one must honor and revere a Torah scholar, for the law has come down to and will now be decided by him, and he in his generation is just as his predecessors were in earlier generations. As the Sages said (Rosh HaShanah 2:10): “If we are going to cast doubt on the ruling of Rabban Gamliel’s court, we must likewise cast doubt on every court that has ever convened from the times of Moses until today!” And they likewise said (Rosh HaShana, 25a): “As Samuel was in his generation, so is Samson in his!”</i>
  This will teach people the important lesson that they shouldn’t say, Why should we accept such-and-such a ruling, or the enactment of judge so-and-so? That is not how things work! For a judgment is not merely the opinion of a particular judge—it is in fact the judgment of G-d, who has commanded us to follow it, as per the verse “For judgment is G-d’s (Deuteronomy 1:17).” And all of this is part and parcel of that one law, which is the result of the tradition as it has been passed from scholar to scholar throughout the generations.
  The second reason that Avot<i> immediately follows legal material is that Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi intended that this tractate contain the moral dicta of each of the Sages that we might learn proper behavior therefrom, and nobody is in greater need of this than the judges! For should one of the masses be a person of unrefined behavior he will hurt only himself and do no damage to the people as a whole, but a judge who is not humble and does not behave properly hurts both himself and others. For this reason, the first thing to be taken up in </i>Avot<i> is the proper behavior of judges (Avot 1:1): “Deliberate at length in your decisions!” A judge ought to behave in accordance with all of the dicta in </i>Avot<i>; he should, for instance, deliberate at length and not hasten to make his decisions, for there might be something afoot in the case; the Sages called such cases “suspicious cases” (Sanhedrin 32b). On the other hand, he shouldn’t delay when the case is a straightforward one, for this is called “painfully protracting the judgment” (Shabbat 33a). He should to thoroughly examine the witnesses and take care that he not let slip a stray word during the examination by which they might deduce how to go about accomplishing their goal in court. And one should not give legal guidance to one of the parties, as this would be “setting up the judges” (Avot 1:8). He should not do anything unbecoming his stature in the presence of the people, as they might then make light of him. He should not avoid people to the point that they cannot reach him when they need him, lest the pauper perish. He should not seek out leisure and pleasures, lest the truth perish. He should not be driven by desire.</i>
  He continues at length concerning the proper behavior of judges, and concludes by saying: <i>Seeing as the judge is in need of these numerous dicta in order to behave properly, how truly fitting to place </i>Avot<i> after tractate </i>Sanhedrin<i> and the other tractates related to it! For </i>Avot <i>contains these dicta and also contains other teachings that lead one to abstain from the pleasures of this world, honor Torah and its scholars, and act in accordance with integrity and the fear of G-d.</i>
  Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi called this tractate <i>Avot</i>1<i class="footnote">“Forefathers” or “fathers”.</i> because the wise are our fathers in the truest sense, as Elisha said of his master Eliyahu (Kings II 2:12), “My father! My father!” And disciples are likewise called sons, as in the verse (Isaiah 7:3) “And She’ar Yashuv your son.”2<i class="footnote">Sanhedrin 19b. Cf. also Rambam, Guide for the Perplexed, 1:7.</i>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  MOSES RECEIVED THE TORAH AT SINAI. Rav explains “at Sinai” as really meaning “from the one who was revealed at Sinai,” i.e., G-d. And when G-d revealed Himself there, Moses received the Torah, down to its particulars and subtleties, and he did not bring forth any new laws himself, as per the Sifri that Rashi quotes in his Torah commentary to parashat Behar (Leviticus 25:1). To make this point, the mishna says “at Sinai.” This is not without purpose, as it points to the truth of the religion. “It is unique unto its mother”—that being the nation of Israel, who received it, “and it is the choicest of the one who birthed it”—the students, who are children of G-d.3<i class="footnote">Based on Song of Songs, 6:9.</i> Moses received everything, even the novel interpretations of a seasoned scholar, at Sinai, as per the verse (Deuteronomy 9:10), “And G-d gave me the two stone tablets, inscribed by the finger of the Lord, and (what was written) upon them was as all the things God had said to you on the mountain out of the fire on the day of assembly,” which the Sages expounded in Megillah 19b as follows: <i>This teaches that G-d showed Moses even the most subtle points of the Torah</i> [Heb. dikdukei Torah]<i> and of the Sofrim</i> [Heb. dikdukei Sofrim]<i>.</i>I explain in my introduction to the Mishna that the <i>dikdukei Sofrim</i> were indeed only “shown” to Moshe.4<i class="footnote">And not “given” or “taught” to him, which TYT understands to mean that Moses did not acquire that knowledge the same way he acquired the main body of the Torah but was given some kind of lesser familiarity with it.</i> As such, the word “received” here must refer only to the greater part of the material. In the introduction to his commentary on the Torah, Ramban similarly explains the word “created” in the phrase “fifty levels of understanding were created in the word” as referring to most but not all of those levels, as the fiftieth was not created.
  AND TRANSMITTED IT TO JOSHUA. All that he received, he transmitted to Joshua. But it cannot be said that G-d transmitted the Torah in its entirety to Moses, because not the entire Torah that G-d possessed was transmitted to him, as the fiftieth gate was not transmitted to him,5<i class="footnote">Transmission here is understood to mean giving all that one has.</i> as the Sages expounded (Rosh HaShanah 21b) on the verse (Psalms 8:6) “And you have made him only slightly less than the Lord.” Therefore, in speaking of Moses the mishnah says that he “received” it, i.e. whatever he could receive, he received at Sinai. Thus do the commentaries explain it.
  AND THE PROPHETS TRANSMITTED IT TO THE MEN OF THE GREAT ASSEMBLY. This is to point out that although not all the members of the Great Assembly were prophets, the entire Torah was transmitted to them as it was transmitted to their predecessors. From hereon, however, the generations waned and the entire Torah could not be transmitted to them; rather, each one received as much as he was able. Even so, what Torah he did acquire was part of the tradition, having passed sage from sage and going back to Moses at Sinai.
  THE GREAT ASSEMBLY. Rav writes that they were called this because they “returned the crown to its former glory… Jeremiah and Daniel came, and did not say ‘the mighty and awesome one’ (Yoma 69b).” Jeremiah said, “The great and mighty one, whose name is Lord of Hosts (Jeremiah 32:18)”, but did not say “awesome”. Daniel said, “The great and awesome one (Daniel 9:4 ),” but did not say “mighty.”
  THEY SAID THREE THINGS. Rav writes that of their many sayings, these three were the ones touching on the continuity of Torah. Later in Avot, 2:10, where the mishna also says “they said three things,” Rav offers as an alternate explanation that these were the dicta they constantly emphasized, as he writes on Avot 1:2.
  AND YOU SHOULD TRAIN [<i>lit</i>. stand them up] MANY STUDENTS. They used the word <i>ha`amidu</i>, whose root <i>`amad</i> means “to stand,” because from the time of Moses until the time of Rabban Gamliel the students would stand during their studies (Megillah 21a) [as Rav writes on Sotah 9:16], while the master would sit on a chair—so Midrash Shmuel, in the name of R. Yosef ibn Nahamias. While this is a good derivation of the term <i>ha`amidu</i>, it does not convey the thrust of the mishna, which is not that the students should stand or sit, but that they should study. So why doesn’t the mishna, in accordance with its primary intent, simply use the verb “teach”?It seems that the mishna uses this verb, <i>ha`amidu</i>, to emphasize that one ought to stand them up on their feet to the point that they don’t falter, i.e. to stand them on their feet in truly understanding Torah. This is called “standing” and “enduring” [<i>kiyum</i>, related to Heb. <i>kam</i>, “arose”], just as the Rabbinic expression says of a lie that it “has no legs on which to stand,” and as the Poet says, “My feet had nearly faltered” (Psalms, 73:2). And it is because the mishna dictated that one train many students that it had to use <i>ha`amidu</i>, to emphasize that although one ought to train many students, their studies should still be such that they should stand upon their own feet and reach truth in their learning. Anything else cannot properly be called <i>ha`amadah</i>, training a student and standing him upon his feet; such students rather “lie in slumber” (Isaiah 56:10), in the sleep of foolishness.The upshot of all this is that we do not fulfill this dictum unless we teach truth and righteousness and nothing else. Cf. my comments on mishna 6.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  THE WORLD STANDS. Rav understands this expression as “the world was only created for the purpose of.” Midrash Shmuel in his commentary to the last mishna in this chapter notes that he has found editions in which the text of our mishna has “for three things the world was created.”
  ON THE TORAH. Rav: <i>had Israel not accepted the Torah, the heavens and the earth would not have been created, as per the verse “If not for my covenant, etc.” </i>(Jeremiah 33:25). Rav was led to this interpretation because he was bothered by the superfluousness of “the sacrificial service, and acts of kindness” in the text, for both of these are commandments, the fulfillment of which is already included in “the Torah”; he therefore understood that <i>the Torah</i> must refer not to the Torah itself but to its acceptance. The verse in Jeremiah is now read as “if not for my covenant which you have accepted, I would not have established the day or the night, nor even the laws of the heavens and the earth.” See the mishna in Nedarim 3:11 for a similar interpretive turn.The difficulty with this is that the mishna is using the expression “the world stands on three things” to convey the importance of doing those things, and in Rav’s reading <i>“</i>the Torah” refers not to anything that one ought to do but to a historical event, and is out of place here. It seems, therefore, that “the Torah” here refers to the study and learning of Torah as opposed to the act of following its laws. The verse in Jeremiah, then, reads “if not for the study of my covenant by day and night, etc,” as per the verse “You shall study it day and night” (Hosea 1:8).The words “had Israel not accepted the Torah” do not appear in Rashi’s commentary, which simply reads: On the Torah, <i>as per the verse “If not for my covenant, etc.”</i>.
  AND ON THE SACRIFICIAL SERVICE. Rav: <i>the sacrificial service, as the tannaim taught in tractate Ta`anit</i>, “<i>if not for the shifts of priests offering sacrifices, etc.”</i> So also Rashi. They used the term <i>shaninu</i>6<i class="footnote">Lit. “we have learnt,” a term used to indicate a tannaitic as opposed to amoraic text.</i> loosely, however, for this text does not appear in a mishna or baraita, and is actually an amoraic memra in the Talmud, Ta`anit 27b: <i>Rabbi Yaakov bar Acha said in the name of Rav Assi etc.</i>To be precise, the language of that memra is “if not for the shifts of priests offering sacrifices, the heavens and earth would not continue to exist”, and as such we cannot deduce therefrom that it is for the sake of these shifts that the heavens and earth were created. Granted, now that the heavens and earth have been created their continued existence is through the shifts of priests, but perhaps the shifts would not have been sufficient reason to have brought them into existence; for it is a greater feat to create something ex nihilo than to continue the existence of that which has already been created. So how does this memra show that the sacrificial service is so essential that the world was created and brought into being on account of it?This memra also appears in Megillah 31b, and the passage there reads as follows: <i>It was said: Rabbi Ami said, if not for the shifts of priests offering sacrifices, the heavens and the earth would not continue to exist, as per the verse “If not for my covenant, I would not have established the day or night, nor even the laws of the heavens and the earth (Jeremiah 33:25)”</i>, <i>and the verse</i> “<i>And he said, Lord, G-d, how can I know that I will inherit it? (Genesis 15:8)”</i>. <i>Our father Abraham said, Master of the world! Perhaps, G-d forbid, Israel will sin before you, and you will do to them as you did to the generation of the flood and the generation of the dispersion? G-d said to him, I shall not. Abraham said, “how can I know (Genesis 15:8)?” G-d said, “Take for me three calves, etc. (Genesis 15:9).”</i>7<i class="footnote">The “covenant made between the pieces,” which itself was a sacrifice, is understood to represent all sacrificial service.</i> This passage understands the “covenant” in Jeremiah as referring to the “covenant made between the pieces” in Genesis 15, and therefore the verse reads “If not for my covenant, i.e. the covenant made between the pieces…” And the end of the verse says “I would not have established,” so the sacrificial service must be sufficient reason for the establishment and creation of the world.Should one object that this is all very well for as long as the Temple is standing, but what of when is has been destroyed? One answer is that it was the period of the Temple’s existence that G-d foresaw and which itself sufficed for him to create the world. Additionally, the passage there concludes: <i>Abraham said, Master of the world! This is all very well for as long as the Temple is standing. What will be with them when the Temple is no longer standing? G-d said to him, I have already arranged the passages dealing with sacrificial law for them. Whenever they read these passages, I will consider it as if they had brought the sacrifices before me and I will forgive all their sins</i>. Rashi’s commentary on Ta`anit ad loc., however, says, “This is a corrupted passage, for how do they see this?”
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  THE MAN [Heb. <i>ish</i>] OF SOCHO. He was the lord of a place called Socho. <i>Ish</i> here means “lord,” as in the mishna (Yoma 1:3) “<i>Ishi</i>, High Priest!” Rav, in his commentary there, explains <i>Ishi</i> as “my lord.” [*Cf. the mishna in Challah 4:10, s.v. <i>Ish Teko`a</i>.]
  BE NOT LIKE SERVANTS SERVING THE MASTER FOR PAY. Rav: <i>rather, out of love alone</i>. In other words, the mishna enjoins that the service be out of love alone, for this is the truest kind of service. It does not mean to say, however, that that service for pay is forbidden, as in either case he is serving G-d; for this reason our perfect Torah did not see unfit to mention rewards and punishments. One who serves in the hopes of earning reward or avoiding pain is simply not on the level of the one who serves out of love alone, whose service has no secondary intention whatsoever.And the tanna wished to enjoin us to be among those who serve out of love alone, but not to exclude one who serves in the hopes of earning reward from the category of those who serve! This is not the case, as the Sages say in Bava Batra 10b: <i>One who says, “I give this </i>sela<i> to charity that my son should live!” or “...that I should have a share in the world to come!” is perfectly righteous.</i> Furthermore, if one takes the opposite position, one cuts the very legs out from under the nation of Israel!8<i class="footnote">In rabbinic literature, in order to avoid making a damning or frightening statement about some party, one refers to said party by a name that usually denotes its opposite. Here, in order to avoid saying “one cuts the legs out from under Israel” in Hebrew, the author actually writes “one cuts the legs out from under the haters of Israel.” Cf. Sanhedrin 106a.</i> For “where is the weigher, where is the counter” (Isaiah 33:18) who shall say that so-and-so is one who truly serves out of love alone?9<i class="footnote">This is a societal problem, for Jewish law prescribes respect and reverence for those who are considered servants of G-d. Once only those who serve out of love alone are considered servants of God, it is impossible to determine who is and isn’t such a one, and the category has lost any legal or cultural relevance. </i> And can it be good in G-d’s eyes that anyone who serves Him with the intent that the rewards promised by the Torah itself be fulfilled—that same Torah which has been communicated to us from His mouth—that such a one not receive his good lot on account of this? It pleases not their Master that people should say thus!Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi says as much in Avot 2:1: <i>Consider the loss incurred in doing a mitzvah against the reward for doing it</i>, per my explanation there. Similarly, in 2:16: <i>And you have a faithful taskmaster, who shall pay your wages</i>. Cf. what I’ve written there on <i>And you should know what reward awaits the righteous in the future</i>. And we further see that there can be nothing wrong with this from the story of Azariah the brother of Simon, related in the mishna in Zevachim 1:2.10<i class="footnote">Azariah provided for his brother Simon in order that he should have a portion of the reward for Simon’s Torah studies.</i>As mentioned above, the tanna of our mishna does not prohibit this, and I say that his own words prove it, which he chose with care in order that we shouldn’t misunderstand them. For why would he say “be not like servants serving the master for pay” when he could simply have said “do not serve for pay,” which would have gotten the point across to his students more succinctly? By saying “be not like servants who serve the master for pay” he taught that even those who serve for pay are servants at any rate, just that one should not be like them but greater than they, and should serve out of love alone.I saw that our master Maharal, in his commentary on Avot, <i>Derech Chaim</i>, deals with the question of why the mishna continues and says “but rather be like servants who serve the master without thought of pay” and doesn’t simply stop at “be not like servants serving the master for pay”. He writes that had the tanna said only “be not like servants serving the master for pay” the implication would have been that he prohibits being like servants serving the master for pay, while in fact there is no such prohibition and one who does so is even completely righteous. He means only that there is a level and grade above that one, which is serving out of love alone. It is for this reason that he goes back and explicitly says “rather, be like servants etc.”, to explain that he means only that one should aspire to be a servant serving without thought of pay. All this is the opinion of Maharal.Now you can see how this tanna has, in his wisdom and perfection, very cleverly worded his teaching. For with the first phrase he taught that one should not deny the value of those who serve for pay and that they are still called servants, and he then further clarified this by saying “rather be etc.”, i.e. I mean only that you should rather be thus, but not that it is forbidden to serve for pay; the main point is to show you the utmost level of perfection, in which you should be serving out of love alone, not to prohibit the other kind of service.At this point, there is certainly no way to misunderstand the words of the tanna the way Tzadok and Baitos did, who claimed that he meant to say that there is no pay to be received at all, as Rav mentions in his commentary to mishna 11. Still, he should have made it completely clear to the point that whosever was listening would have understood this.[*I saw that the Tosafot in Rosh HaShana, at the beginning of page 4a, write that our mishna discusses the case of gentiles, who tend to regret the good deed they have done if they are not rewarded for it. I find this quite odd—can it be that the tanna has decided to discuss idolaters? All the more so in tractate Avot, which collects the dicta the Sages constantly emphasized, at least according to one opinion mentioned by Rav above in mishna 2. And certainly Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi shouldn’t have set it down in the mishna, if these words are only concerning idolaters!But I was put at ease when I saw their words in Pesachim, at the top of 8b, where they write that our mishna is discussing a case of one who will have anguish and regret over the charity he has given if whatever good thing he is hoping for doesn’t come to pass, but one who has no anguish and regret is completely righteous, and the Talmud in Rosh HaShana 4a and Bava Batra 10b seems to say as much. Accordingly, when the Tosafot say our mishna is discussing an idolater, they mean that simply as an example of someone who regrets having done a good deed, as the Talmud there says. But our mishna is discussing a Jew having this regret. And what they mean to say is that our mishna is discussing the case of, for example, an idolater, etc., which is to say a Jew who regrets it, just like the average idolater who regrets it.]
  PAY [Heb. <i>p’ras</i>]. Rav: <i>this </i>[p’ras] <i>is what one gives someone who has served him, but whom he is not legally obligated to pay anything</i>, and by this he means to distinguish <i>p’ras</i> from <i>sachar</i>, for <i>sachar</i> is what one must pay by law. So also Rambam.
  WITHOUT THOUGHT OF RECEIVING PAY. A different version of our mishna has the text “intending not to receive pay”. I cannot understand that version, for it is impossible that one should serve only on condition that he not receive pay, for the implication is that should he receive pay, he will not serve. Midrash Shmuel writes that the case in the first version is one who serves without declaring that he is doing so specificaly to receive pay; he is still aware that the pay will come, and does have hopes of reward. On the other hand, one who serves intending not to receive pay is one who explicitly serves not in order to receive pay but out of love alone. While this is improves matters exegetically, it doesn’t fit the language of that other version well.As for his criticism of the first version, that even one who serves out of love alone still knows that the reward will eventually come, I would not call such a one someone who serves out of love; in fact, he is the archetypal servant who serves for reward! One who serves out of love alone is he who constantly finds his service insufficient and, because of his great love of G-d, feels that he has not served properly. As Hillel says in mishna 14, “And I for myself, what am I?”, according to Rav's commentary ad loc.11<i class="footnote">Rav there: <i>even if I have accrued merit for myself, what is this merit and what is it worth when considered against what I am truly obligated to do</i>? </i> Not only does he hold no anticipation of reward, he fears for his soul lest he sin by falling short in his service, which is what the tanna intends by his last words, “and the fear of heaven should be upon you”, as I will explain.This was the way of the patriarchs. Although our father Abraham was promised seed he afterwards said, “and I remain childless” (Genesis 15:2).12<i class="footnote">The author is most likely recalling Ramban’s commentary on that verse, which points out that although Abraham had already been promised offspring, he feared that his sins might have annulled the promise.</i> This is why G-d was called “the fear of Isaac” (Genesis 31: 42),13<i class="footnote">I.e., the one before whom Isaac feared the consequences of his sins.</i> and Jacob likewise feared that perhaps he had been sullied by sin.14<i class="footnote">As per the Talmud’s exegesis in Berachot 4a on Genesis 32:8.</i> This is the portion and these are the thoughts of the servants of G-d who serve out of love alone; there is no anticipation of reward whatsoever. And so the version before us is correct—so it seems to me.
  AND THE FEAR OF HEAVEN SHOULD BE UPON YOU. Rav: <i>one who serves out of fear will take care not to transgress a negative commandment</i>. So also Rambam. But according to what I wrote above, this is a part of service out of love.15<i class="footnote">Tosafot Yom Tov writes above that one who serves out of love is always afraid that he has not served properly.</i>The euphemism “heaven” for “G-d” is to indicate that this fear should not be a fear of punishment, which would yield a superficial kind of service with a hint of personal interest. The “fear” referred to here is awe of His greatness, and this is conveyed by the use of “heaven” because the heavens are where His greatness can be seen, i.e. in the creations of the heavens and all their hosts and ceaseless motions—so it seems to me.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  YOSSI BEN YO`EZER. Rav: <i>all of the tannaim menioned in this chapter are pairs—so-and-so and so-and-so received the tradition from so-and-so and so-and-so—the first one in the pair was the Nassi</i>16<i class="footnote">The supervisor of the Sanhedrin and leader of the Jews recognized by the Roman government.</i><i> and the second was the Av Beit Din</i>17<i class="footnote">The highest-ranking member of the Sanhedrin.</i>, per the mishna in Chagiga 2:2.Tosafot, commenting on the Talmud ad loc. (s.v. <i>Yossi</i>), write in the name of the Jerusalem Talmud that the period of Yossi ben Yo`ezer and Yossi ben Yochanan saw the first unresolved legal dispute in Israel. Based on this, I say that no pairs preceding them are mentioned because there was one head in each generation and he had no competing peer, whereas starting with them the “rope was unraveled” and there were two leaders.Even so the Torah of each was authentic, as they had each received the tradition, and the disputes arose only concerning decisions that depended on reasoning or that had to be resolved through one of the thirteen rules of interpretation,18<i class="footnote">The thirteen rules of R. Yishmael found at the beginning of the Sifra.</i> as Rambam writes at length in his introuction to the Mishna.
  RECEIVED THE TRADITION FROM THEM. Ramah explains “them” as referring to Simon and Antigonos. R. Yosef ibn Nahmias, quoted in Midrash Shmuel, writes that they first studied under Simon the Righteous, who died before they had completed their studies; they then went and studied under Antigonos, who held the post of Simon the Righteous until his death. They in turn filled his position.But what Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Yehuda Lerma, that it was actually their contemporaries who “received the tradition from them,” and that this is how one might read each instance of “receiving” in this chapter—this seems quite dubious. For even though there is some slight support for this reading from the fact that the mishna does not explicitly say “they received the tradition from Simon and Antigonos” the way it says earlier of Antigonos that he “received the tradition from Simon,” on the whole this interpretation is quite unlikely.First of all, it would be strange to mention that others received the tradition from them while not mentioning that they received the tradition themselves. Secondly, the tanna’s main point in mentioning the tradition is to show that the chain of tradition starts at Sinai and passes from scholar to scholar down to this author, whose work is a compilation of their dicta. And there are versions that have “from him” in the text. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of the Rashbatz that this version is the most accurate, provided its authenticity can be established.
  AND SEAT YOURSELF IN THE DUST AT THEIR FEET. Rav writes, in the alternate explanation he offers: <i>that you should sit on the earth at their feet, as their custom was that the master would sit on a bench and the students would sit at his feet on the ground.</i> This does not contradict his comments on the mishna in Sotah 9:15 that until the death of Rabban Gamliel they would study Torah standing,19<i class="footnote">Rabban Gamliel came much later, as is clear from later in this chapter.</i> for here the mishna simply means to say that if they chose to sit, the custom was that the master would sit on a bench and the students would sit on the earth at his feet. Neither does the mishna in Sotah mean that it was forbidden for them to sit and that they would only study standing, only that there was great vigor then and that they would learn while standing in honor of the Torah. And the mishna here delineates what the custom was should it happen that they would sit, as for instance when they spent long hours in the study hall.Or, alternatively, we can answer using Rava’s approach to the contradiction between the verse “And I sat on the mountain” (Deut. 9:9) and the verse “And I stood on the mountain” (Deut. 10:10) in Megillah 21a. Rava there explains that for things that were easier to grasp, Moses would stand, and for things that were harder to grasp, Moses would sit. And these students are certainly no better than Moses learning from the Almighty.
  THIRSTILY. Rav: <i>like a thirsty man drinking to sate himself, not like a sated man who has no desire for food and turns down even delicacies and sweets.</i> So also Rashi. It seems that their version read <i>ketzamei</i>, “like a thirsty man,” with a <i>kaf</i>,20<i class="footnote">Meaning “like a thirsty man,” as opposed to <i>betzama</i>, with a <i>beit</i>, which would mean “with thirst.” The words <i>tzama</i>, “thirst,” and <i>tzamei</i>, “thirsty man, one who is thirsting” have the same consonontal spelling: צמא. As the texts were all written without vowels, the word is ambiguous without a prefix. If the prefix is <i>beit</i>, which is adverbial and would mean “with” in this case, the word is בצמא and must be vocalized <i>betzama</i>, “with thirst.” If the prefix is <i>kaf</i>, which means “like,” then the word is כצמא and must be vocalized <i>ketzamei</i>, “as a thirsty man.” The confusion among the texts arose because of the similarity of the letters <i>beit ב</i> and <i>kaf כ</i>.</i> and in fact Midrash Shmuel quotes R. Yosef ibn Nahmias saying: <i>in a Jerusalemite edition of the entire Mishna the text reads </i>ketzamei<i> with a </i>kaf<i>; both versions mean the same thing: that you should drink up their words with the same desire a thirsty man has to drink water</i>.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  THEY WERE SPEAKING OF A MAN’S OWN WIFE. These are the words of Yossi ben Yochanan. For the dictum attributed to him was what he constantly emphasized, but he had learned it from his teachers,21<i class="footnote">And thus he could note that “they,” i.e. his teachers, whom he was quoting, were speaking of a man’s own wife. </i> for all the dicta in this tractate are traditions going back to Sinai, as Rav writes at the beginning of this chapter. This is why Rav explains that the phrase “the Sages, basing themselves on this, said” was added by Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi,22<i class="footnote">Who came after R. Yossi ben Yochanan, and was commenting on the whole of the dictum, which was attributed to him.</i> but does not say so about this phrase.23<i class="footnote">Which he must have understood as the words of R. Yossi ben Yochanan himself.</i>Midrash Shmuel writes that Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi was the one who said “they were speaking of a man’s own wife,” and cites Rabbenu Ephraim as agreeing. He also writes that “the Sages said based on this” is something that sages coming after him added. We do find in Sotah 9:15 that the sages after Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi added to the mishna, for it says there “from the death of Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi onwards, etc.” What I find difficult with this is the words “they were speaking,” for were it Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi who was commenting on Rabbi Yossi ben Yochanan, he should have used the singular, “he was speaking,” and not the plural.
  ALL THE MORE SO CONCERNING ANOTHER MAN’S WIFE. Because of what people will suspect. So Rashi, according to Rav’s second explanation of “they were speaking of a man’s own wife”.24<i class="footnote">Rav’s second explanation understands “a man’s own wife” as referring to his wife when she is premitted him, i.e. not menstruating. The concern then is that one not spend so much time speaking to her as to be considered abandoning Torah study, not that one might commit a sexual transgression. If so, the concern over “another man’s wife” should be of a similar nature, i.e. not a sexual transgression, but gossip.</i>
  WHENEVER ONE SPENDS TOO MUCH TIME SPEAKING WITH A WOMAN HE BRINGS EVIL UPON HIMSELF. Midrash Shmuel: <i>“Whenever,” whether she be menstruating or not, one should not speak with her excessively. If she is menstruating, speaking to her causes him to desire her and the desire translates into deed, and there is no greater evil one can bring upon himself than this. If she is not menstruating, then better to use the time one spends idling in idle talk to engage in Torah study. This is what they meant by </i>and he abandons Torah study<i>, when one spends too much time speaking to his wife even when she is not menstruating.</i> This is what Rav means when he writes that <i>from the words of the mishna it seems they meant even when his wife is not menstruating</i>. And Rashi, when he writes that the mishna means even when his wife is not menstruating, concludes <i>because he abandons Torah study</i>.25<i class="footnote"> Rashi, as well as Rav (in his second explanation) and Midrash Shmuel, read the mishna as discussing a man’s wife even when she is not menstruating, and the problem with excessive speech as abandoning Torah study during the time of that speech itself. It is therefore essential that they read “whenever” in the text of the mishna, which will then read as “whenever one does this, he is unnecessarily desisting from Torah study.” The author will adduce a variant reading which will challenge this.</i>But I was brought a copy of the Mishna from the Land of Israel, containing the sections Zera`im, Kodashim, Taharot, and this tractate, and the text there had been corrected to read <i>one who spends too much time speaking with a woman</i>.26<i class="footnote">This makes the above interpretations more difficut, beause according to this variant it is not during the time one spends speaking to the woman that one abandons Torah study. Rather, one who does so will eventually abandon Torah study altogether.</i>
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  ACQUIRE A COLLEAGUE [Heb. <i>chaver</i>] (or FRIEND). Rav: <i>even if you must purchase him at great cost and spend exhorbitant sums to acquire his friendship. But one cannot say of a teacher of Torah “acquire a teacher,” for the teacher must teach without charge.</i> He was not sufficiently careful with what he wrote, for if he understood <i>chaver</i> to mean a colleague for Torah study—as would seem from his writing “but one cannot say of a teacher of Torah…”—then he shouldn’t have written “to acquire his friendship,” but “to acquire him as a colleague.” What happened is that Rav copied the first sentence from Rambam, who did not understand <i>chaver</i> as a colleague for Torah study, for he writes: <i>“Acquire a</i> chaver<i>”—the mishna uses the language of acquisition… because a person most acquire a friend who will help him in properly arranging all of his affairs, as the Sages said </i>(Ta`anit 23a)<i>, “friendship or death!” … And one should make efforts… to win his friendship…</i>Midrash Shmuel reports that R. Yehuda Lerma asked why the mishna does not enjoin one to acquire students, considering that the Sages said (Ta’anit 7a): <i>I have learned much from my teachers… and from my students most of all!</i> He explained this by noting that a student’s sole desire is to learn. Students therefore study only where their hearts desire and under the teachers from whom they feel they will gain the most. So if a person cannot find anyone who wishes to study under him, the tanna does not enjoin him to. Our master, Maharal, writes in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that the mishna does not say “acquire a student for yourself” because it isn’t proper for a person to appoint himself a master and create honor for himself by saying “come study under me,” as people do in these lands.27<i class="footnote">I.e., around Prague, where the Maharal was the Chief Rabbi.</i>Although what they say is certainly true, I don’t think the question is a good one to begin with,because this tanna’s ancient predecessors, the men of the Great Assembly, had already preceeded him in this when they said “train many students” (Avot 1:1). Now they had in mind only students interested in the teacher in question, as it is impossible to train a student against his will, and they likewise didn’t have in mind a teacher unqualified to train students, for they said <i>ha`amidu</i>, which means to stand them on their feet in truly understanding Torah, as I wrote there, and only one actually possessing truth could do this. They certainly were not speaking of arrogant individuals trying to rise to positions of power, declaring that they will rule and be powerful leaders of the people and make great academies of students, for all of their words here are words of righteousness and humility. But they did enjoin someone who is able to train many students to do so.This is similar to the passage (Avodah Zarah 19b): <i>“And numerous are her slain” </i>(Proverbs 7:26)<i>—this refers to a student who has matured to the point of deciding legal questions and does not do so</i>. But one who has not arrived at that point and lords himself over others as mentioned earlier is included in “she has felled many dead” (Proverbs 7:26; Talmud ibid.). And if this is true of an inept legal decision, which usually only has consequences for the moment and only happens periodically and with relatively few people, all the more so in the case of a teacher who instructs numerous students every day, especially as the students then absorb the erroneous material for good. Of him it is most certainly said “she has felled many dead.”And there is nothing objectionable about phrasing their teaching as “train many students,” with no added specifications of quality about student or teacher, for this and cases like this are an example of the verse: <i>Straight are the ways of G-d; the righteous walk in them and sinners stumble over them </i>(Hosea 14:10).28<i class="footnote">I.e., righteous people will understand on their own that the teacher and student must possess certain requisite qualities.</i>What Rav writes, that the teacher must teach without charge, is clear from Nedarim, 4:3. And although it is evident from that very mishna that one may, in fact, charge for teaching just Bible verses,29<i class="footnote">See the Rav ad loc., s.v. <i>But not</i>.</i> the tanna was mainly enjoining one to get a teacher of Mishna and Talmud for himself, because while it is good to learn Bible verses, it is not always the most commendable thing, as the Talmud says in Bava Metzia, 33a.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  DISTANCE YOURSELF [Heb. <i>harchek</i>] FROM A BAD [Heb. <i>ra</i>] NEIGHBOR, AND DO NOT KEEP COMPANY [Heb. <i>titchaber</i>] WITH A WICKED PERSON [Heb. <i>rasha</i>]. The mishna says to “distance yourself” from a bad neighbor because a neighbor lives close by, whereas one need not distance oneself from an evil person who is not a neighbor, as it is sufficient not to keep his company.The mishna uses <i>ra</i>, “bad”, to describe the neighbour, whereas the one who is not a neighbor is called <i>rasha</i>, “wicked”, even though both of them are <i>resha`im</i>, because having a <i>rasha</i> as a neighbor brings a person much <i>ra`ah</i>, harm, and his presence does great damage, but a <i>rasha</i> who does not live close by, though he be wicked in the eyes of Heaven, might cause no harm to a person unless he keeps his company—so Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan the Pious.He also writes that R. Yehuda Lerma asks why the mishna uses the verb <i>harchek</i>, which is in binyan hif`il,30<i class="footnote">A verb form in Hebrew, usually with the causative sense. If it is causitive here it is a transitive verb meaning “to distance another.”</i> and not <i>hitrachek</i>, which is in binyan hitpa``el,31<i class="footnote">A verb form in Hebrew, usually with the reflexive sense. It would mean “to distance oneself,” and would seem to be more appropriate here.</i> and answers that should someone new come to the neighborhood and make his residence near that bad neighbor whom he doesn’t know, one ought to distance and warn the newcomer about his neighbor.I feel that the tanna uses both the verbs <i>harchek</i> and <i>titchaber</i> the way they are used in the Bible. For while <i>hitrachek</i>, which is in hitpa``el, never appears in the Bible, <i>harchek</i> in hif`il appears in “Keep your path distant [Heb. <i>harchek</i>] from her” (Proverbs 5:8). <i>Hitchaber</i>, in hitpa``el, appears in “On account of your joining [Heb. <i>behitchabercha</i>] with Ahaziahu, G-d will destoy what you have made” (2 Chronicles 20:37). Echoing this verse, the tanna then concludes <i>and don’t despair, because punishment will come.</i>32<i class="footnote">The verse in Chronicles reads in full: <i>Eliezer son of Dodavahu of Mareshah prophesied against Jehoshaphat, saying, “On account of your joining with Ahaziah, G-d will destroy what you have made.” The ships were wrecked and were not able to set sail to trade.</i> The tanna puts together the two parts of the mishna on the basis of the verse: do not join with an evil person (“on account of your joining…”), and don’t despair, because punishment will come (“the ships were wrecked…”) It is possible that the author is understanding the mishna as saying: do not join with an evil person, and, should you do so, don’t despair—i.e., you won’t have to wait long—because punishment will come. In this case, the parallel to the verse in Chronicles is exact.</i>
  AND DON’T DESPAIR [Heb. <i>titya’esh</i>], BECAUSE PUNISHMENT WILL COME. The mishna does not say that one should worry about being punished, for it is a shameful thing for one to worry about being punished. Rather, he should not despair of punishment33<i class="footnote">I.e. one should not think it won’t come.</i> as Haman did, who relied on his great wealth, and whose great successes were, in the blink of an eye, entirely overturned. This is what the word <i>titya’esh</i> means—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  DO NOT ACT [lit. “make yourself”] LIKE `<i>ORCHEI DAYANIM</i>. Rav: <i>like those people who put together and present the arguments of the litigants before the judges, as one is forbidden to offer legal advice of the type “do such-and-such in order to secure the judgment.” </i>It seems from the beginning of his comment that he understands `<i>orchei dayanim</i> as themseles presenting these arguments before the judges, and this is indeed how Rashi explains a passage in Sotah 47b, commenting on the term “whisperers of whispers”: <i>they whisper back and forth with the judges, finding them a legal opening to rule in favor of one party and against another</i>. And so Rashi on page Ketubot 52b (s.v. <i>Ke`orchei hadayanim</i>).But from the end of Rav’s comment it is clear that even at the beginning, where he writes “who put together and present the arguments of the litigants before the judges,” he does not mean that they themselves argue these points before the judges, but that in revealing these arguments to the litigant and saying “do such-and-such” it is as though they themselves were arguing before the judges. And this is how Rashi explains it in his commentary here and on Shabbat 139a (s.v. <i>‘Orchei hadayanim</i>).Now Rambam writes: <i>“`Orchei hadayanim”—these are individuals who study legal arguments so that people should be familiar with them. They write textbooks in question-and-answer format: “When the judge says such-and-such, answer such and such,” and “when the opposing party says such-and-such, your answer should be such-and-such,” as if the litigants are before them and they are presenting </i>[Heb. <i>`orchei</i>] <i>the arguments. This is why they are called </i>`orchei hadayanim<i>, for it is as if they have presented </i>[Heb. <i>`archu</i>]<i> the arguments before them</i>. According to this reading, the word <i>`orchei</i>, “those who present,” has a hidden object, for it really means “those who present arguments before the judges.”34<i class="footnote">Some clarification is in order. The phrase <i>`orchei hadayanim</i> is in what is known as the construct state, a feature of Hebrew grammar in which two words <i>x y</i> are read as “the x of y.” Accordingly, <i>`orchei hadayanim</i> should be read as “the `<i>orchim</i> (non-construct plural of the singular `<i>orech</i>) of the <i>dayanim</i>.” Two interpretive questions present themselves: how to understand <i>`orchim</i>, and how to understand the sense in which these <i>`orchim</i> are “of” the <i>dayanim</i>. Rashi in the first approach quoted by the author understands <i>`orchim</i> as a noun meaning “laywers,” more or less, and they are “of” the <i>dayanim</i>, judges, in the sense that they stand before them. The phrase then reads “lawyers arguing before judges.” Rashi and Rav in the second approach quoted by the author differ from the first approach only in that they do not see the <i>`orchei hadayanim</i> as actually present in the courtroom. In what sense, then, are they “of the judges?” To answer this, the author explains that it is as if they have actually presented the arguments before the judges, and for this reason they are called “lawyers arguing before the judges.” Rambam quoted in the third approach sees <i>`orchei</i> as a participle meaning “presenting.” The Hebrew verb here is strictly transitive and as such the participle requires an object, which the Rambam explains as “legal arguments.” The author notes that this object must be supplied by the reader and is therefore a “hidden object,” i.e. not present in the actual phrase <i>`orchei hadayanim</i>, which is now read as “[those who are] presenting (the arguments) before the judges.” </i>Lev Avot writes that he heard the following explanation: it is as if he has arranged [Heb. <i>`arach</i>] the judges themselves, for when the judges rule in one party’s favor it is because he has presented that party’s arguments, in which sense he has set up [Heb. <i>`arach</i>] the judges to issue this ruling.35<i class="footnote">I have been translating the verb <i>`arach</i> thusfar as “present.” Although it has the literal meaning “to arrange,” the equivalent English idiom has the lawyers “presenting arguments” rather than “arranging arguments.” The approach of Lev Avot takes the construct <i>`orchei hadayanim</i> to mean “those who arrange the judges” (see above note) or, in more idiomatic English, those who “set up” the judges.</i>Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Matityah HaYitzhari: <i>the mishna is certainly not discussing one who aids the litigant in presenting deceitful arguments, for such a one is a completely evil person. Rather, it refers even to presenting true arguments that will change the course of the proceedings, as per the passage in Ketubot 52b concerning the law of indefinite medical expenses, which are considered “sustenance” and are paid from the estate of the husband. Rabbi Yochanan advised the heirs to pay a fixed sum to a doctor, making them definite medical expenses.</i>36<i class="footnote">By Jewish law, before marriage the husband signs a kind of pre-nuptial agreement called a <i>ketubah</i>, which specifies the husband’s obligations to the wife both during marriage and in case of divorce or death. The law dictates that a widow be allowed to choose between collecting the sum specified in her <i>ketubah</i> or receiving basic sustenance from the heirs, which she can do indefinitely until she chooses to collect the <i>ketubah</i>. Some needs, however, are not considered “sustenance” and are deducted from the sum of the <i>ketubah</i>. The question in Ketubot revolves around medical treatment. There, it is the opinion of R. Shimon ben Gamliel that indefinite medical treatment (i.e. for a chronic illness) is considered “sustenance” and must be paid out of the husband’s estate without being deducted from the sum of the <i>ketubah</i>, while definite medical treatment is not considered “sustenance” and is deducted from the sum in the <i>ketubah</i>. Some relatives of Rabbi Yochanan asked for advice concerning a case of indefinite medical treatment. He advised them to find a doctor who would be willing to care for the widow indefinitely for a fixed sum, making the treatment legally definite and therefore deductable from the sum of the <i>ketubah</i>. Rabbi Yochanan afterwards declared that he had erroneously acted like the <i>`orchei hadayanim</i>, in violation of our mishna. </i> Using this commentary, I have arrived at an understanding of what Rav meant when he wrote that the <i>`orchei dayanim</i> offer advice of the type “do such-and-such”. For had he meant, as Rambam means, that they instruct a person in which arguments to put forth, he ought to have written that they advise the person to “argue such-and-such”. I think, rather, that according to Rav, the prohibition is to advise him to act in some way, as in the case of Rabbi Yochanan and the widow, and the case of Rav Nachman, who advised a woman to forgo her <i>ketubah </i>in Ketubot 86a. Rav might agree, however, that one need not be overly pious and avoid even instruction in wording and presenting arguments. Of course, Rambam forbids even wording and presenting arguments.Midrash Shmuel quoting Rabbenu Yonah: <i>the mishna is not discussing a case of teaching one to use false arguments, for one who would do so is completely evil and this thing is a great sin, and our tractate is devoted to people interested in matters of piety. It is rather discussing a case of improving the strength and order of arguments that the litigant is already planning on using, going through how they will be received in court and showing him the anticipated outcome. The mishna says one should not do this because it will arouse suspicion.</i>One thing, at least, is clear according to all the commentaries, and that is the reason for the mishna’s use of the word “like” in “do not act like<i> `orchei dayanim</i>”. Had the mishna simply said “do not be <i>`orchei dayanim</i>” it would have sounded like it is actually forbidden to be an <i>`orech dayanim</i>, and it is not.37<i class="footnote">Rather, it does not befit a pious person to act like they do.</i>I also think that the wording <i>al ta`as atzmecha</i>, literally “do not make yourself,”38<i class="footnote">Which we have rendered idiomatically as “do not act like.”</i> as opposed to simply <i>lo tihyeh</i>, “do not be,” is meant to reflect the point made in the abovementioned case of Rabbi Yochanan. There, the Talmud says that he offered his advice because it was his relative that consulted him, and he felt this was a case of “do not turn away from your own flesh and blood” (Isaiah 58:7). He afterwards regretted it and said “we have made ourselves like the <i>`orchei dayanim</i>” because he held that prominent rabbinic figures should not do so. The implication is that were he not a prominent rabbinic figure, he would’ve been correct in doing what he did on account of “do not turn away from your own flesh and blood.” The language of our mishna, “do not make yourself,” is making this point: because of “yourself,” i.e. because you are a prominent rabbinic figure, do not make yourself into an <i>`orech dayanim</i>; otherwise, one may do so. If this is the issue, then it follows that anyone who is not a prominent rabbinic figure may do so even for someone who isn’t a relative, and Rabbi Yochanan only quoted the verse “do not turn away from your own flesh and blood” because otherwise he simply would’ve had no reason to help one party over another, as “who can say whose blood is redder.”39<i class="footnote">A play on a Talmudic phrase in Sanhedrin 74a.</i>To sum up, the tanna’s injunction only concerns a prominent rabinic figure, for which reason he used the language “do not make yourself.” One who is not a prominent rabbinic figure need not avoid this even as a matter of piousness, as he is not giving instruction in how to present false arguments. What we learn from the incident with Rabbi Yochanan, who had to quote the verse “do not turn away from your own flesh and blood,” is that otherwise he wouldn’t have gotten involved, not as a matter of piousness but because he had no reason to act to the benefit of one party and loss of another; whereas for a relative, as long as one is not a prominent rabbinic figure, one should act in order to uphold the verse “do not turn away from your own flesh and blood.”Rashi, however, writes ad loc.: <i>a prominent rabbinic figure is different, because people will learn from his actions and some of them will do this even for non-relatives</i>. If so, the injunction of our mishna would apply to any case involving non-relatives.
  YOU SHOULD IMAGINE THEM TO BE WICKED. But do not imagine the two of them to be righteous people, because then you will not thoroughly examine their claims and will charitably interpret everything they say without investigating the case in depth. When one imagines them both to be wicked, one thoroughly examines each one’s claims and considers possible avenues of deception, thereby getting to the truth of the matter.Another possible interpretation. One of the parties has certainly acted unlawfully, and the Talmud considers the other party similarly implicated, as per the passage discussing oaths in court (Shavuot 39a): <i>those standing there then say to one another, “Step away from the tents of these evil men!” </i>(Numbers 16:26), and there also (ibid. 39b): <i>“The oath of G-d will be taken between them”</i> (Exodus 20:10)<i>, this teaches that the oath falls on both of them</i>, i.e., even the party in the right, all because he is involved in a case with the criminal party. They are thus both called “wicked.” When they accept the court’s ruling, however, they are both called “righteous,” because accepting a ruling after their quarrel with one another is an act of righteousness on their part—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.
  ONCE THEY HAVE ACCEPTED THE RULING. Rav: <i>you should not look at the guilty party and suspect him of being a thief; rather say that perhaps he was in error and did not intentionally steal. </i>It was necessary to point this out. Since there are valid grounds to suspect him of this, one might have thought to exclude him from the dictum “judge every man favorably” (Avot 1:6).
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  AND BE CAREFUL WITH YOUR WORDS, THAT THEY DON’T DISCERN HOW BEST TO LIE THEREFROM. Rav writes, in explaining “they”: <i>the litigants or the witnesses</i>. Although the beginning of the mishna only mentions witnesses, the idea is that they should not discern how best to lie, and that would apply equally to witnesses or litigants. Also, “be careful, etc. ” is an independent sentence unconnected to the beginning of the mishna, and as such the “they” in “that they don’t discern how best to lie” applies to anyone who can so discern, whether witness or litigant.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  SHEMAYA AND AVTALION. Rav writes that they were converts. So also Rambam in the introduction to his Mishneh Torah. Both make it sound like Shemaya and Avtalion were themselves converts, and this cannot be, as they were the <i>nasi </i>and <i>av beit din</i>, as Rav writes on mishna 4; a convert cannot adjudicate capital cases, as Rav writes in Sanhedrin 4:2, and certainly cannot be an <i>av beit din, </i>per the mishna in Horayot 1:4.Maharal writes in <i>Derech Chaim</i>: <i>It is said that Shemaya and Avtalion were descended from converts, and this can be proven from the Talmud in Gittin 57b and Yoma 71b. But they themselves cannot have been converts, for then how could they have been appointed </i>nasi <i>and </i>av beit din? <i>Rather, they descended from converts, but their mothers were certainly Jewish and they were therefore legitimate candidates for </i>nasi <i>and </i>av beit din<i>. But there are those who say that they themselves were converts, which is completely mistaken</i>.
  LOVE LABOR. Rav: <i>even if he has a living, he must engage in some kind of labor</i>. In such a case, one works not for the pay but for love of labor itself, which fits the mishna’s choice of words: “love labor” as opposed to “do labor.”Rav: <i>because idleness leads to listlessness</i>, which is per the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel in the mishna in Ketubot 5:5 concerning a wife who does not need to work. I find this odd, because the law follows Rabbi Eliezer there, who says that idleness leads to impropriety. A point of difference between the two opinions would be the case of a woman who entertains herself all day, which does not lead to listlessness but can still lead to impropriety, as Rav explains there in Ketubot.It is possible that Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is restricted to the case of a wife, for women are easily seduced. We do find in Avot 2:7 that keeping many maidservants is said to lead to impropriety, whereas keeping many servants is said to lead to theft.
  AND DESPISE POSITIONS OF POWER. Rav writes in his second interpretation that positions of power bury those who occupy them. This is per the passage in Sotah 13b: <i>why did Joseph die before his brothers? Because he occupied a position of power</i>—Rashi. [He should distance himsef out of contempt for it, which is the opposite of loving labor, as Tosafot Yom Tov explained.40<i class="footnote">This comment was inserted by the printers of the Vilna edition of the Mishna.</i>]
  AND DO NOT GET CLOSE TO THE AUTHORITIES. Rav: <i>in order to use them to get a powerful position</i>. Rashi adds: <i>because they only bring a person close for their own purposes</i>. If so, this is the same as the mishna in 3:1 later.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  SAGES, BE CAREFUL WITH YOUR WORDS. The mishna does not restrict its warning to the sages because other people are not included in it, but because if one of the sages says something ambiguous, those who listen will draw erronous conclusions, whereas nobody listens to the words of a commoner; the mishna therefore emphasizes the sages—Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan the Pious.
  TO A PLACE OF BAD WATER. Rav: <i>where they offer skewed interpretations of the Torah, and these are a euphemism for bad water</i>. The sentence is out of order: it is the bad water which is a euphemism for skewed interpretations of Torah. Rambam writes that “bad water” is a euphemism for heresy.
  AND THE STUDENTS THAT COME AFTER YOU WILL DRINK OF THEM. Rav: <i>as happened to Antigonos of Socho with Tzadok and Baitos his students. He said to them, “be not like servants serving the master for pay.” They said, Can it be that a worker labors and exerts himself all day and receives no pay towards evening? They, along with their followers, became heretics, and their sects are called Tzedukim and Baitusim till this very day.</i> He writes in his commentary to the mishna in Yadaim, 4:6, along the same lines: <i>groups of Jews then joined them, </i>etc.This is not quite what the tanna had in mind, as he is discussing only the scholars that will come after these sages.41<i class="footnote">And not their own students. The upshot is that the sages should take care that their words be clear enough to be properly understood by a generation of scholars that have no personal contact with them. A teaching that is not phrased clearly, even if it can be properly explained by the sage himself to his own students, is dangerous when presented without the opportunity for this clarification.</i> I found that Rashbam writes in his commentary to Bava Batra 115b, in the name of the Avot deRabbi Natan, that the incident of Tzadok and Baitos was that they would teach their own students the words of Antigonos, “be not like servants serving the master for pay,” and the students erred. I saw the same in Avot deRabbi Natan, 5:2.
  
  Mishnah 12
  
  CHASING AFTER PEACE. As the verse says, “Seek out peace and chase after it” (Psalms 34:15).
  LOVING [THE PEOPLE,] HIS CREATIONS. Because they are creations of the Holy One, you should love them; further, the love should be for this reason, and not for other reasons, such as the use you might derive from them. Midrash Shmuel explains similarly.
  AND DRAWING THEM CLOSE TO TORAH. Rav: <i>when Aaron knew that someone had sinned, he would keep company with him, etc.</i> There might be a difficulty here, as this seems to oppose the words of Nitai the Arbelite, who said “do not keep the company of a wicked person” (Avot 1:7). I saw in Avot deRabbi Natan, 12:3: <i>what is the meaning of “He has brought many back from sin” </i>(Malachi 2:6)<i>? When Aaron would walk down the road and meet a wicked person he would greet him. The next day, that wicked person would desire to do some sin and say, Woe is me! How shall I raise up my eyes afterwards and see Aaron? I feel such shame; he even greeted me! And that person would end up desisting from sin.</i> So also Rambam: <i>he would begin greeting him, become friendly with him, and speak with him more often. The man would be ashamed of himself, </i>etc.42<i class="footnote">Thus, Aaron did not keep their company; he merely greeted them and was friendly.</i>
  
  Mishnah 13
  
  THE NAME THAT SPREADS [Aram. <i>n’gad sh’ma</i>] IS THE NAME THAT PERISHES [Aram. <i>avad sh’meh</i>]. Rav: <i>the name that spreads far on account of power and position will soon perish, for power buries its own.</i> Maharal points out in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that the the mishna first uses the word <i>sh’ma</i>, “the name,” and then the words <i>sh’meh</i>, “his/its name” and explains the mishna as follows: <i>n’gad shma</i>—the word used for a position of power in Aramaic is <i>n’gad</i>, which denotes spreading and continuity. But the word for a position of power really ought to be <i>avad</i>, “perishes,” as the name of the person in power perishes, because “power buries its own.”43<i class="footnote">Accordingly, the mishna should be read as “the word <i>n’gad</i>, its proper name is <i>avad</i>.”</i> Although there are editions that read <i>n’gad sh’ma avad sh’ma</i>, both with an <i>alef</i>.44<i class="footnote"><i> Sh’ma</i> is spelled with an <i>alef</i> at the end, whereas <i>sh’meh</i> is spelled with a <i>yud hey</i>.</i>Midrash Shmuel: <i>“n’gad sh’ma”—one who attempts to spread out his name to get fame for himself as one of the greats, “avad sh’meh” loses whatever name he had previously and ends up bereft of both.</i> In the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan the Pious he writes that the correct text is <i>shin mem alef</i>, i.e. <i>sh’ma</i>.See my comments on 5:22 for why this mishna uses Aramaic.
  AND HE WHO DOES NOT ADD, SHALL MEET HIS END. Kesef Mishneh explains in his commentary to Rambam’s Mishne Torah, Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:10, that this phrase should be read as a development of the previous phrase, which he understands as <i>n’gad sh’ma</i>—one who studies Torah in order to spread his name, <i>avad sh’meh</i>—his name shall perish. One might then say, I will no longer study, because perhaps my study will be for the sake of fame and then my name will perish! To counter that, the mishna says “and he who does not add, will met his end.” Now certainly the worst case is that of one who has previously studied Torah and then quits his studies. Addressing one who has not previously studied and decides that he will not study, the mishna says “and he who does not learn, deserves death,” because “deserves death” is not as severe as “will meet his end.” For though he deserves death, perhaps he has some merit that will protect him. [*This runs counter to Rav, who says that one who has not studied at all is worse than one who no longer studies.]
  AND HE WHO MAKES USE OF THE CROWN. Rav explains this as the crown of Torah. The mishna says simply “crown,” without qualifying it as the crown of Torah, because “crown” by default refers to the crown of Torah, as all other crowns are worthless—Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan.
  
  Mishnah 14
  
  
  
  Mishnah 15
  
  [*KEEP YOUR TORAH FIXED. Rav: <i>do not rule stringently for yourself and leniently for others or stringently for others and leniently for yourself</i>. This runs counter to the opinion of the house of Rabban Gamliel, who were descendants of Hillel, as will be made clear later on. They used to rule stringently for themelves and leniently for others, as in the mishna in Beitzah, 2:6 and in Eduyot 10:3.]
  AND GREET. See Rav’s commentary to 3:12 and my commentary there.
  
  Mishnah 16
  
  RABBAN GAMLIEL SAID. He was the grandson of Hillel, as the Talmud says in Shabbat 15a: <i>Hillel, Simon, Gamliel, and Simon were the </i>nesi’im <i>for the last hundred years that the second temple stood</i>. The commentators explain that the reason the mishna no longer introduces each tanna with the phrase “he received the tradition from so-and-so” is that starting from the students of Hillel and Shammai, numerous unresolved legal disputes arose in Israel, and the Torah became as two Torahs. It is therefore no longer possible to say they “received” the Torah, because the Torah of each sage could no longer be said to have been definite, received and transmitted as was the Torah of the earlier sages.But I feel that for this reason alone the tanna would not have rejected the term “received,” for they did indeed receive the main foundations of Torah, where there was no disagreement whatsoever, as Rambam writes at length in the introduction to his commentary on the Mishna. And in point of fact the question is moot, because in 2:8 the mishna says “Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai received the tradition from Hillel and Shammai.”
  AND DO NOT FREQUENTLY TAKE OFF <i>MA`ASER </i>BY ESTIMATE. Rav writes: <i>because when one takes off </i>ma`aser<i> by estimating, he cannot escape wrongdoing. If he takes off less than he should, then his </i>ma`aser<i> is valid but the rest of the produce is unfit, and if he takes off more than he should, the rest of his produce is fine but the </i>ma`aser<i> is unfit.</i> Rambam explains in Hilchot Ma`aser 1:14 that the <i>ma`aser</i> is unfit because it is mixed with <i>tevel</i>. So also Rashi in his commentary to the second chapter of tractate Kiddushin, on page 51a (s.v. <i>hamarbeh</i>). And in his commentary to the fourth chapter of tractate Eruvin, on page 50a (s.v. <i>perotav</i>), he adds “unlike <i>terumah</i>, which has no set amount.” See also Rav's commentary to the mishna in Terumot 4:6.Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan the Pious: <i>it seems odd that the mishna does not simply say “do not take off </i>ma`aser<i> by estimate” and entirely forbid taking of ma`aser without a proper measure. I say, then, that the mishna means that even one who wishes to take off more than the required amount shouldn’t do so because he might err in his estimate.</i>45<i class="footnote">Midrash Shmuel (and Tosafot mentioned after) will then read the verb in the mishna, <i>al tarbeh</i>, as “do not take off more,” as opposed to “do not frequently take off,” which has been the meaning assumed until this point.</i> And Tosafot in their commentary to Gittin 31a (s.v. <i>nitelet</i>) conclude that the mishna only forbids intentionally taking off more than the required amount, based on the mishna in Terumot 4:6: <i>he who takes off by weight is more praiseworthy than the three of them</i>, which implies that there are three legitimate ways to take off <i>ma`aser</i>, one of which must be by estimate.46<i class="footnote">The mishna there only lists two other ways: by count and by measure. Tosafot conclude that there must be a third way that was not mentioned, which they say is by estimate.</i> So also Rav in his commentary there: <i>we see that even the Sages did not forbid taking off by estimate when one doesn’t intentionally take off more.</i> But according to Rambam, as I mentioned earlier, it would be forbidden even without this intention, and Rash in his commentary on Terumot agrees.The Maharal in his <i>Derech Chaim</i> explains the mishna as following the opinion of Abba Eliezer ben Gomel, who holds that even <i>terumat ma`aser</i>, which has a set amount, may be taken off by estimate; he would certainly say the same about <i>ma`aser</i> [and the Talmud in fact says as much in Bechorot 59a, as Rav notes in his commentary to Bechorot 9:7]. For this reason the mishna says “do not frequently etc.”, which is to say even though the Torah allows taking off <i>ma`aser</i> by estimate, do not do so often, in order to save yourself from doubt. And the word <i>ma`asarot </i>in the mishna does not exclude <i>terumat ma`aser</i>, because <i>ma`asarot</i> here is a general name for all types of priestly gifts taken from the produce of the earth, as I have shown from the Jerusalem Talmud in my commentary to Ma`asarot 2:4. See also my comments on Demai 4:1.But I see that Rash writes in his commentary to Terumot 1:7 that it seems that Abba Eliezer ben Gomel does not hold of the injunction “do not often take off <i>ma`aser</i> by estimate,” and this is the opinion of Tosafot on the abovementoined passages in Gittin and Bechorot.
  
  Mishnah 17
  
  SHIMON, HIS SON. He was one of those martyred by Rome. The Talmud says in Keritot 8a: <i>Once, the price of a pair of birds brought as sacrifices went up to a gold </i>dinar <i>in Jerusalem. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, “By this dwelling! I will not go to sleep for the night until the price is in silver </i>dinars!<i>”</i> The Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel of the passage in Keritot cannot be the one mentioned at the end of this chapter in mishna 18, because that one did not live when the temple stood, and the chain of <i>nesi’im</i> in the first chapter of Shabbat47<i class="footnote">See the beginning of the commentary to mishna 16.</i> ends at the second Shimon48<i class="footnote">The chain there is Hillel, Hillel’s son Shimon, Shimon’s son Gamliel, Gamliel’s son Shimon. Mishna 16 started with Gamliel, Hillel’s grandson; Hillel’s son, Shimon, evidently receives no mention in Pirkei Avot. Mishna 17, which continues in chronological order, must then be referring to Gamliel’s son Shimon, who was the second Shimon mentioned in the chain of <i>nesi’im</i> who lived while the second temple stood. Mishna 18, which mentions a different Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, must thus be referring to a third Shimon, who was presumably the second Shimon’s grandson, and cannot have been <i>nasi</i> when the temple stood. As such, he cannot be identified with the Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the first chapter of Keritot, because it is evident from the incident quoted there that the Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel of Keritot indeed lived when the temple stood. The Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel of Keritot must then have been the second Shimon in the chain mentioned in Shabbat 15a, who is the Shimon of our mishna. </i>. He must therefore be the Shimon of our mishna.49<i class="footnote">Tosafot Yom Tov now answers the implied question: why, then, does the mishna here refer to him simply as Shimon while the Talmud in Keritot calls him Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?</i> Perhaps he promulgated this dictum before he rose to such prominence as to be called Rabban,50<i class="footnote">“Our master,” reserved for the greatest scholars.</i> as in the case of “ben Zakkai” in the mishna in Sanhedrin 5:2.51<i class="footnote">The Talmud there, Sanhedrin 41a-b, notes that “ben Zakkai” is none other than Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, who authored the teaching in question in his younger years, when he was still a student known as “ben Zakkai.” The text of the teaching entered the tradition immediately and its form remained unchanged, hence the name “ben Zakkai.”</i> Although I saw a different explanation in the book <i>Asarah Ma`amarot</i>, I have written what seems best to me.
  BETTER THAN SILENCE. This is the version quoted in Midrash Shmuel. He quotes an alternate version, “I have found nothing good for the body other than silence.” So also Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.
  NOT STUDY. Rav: <i>as a proof that the best thing for the body is silence, note that even expounding and speaking of Torah, which is the best type of speech, is not the main source of reward—action is. </i>For if this phrase were not being brought as a proof to the earlier phrase, it would have been better to place “and whoever speaks much etc.” immediately after “I have not found anything better for the body than silence,” as the former naturally leads in to the latter.
  
  Mishnah 18
  
  RABBAN SHIMON BEN GAMLIEL. He was the grandson of the Shimon mentioned in the previous mishna, and the father of Rabbi52<i class="footnote">Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi.</i>, also known as Rabbenu HaKadosh, in the first mishna of the second chapter.
  THE WORLD STANDS. Rav: <i>human civilization continues to exist</i>. With this Rav anticipates the question one might raise from mishna 2, which mentions three other things upon which the world stands. Now although Rav there says that the three things in mishna 2 are the ones for whose sake the world was created, and one might attempt distinguish between the things necessary for creation to have occurred, and the things that that keep the world in existence after the fact, the distinction is illusory. For whatever is important enough for the world to have been created ex nihilo is <i>a fortiori</i> important enough for its continued existence. Rav therefore writes on our mishna that these things are necessary for maintaining civlization, not the continued existence of the world. Torah, the sacrificial worship, and acts of kindness can be done by small numbers of people even in the absence of a proper civilization due to a lack of law, truth, and peace. For the remaining few precious to G-d are sufficient for the three pillars mentioned by Shimon the Righteous in mishna 2. You should not find this strange, as the Talmud says (Berachot 17b): <i>the world was only created for Chanina my son</i>, and (Berachot 6a): <i>the world was only created to keep this one company</i>, in expounding the verse “for this is the entirety of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13). See my commentary to the end of the mishna in Sotah 3:4.
  THE WORLD STANDS. An alternate version, which Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i> considers the correct one, reads “continues to exist.”
  AS PER THE VERSE, “RULE WITH TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND PEACE IN YOUR GATES.” Zecharia, 8:16. The verse immediately preceding this is, “Just as I planned to bring evil upon you… so have I gone and planned in these days to do good unto Jerusalem and the House of Judah. Fear not! These are the things that you should do…”53<i class="footnote">The implication is that these are the things that you should do to receive G-d’s promise of good, i.e. peace and prosperity, the fruits of well-functioning civilization.</i>Rashi here writes: “Rule in your gates” is adjacent to “perhaps the Lord of Hosts will act towards us with grace.” So also Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rashbam. But these two verses are nowhere near one another, for “perhaps…” is in Amos 5:16: “Despise evil and love good, and establish justice at the gate, perhaps…”Rashi also mentions that he saw a Tiberian edition of the Mishna in which no verse appears in our mishna.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  WHICH IS THE STRAIGHT PATH A PERSON SHOULD CHOOSE FOR HIMSELF… BE AS CAREFUL… When the mishna mentions the “straight path a person should choose for himself”, it is discussing something optional and giving good advice, not explaining what the law obligaties one to do. “Be as careful…”, on the other hand, obligates a person to be equally careful with all the comandments. The mishna therefore begins in the third person, using the language of suggestion, and then moves to the second person, using the language of command—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>. See my commentary to mishna 9.<i>Derech</i> here is treated as a feminine noun. For a discussion of this, see Kiddushin 2a-b.
  BE AS CAREFUL WITH A LIGHT COMMANDMENT AS WITH A WEIGHTY ONE. Regarding the care that one should have in performing the commandments, the mishna says that one should be as eager and ready to perform a light commandment as a weighty one, because “one does not know the rewards for the commandments.” The mishna does not mean, however, that when one is forced to choose between a light commandment and a weighty one, he ought to choose the light one, as that is illogical. It is only discussing the care one should take in performing each of the commandments on its own. So Abarbanel and Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.
  FOR YOU DO NOT KNOW THE REWARD FOR EACH COMMANDMENT. Rav: <i>neither the reward for performing a positive commandment nor the punishment for not doing so are given in the Torah.</i> Rambam: <i>the Torah does not clarify the reward G-d gives for all of the positive commandments</i>. Rambam’s explanation avoids the problem of the verses “so that your days may be numerous” (Deutereonomy 11:21) and “so that your days be long” (Exodus 20:11).54<i class="footnote">Because he writes “all.” There are exceptional cases that do specify the reward.</i>But Maharal writes in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that when our mishna says “you do not know the reward” it means that the reward varies with the alacrity, the effort expended, and the cost (which is included in effort) of performing the commandment. This is what is unknown, because the reward is proportional to the difficulty. But as for the type of reward for the commandment itself, that can be known, as the verse concerning sending the mother away from the eggs says, “So that it go well for you” (Deuteronomy 22:7). Maharal supports this contention using the mishna in Chullin 12:5, which is speaking about the sending the mother away from the eggs: <i>and if, concerning a light commandment, the Torah says “so that it go well for you and you have length of days,” this is certainly so for a weighty commandment!</i> How can the mishna reason from the case of the light commandment ot that of the weighty commandment, if rewards for commandments cannot be known altogether? Rather, it must be that the unknown here is only the reward for the effort and cost involved. But as for the reward for the commandment itself, the mishna concludes “this is certainly so for a weighty commandment.”He further writes that the mishna at the beginning of Peah (1:1) which says “these are the commandments whose interest one consumes in this world, while the principal is stored away for the next: honoring one’s mother and father, etc.” is discussing the type of reward, but not its extent.55<i class="footnote">I.e., these are not the commandments whose reward is so great that some of it must be dealt out in this world, as opposed to other commandments that carry less reward, which is entirely distributed in the next world.</i> That is, these are the commandments for which the reward must be received in two stages, in this world and in the next. But it is entirely possible that the reward for some other commandment in the next world is greater than the combined interest and the principal of the ones in this list, for “one moment of pleasure in the next world is greater than an entire life of it in this one” (Avot 4:17). And the end of that mishna, which says “and Torah study is greater than them all,” has nothing to do with our present discussion, which deals only with comparing two commandments, but not with comparing a commandment to Torah study; for the reward for Torah study is obviously much greater.
  THEIR REWARD56<i class="footnote">We have translated the Hebrew <i>sachar</i> as “reward” in the text of the mishna. Throughout the text of the commentary, and in other mishnayot, we found different renderings more appropriate.</i> [Heb. <i>matan sachar</i> lit. “the gift of their reward”]. G-d will reward you for your deeds.57<i class="footnote">A play on Isaiah 40:10, which will be quoted further on.</i> You will often find that someone who serves an earthly king for some fixed wages will receive a much greater payment from the king than had been agreed upon if the king is especially pleased with his work (or for some other reason). Such payment is not, strictly speaking, a wage [Heb. <i>sachar</i>], because it is not the market value of such work. It would be more correct to refer to it as gift-wages, because a large part of it is a gift, but it is not entirely a gift, because some of it really is the earned wages. “The heavenly kingdom parallels the earthly one,” and these gift-wages are what is meant by <i>matan sachar</i>. For G-d will increase the gift given to a person with the pleasure He receives from his performance of the commandment.This, in fact, is the meaning of the verse, “Behold! His58<i class="footnote">The antecedent of “his” in each case is a person.</i> wages are with Him, and his deed is before Him” (Isaiah 40:10). The word “behold” indicates something clear and known, as the wages are certainly with Him. In addition, “his deed is before Him,” for the actual deed is certainly before Him, and for that he will receive reward many times over, as above. So it seems to me.
  AND CONSIDER THE LOSS INCURRED IN PERFORMING A COMMANDMENT AGAINST ITS REWARD. For although the amount of the reward is unknown, we do know that “there is no reward for a commandment in this world,” that the true reward is in the world to come, and there is no comparison between it and whatever material pleasure one has foregone. As per the midrashic interpretation59<i class="footnote">In Berachot 34b, the Talmud sees this verse as referring to the incomparable pleasures of the world to come.</i> of the verse “No eye has seen this” (Isaiah 64:3), and their dictum: <i>one moment of pleasure in the next world is greater than an entire life of it in this one</i> (Avot 4:17).And Rabbi certainly did not disagree with Antigonos of Socho’s teaching that one shouldn’t be like a servant serving G-d for pay. He meant, rather, that when you are accosted by the “vile one”—he who is called <i>satan</i> and the “evil inclination”—consider loss and reward in order to deflect him—Abarbanel and Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.Now according to my commentary on the mishna of Antigonos (Avot 1:3), where I write that Antigonos did not mean that those who serve in order to receive reward are not really servants of G-d, we can say that Rabbi’s approach is for the greater part of the people, and Antigonos’ is for the very few. If only the greater part were just as the few!60<i class="footnote">This is a pun in the Hebrew text; cf. the explanation of R. Yishma`el’s 13 rules in standard editions of the Sifra, s.v. <i>k’lal ufrat keitzad</i>.</i>
  AND KNOW. Because this “looking”61<i class="footnote">In the mishna: <i>histakel bishlosha devarim</i>. <i>Histakel</i> literally means “look” or “stare.”</i> is with the sight of the mind, not the sight of the senses, the mishna adds “and know.” Cf. 3:1.
  WHAT IS ABOVE YOU [Heb. <i>l’ma`alah mimcha</i>]. For if when the weaker man is atop the stronger one the stronger one fears him, all the more so when the stronger one is on top.62<i class="footnote">So when one imagines to oneself how G-d records his deeds, he will imagine G-d as being above him, and will thereby have an even greater fear of Him—not that G-d is actually above him in any way, as G-d is incorporeal.</i> And the “above you” instead of simply “above” indicates that He is immediately above you, per the verse “I always place G-d before me” (Psalms 16:8).
  AN EYE THAT SEES, AN EAR THAT HEARS, AND A BOOK IN WHICH ALL OF YOUR DEEDS ARE WRITTEN. Some things the eye sees, such as the deeds of the wicked, and some things the ear hears, as in the cursing of the profane, so the mishna says both <i>an eye that sees</i> and <i>an ear that hears</i>. And so that one shouldn’t think that anything which comes before His great throne is forgotten, the mishna says “and a book in which all of your deeds are written.” This “book” and “the book of rememberance” that the poet mentions in the liturgy for the Days of Awe63<i class="footnote">In the liturgical poem <i>Unetaneh Tokef</i>.</i> are one and the same. This usage also appears in the Torah: “from the book you have written” (Exodus 32:32), “I will erase him from my book” (Exodus 32:33).To prevent one from sinning, it would have sufficed for the mishna to instruct one to consider the fact that all of one’s deeds are written in a book, which would obviously only be for the purpose of doling out reward and punishment for those deeds. The previous phrase, that there is One who sees and hears, was put in because in its absence the following metaphor would be unclear to the listener. Maharal writes in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that the mishna uses the singular—“an eye that sees, an ear that hears”—to emphasize that G-d is not a man that he should have eyes of flesh and blood, G-d forbid.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  THE SON OF RABBI YEHUDA HANASSI. This is the tanna called simply “Rabbi” at the beginning of this chapter.
  THE STUDY OF TORAH WITH A TRADE [Heb. <i>talmud torah `im derech eretz</i>]. Maharal explains in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that the mishna uses the language <i>talmud torah `im derech eretz</i>, implying that trade comes first, because the learning of a trade usually chronologically precedes the study of Torah.64<i class="footnote">And not because it is primary in importance, as it’s placement before the word <i>`im</i> would seem to imply.</i> I found that Rash, in his commentary to the mishna in Taharot 4:7, compares this usage to <i>re’eh chaim `im isha</i>, “enjoy life with the wife that you love” (Ecclesiastes 9:9), in which “life” is certainly primary in importance—accordingly, “the study of Torah” in our phrase would be primary.
  AND ALL THOSE WHO DEAL WITH THE PEOPLE. According to Rav’s second explanation, in which “dealing with the people” means forcing them to perform some commandment, such as giving charity or redeeming captives, and that this should be done for the sake of heaven, the mishna reads as follows. “All those that deal with the people” should not worry that perhaps the people will be unable to shoulder this heavy burden, for “the merit of their ancestors aids them,” and this is on condition that they are only forcing the people to perform this commandment “for the sake of heaven,” and not for any other reason or personal benefit whatsoever.Alternatively, the phrase “for the merit of their ancestors aids them” can be read as explaining “and you, I consider you,” and the mishna reads as follows. Work with the people for the sake of heaven when you force them to give charity or redeem captives. “And as for you, I will consider you, etc.” now means to say: just as in the case of the people, who only give to charity because the merit of their ancestors aids them, the mishna still says that their righteousness in that they gave will stand them in good stead forever, so, too, in your case. Even though you yourselves did not give the money and merely forced the people to do so, I will consider it as if you had done it, just as the people are considered righteous despite the fact that it is the merit of their ancestors that aids them.According to this explanation, in which “the merit of their ancestors aids them” is referring to the people, and not their leaders, we can well understand the mishna’s switch to the second person, “and you…”, from the third person “all those…” with which it started, and which would also have been more concise, in that it could have left out the words “and you.” For had the mishna continued in the third person, the antecedent of the phrase “and I consider them” would have been understood to be “the people,” just as they are the antecedent of “their” and “them” in “the merit of their ancestors aids them.”According to Rav’s other explanation, in which “the merit of their ancestords aids them” refers to the leaders, we can explain the switch to the second person as Maharal does in <i>Derech Chaim</i>: had the mishna stayed in the third person, the phrase “I consider them” would have been understood as referring to the ancestors just mentioned.65<i class="footnote">I.e., the souls of the departed ancestors are rewarded for the commandments their children do.</i>
  I CONSIDER YOU. We find that the Sages use the first person even when speaking in the name of G-d, as in “and Akiva son of Yosef and I are guarantors in this.”66<i class="footnote">The full passage, quoted by Ibn Ezra in his commentary to Exodus 33:21, says, in the name of R. Yishma`el, that whoever knows the dimensions of the Creator is assured a place in the world to come, “and I and Akiva ben Yosef are guarantors in this.” The author assumes that the true guarantor is G-d, but R. Yishmael says “I” because he is the one relating this point, just as in our mishna.</i>Midrash Shmuel writes that the word “I” actually refers back to G-d, to whom the word “heaven” in the earlier phrase “for the sake of heaven” refers, but this is forced.
  MUCH REWARD. Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>: <i>in other versions</i>67<i class="footnote">Maharal there had earlier quoted a different version of the text, so he proceeds to say that “other versions”, i.e. our version, have “much reward”.</i><i> the text reads “much reward.” The idea is that much reward awaits you because you attend to the needs of the people, who are many, and since they are many, there is much reward for you as if you had done much.</i>
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  BE CAREFUL WITH THE GOVERNMENT. Rav: <i>even though you must become known to the government in order to attend to the needs of the people, be careful with them</i>. For Shemaya68<i class="footnote">In 1:10.</i> was not referring to such cases when he said “do not become known to the government,” as in this case it is a great mitzvah to become known to them, to attend to the needs of the people, as the stories of Mordechai and Rabbi Yehuda HaNassi prove—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rashbatz.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  MAKE HIS WILL AS YOUR WILL [Heb. <i>kirtzonecha</i>]. This is the version in our editions. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Yosef ibn Nahamias that in an edition of the Mishna from Jerusalem, the text reads “do his will with your will [Heb. <i>birtzonecha</i>],” with a <i>bet</i>, and the idea is that you shouldn’t perform a commandment in irritation, anger and frustration, but willingly and with a happy heart, in order that G-d should do your will willingly. For sometimes G-d will “do the will” of a man in anger, with the intent of punishing him in the end, as per the verse “to eventually destroy them forever” (Psalms 92:8) and to make him perish. But when He does this with pleasure, “your future will be very great” (Job 8:7).
  ANULL YOUR DESIRE. It seems that “make His will as your will” is said of the performance of positive commandments. The mishna therefore says “annull your will etc.” of negative commandments.
  HILLEL SAYS. “I have seen a holy one speaking” (Daniel 8:13), R. Menachem Azariah in his book <i>Asarah Ma’amarot</i>, section <i>Chakor Din</i>, 2:19, saying that this Hillel was the grandson of Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi, who went to bathe with his brother in Kabul, as mentioned in Pesachim 51a. Through these mishnayot, Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi fulfilled the verse “They shall not depart from your mouth, the mouths of your children, and the mouths of your children’s children” (Isaiah 59:21). Immediately after this Hillel, Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi placed the words of Hillel the Elder, the patriarch of this lineage, who said <i>an ignoramus cannot be G-d-fearing.</i> Those who study the Mishna are not careful with this and read “he also said” at the beginning of the next mishna—thusfar his words.If this is a tradition, then we will accept it, but if it is his own conclusion, we note that Rashi explicitly says that this Hillel is Hillel the Elder, and that Rambam, in commenting on “when I will have free time” in our mishna, notes that this teaching resembles the earlier teaching of “Shammai, his colleague” about making one’s Torah fixed. His teaching was placed here in connection with what Rabban Gamliel said about those who work on behalf of the people, and so that the Mishna can then move smoothly to the words of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai, who received the tradition from him.This problem is what caused the the <i>Asarah Ma’amarot</i> to read “Hillel says” in the text of the next mishna, where he comments that this refers to Hillel the Elder.
  DO NOT SEPARATE FROM THE PEOPLE. Rav writes that such a one will not be comforted when the people are. I find this difficult, for if so, one could say “I’ll have neither your honey nor your sting!” Rashi, on the other hand, concludes “and he will see no blessing in his work. As per the last chapter of Ta`anit.”We might also say that the comfort the people receive is greater than what they suffer, because G-d always rewards in larger measure than he punishes. Or, perhaps, the sense of “will not be comforted” is that one will suffer an untimely death or go into exile before the people are comforted.
  THAT MAY NOT BE HEARD. Rav: <i>your words shouldn’t be unclear to the point that they can’t be understood from the beginning and upon first consideration; do not rely on the listener to think about them in depth until he eventually understands them</i>. If so, this teaching is really that of Avtalion in 1:11—why, then, should it be repeated?But Rambam does not see this as addressing potential heresy. Rather, he understands that one’s words should not be exceedingly strange sounding and nearly incomprehensible, as he writes: <i>your words should not require an unusual interpretation and excessive thought</i>.This is contra Midrash Shmuel, who sees Rambam as saying the same thing as Rav.
  FOR IN THE END IT WILL BE HEARD. Rav: <i>do not reveal your secret even when you are alone, thinking that nobody will hear you, because in the end it will be heard, as “the bird of the heavens will carry your voice” </i>(Ecclesiastes 10:20). That this applies even when one is alone is evident from the beginning of that same verse: “Curse not a king even in your mind, nor in your bedroom curse a wealthy man” (ibid.).
  AND DO NOT SAY, “WHEN I HAVE A FREE MOMENT, I WILL STUDY.” According to Rashi, who reads in our mishna “do not say of something that you can hear now that you will hear it later,” and understands that part of the mishna as referring to Torah study, this dictum might appear unnecessary. It is not, however. Firstly, the repetition is for emphasis. Secondly, the mishna might see a need to point out that this dictum applies not only to hearing words of Torah from others, but even to studying on one’s own.69<i class="footnote">While another person might no longer be available to teach, one is presumably always able to study independently; even so, “do not say, etc.”</i>
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  AN UNLEARNED PERSON [Heb. <i>bur</i>] CANNOT BE ONE WHO FEARS SIN. Cf. 2:9, and Rav ad loc.
  IGNORAMUS [Heb. <i>`am ha’aretz</i>]. Rav on 5:10 explains this term.
  NOT ALL THOSE WHO ENGAGE IN MUCH BUSINESS GROW WISE [Heb. <i>machkim</i>]. The mishna says “not all,” because we do find those who engaged in much business and grew wise, such as R. Eliezer ben Charsom (Yoma 35b) and Ilfa (Ta`anit 21a), and numerous others mentioned by the commentaries—Midrash Shmuel.He also quotes the explanation of Chasid Ya`avetz, who notes that the word <i>machkim</i> is properly a transitive verb, meaning “to make another wise,” and sees this teaching as adding onto the last: an irritable person will not make a good teacher, and one who engages in much business cannot make others wise. That is, in his spare time he might teach others but will not make them wise.
  ONE WHO ENGAGES IN MUCH BUSINESS. Specifically “much” business, for without some kind of business that will sustain his body his Torah will not last, per the mishna later: “where there is no flour, there is no Torah” (Avot 3:17), and the mishna earlier: “the study of Torah goes well with a trade” (Avot 2:2).
  TRY [Heb. <i>hishtadel</i>]. The meaning is “to accustom oneself and direct one’s thoughts toward something.” Onkelos translates “and a man struggled with him” (Genesis 32:25) as <i>ve’ishtadal gavra imeih</i>—Rambam.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  BECAUSE YOU DROWNED SOMEONE, YOU WERE DROWNED, AND THOSE WHO DROWNED YOU WILL IN THE END THEMSELVES DROWN. One might ask, if we follow the chain back to its starting point, won’t we find that the first one to have been killed did not kill anyone himself? Indeed, Abel, who was killed by Cain, hadn’t killed anyone. If so, how did Hillel know that it was on account of drowning someone else that this person had been drowned?The second part of his saying, “and those who drowned you will in the end themselves drown,” is even more difficult, as this is not necessarily so! We regularly encounter cases of murderers who die in their beds at the hands of Heaven. [*I saw this question raised in Devarim Rabbah to parashat Va’Etchanan (2:25), discussing the verse “he who spills man’s blood, his blood will be spilled by man” (Genesis 9:6): <i>R. Levi said: but are there not many men who kill and yet die in their beds? They answered him: the meaning of “his blood will be spilled by man” is that when that man arrives in the future world, at that point his blood will be spilled.</i> As for the first question, concerning the first part of the mishna, I saw this mishna brought in the Talmud in tractate Sukkah 53a, and there Rashi explains that the body was thrown into the water and Hillel recognized him as a murderer.]In Rashi’s commentary to our tractate, he notes that in some places people do not recite this mishna. But Rambam, Rav, and all the other commentators have it in their texts.Midrash Shmuel, in answer to the second question, explains that “in the end” in the phrase “in the end they themselves will drown” means that through reincarnation, which is an established belief not only of the Sages but also of Pythagoras [and the rest of the wise of the nations, whom Abarbanel mentions in his commentary to parashat Ki Tetze], he eventually will end up drowning. And he gives a rather forced answer to the first question, saying that the case of Abel is different because the Sages say that he “gazed at holiness,” and Hillel, upon seeing this skull, assumed that it was that of a murderer, and not one who “gazed,” because murder is more common than this gazing.In my opinion, it is totally untenable to claim that Hillel said something that could only be understood through the doctrine of reincarnation, which is an esoteric doctrine, and which ought to be concealed from all but the select few that G-d calls upon. And Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi, the redactor of the Mishna, would not have put this dictum into our mishna. For just as a verse in the Tanakh must always be readable in its plain sense, in addition to whatever other meanings it may harbor, the words of a mishna must always be readable in the plain way that all understand. And if there were only a kabbalistic interpretation to this mishna, Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi would have left it an oral teaching, along with the other kabbalistic teachings that remained oral and were not inluded in the Mishna.Besides, the mishnayot seem to be out of order. For since this is merely something that Hillel said on a particular occasion, it shouldn’t have been included among the other mishnayot, which are all of the “he used to say” type, i.e. ethical teachings that were constantly being emphasized, and should rather have been appended to the end of this series of mishnayot. All the more so since this mishna is in Aramaic and shouldn’t come between two mishnayot that are in Hebrew.Also, Hillel is speaking in the second person, directing his words towards the skull itself. Why wouldn’t he have turned towards his listeners and addressed them? He should have said “because he drowned someone, he was drowned, and those who drowned him will in the end themselves drown.”Also, what is the meaning of the modifier <i>af</i>—“even, also”— here?It seems that the mishna intends the following. Hillel taught in the previous mishna that an unlearned person cannot be one who fears sin and so on, in order to steer people clear of personal deficiencies. He also once saw a skull, etc., and from that experience onwards he used to say “increasing the flesh only increases worms, etc.” in the next mishna, which is another list of personal deficiencies and virtues.This is because when he saw this skull, he said to it, “because you drowned someone, etc.”, i.e. one would think it only logical that because you drowned someone, you were drowned, and those who drowned you will in the end themselves drown, because “the measure one uses to dole out is the one used to dole out to him” (Sotah 1:7), for this is only proper and logical. But regardless of what should be, reality contradicts this hypothesis; many people who have never killed anyone are killed and many people kill others and are not themselves killed.In order to bring reality into harmony with theory, so that it doesn’t contradict the logical necessity that everything ultimately comes about through one consistent system and is judged fairly, he used to say from that moment on that “increasing the flesh only increases worms, etc.” in order to accustom people to thinking that everything is truly necessary and just. For one does find, overall, that “increasing the flesh only increases worms, etc.”, regarding defiencies, and “increasing Torah increases life, etc.”, regarding virtues. It is evident, then, that the laws in place in the world are just and perfect, and we can infer from cases that are clearly just to those whose justness is concealed, and understood only by G-d; those, too, are based on what is righteous and just, as per the verse, “For my thoughts are not as your thoughts, nor are my ways like your ways” (Isaiah 55:8).It follows, then, that Hillel did not say “because you drowned someone, etc.” because he felt it was certainly true, i.e. that of necessity this is what happened and what will happen, but as a first premise, that logic would dictate that this be so. But because there are well-known cases that contradict this, and these might cause a person to say that “there is no judgement and no judge,” Hillel began to regularly propagate his teaching that “increasing the flesh only increases worms… increasing Torah increases life, etc.” among the people. The intent is that we should use our experiences and sound judgment to conclude that just as in these cases the result follows logically from the action, whether for good or ill, so also what befalls people in general follows logically, though it is beyond our understanding.Since the words “because you have drowned someone, etc.” are not an absolute statement describing what will happen with certainty, as it is possible that this drowned person had not drowned anybody and that the one who drowned him might not be drowned, Hillel did not utter them as a public teaching. While facing the skull, an unhearing piece of bone, he said to himself that what ought to be is that “because you drowned someone, etc.”And the fact of reality contradicting this statement is also not at all explicit, but is implicit in his following dictum, that from this point on he used to say “increasing the flesh only increases worms, etc.,” which the discerning will understand well as addressing this point. All such things ought to be said in such a manner as to be apparent to the discerning scholar but not to all those listening, lest they who will not understand the answer “decide by what their ears hear” and “judge by what their eyes see” (Isaiah 11:3) that the question is truly difficult and has no answer, and remain confounded by it and thereby falter, G-d forbid.Hillel said these words in Aramaic, the language of the masses at the time per the mishna in Shekalim 5:3, because he said them as though speaking to the skull of a bandit. He also did this so that the people should take his words at face value, that it is indeed the case that “because you drowned somebody, etc.,” and for the discerning students he explained his words by affixing to them the dictum “increasing the flesh only increases worms, etc.,” which he said in Hebrew. This is what seems correct to me.
  AND THOSE WHO DROWNED YOU WILL IN THE END THEMSELVES DROWN. In speaking to this one skull, Hillel used the plural “those” to indicate that even if there were many who drowned you they all will eventually be drowned, teaching that when many murder one they will all be killed—Midrash Shmuel.
  DROWN. Rav: <i>it was the court’s job to kill you, not theirs. G-d placed them in your hands because He allows evil things to be brought about through evil people.</i>70<i class="footnote">The Hebrew phrase מגלגלין חובה ע”י חייב is used by the Talmud for evil but necessary things, which are brought about by evil people instead of innocent ones. Here, Rav would seem to be using it to explain why this murderer, and not the court, brings about the death of this person—since killing a person is never desirable, even when it is necessary, G-d spares the court the task and has it done by an evil person. Tosafot Yom Tov, however, understands Rav to be addressing the dilemma of free choice vs. predetermination the same way Rambam does in his introduction to Avot. He will offer a novel reading of the phrase.</i> This is the opinion of Rambam in chapter 8 of The Eight Chapters, his introduction to tractate Avot, where he writes that although G-d has decreed that a person must die, he has not decreed that the anyone in particular must kill him. It is the same as G-d decreeing that of those born some amount will be righteous and some evil. While this is true, it does not yield the necessary consequence that a particular evil person be evil. That individual chose of his own free will to do evil, and will therefore be punished by one of the many emissaries at G-d’s disposal. And because this individual is ready to kill and is evil,71<i class="footnote">The Hebrew word is חייב, which the Tosafot Yom Tov understands to mean generally “evil” as opposed to deserving punishment for some specific act, which is what the term usually means in rabbinic literature. There is some support for this reading in Talmudic Aramaic, where the cognate חייבא means “sinner” or “wicked one.”</i> the evil thing was brought about72<i class="footnote">The Hebrew word is נתגלגל. This is a subtle but important reworking of the verb מגלגל in the original phrase. מגלגל is an active verb, and in the impersonal plural מגלגלין has the literal meaning “they bring about.” The sense is that the G-d, the antecedent of the omitted impersonal “they,” arranges for tragic or harmful things to come about through those who have sinned in some way, instead of coming about through innocent people. By changing it to נתגלגל, a passive verb meaning “it was brought about,” Tosafot Yom Tov is able to add the qualifying words על ידו, “through him,” to create the phrase “it was brought about through him.” The blame is now laid squarely on the person and not on G-d. Having turned חייב into “sinner” and having reworked the verb מגלגל into נתגלגל על ידו, meaning “it was brought about through him,” Tosafot Yom Tov is able to read the phrase as “an evil thing is brought about by an evil person,” meaning that those who are evil bring about evil things of their own volition, and the fact that the object of their actions deserved them is irrelevant. The statement has undergone a significant transformation: it has gone from saying that it is better that tragic things befall those who deserve them through those who have sinned to saying that men act of their own volition. </i> through him, and G-d will send him his just deserts. So also Hilchot Teshuva, 6:5.Ramban in parashat Lech Lecha attacks this doctrine at length and says that even if G-d decrees that so-and-so should harm so-and-so, and someone else goes and fulfills G-d’s decree first, he has done a good and meritorious thing. I say that even if we agree to his statement that should someone else go and do it first he has done a good and meritorious thing, it does not refute the words of Rambam. For the evil individual that Rambam was discussing did not do this evil act in order to fulfill the words of G-d, but because his wicked heart drove him to it, and G-d goes by what is in the heart. And if we understand Rambam this way, we also deflect the criticism of Ra’avad ad loc. This is what seems correct to me.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  INCREASES WORMS. Rav: <i>in the grave, where a worm is as painful to the dead as a needle in the flesh of the living.</i> Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan: <i>not that they were of the opinion that the corpse feels anything, but that anyone of refined mind should be pained during his life by the disgrace that will come at his death, and should attempt to minimize this disgrace and imagine while he is still alive that he feels the worm that will bite him upon his death, which is the same feeling as a needle in live flesh. He will then minimize this disgrace and not increase his flesh because this increases worms.</i> I cannot understand what complaint a living person could have about the disgrace he may suffer when he has been brought to burial and submerged in dirt, where nobody sees or knows anything about whether a worm rules over him or a maggot eats him. There is nothing disgraceful about a disgrace that nobody is witness to, all the more so since the disgraced one is dead and knows nothing of this disgrace. For what reason, then, should the thought of this pain a person while he lives?Their words, however, were truly spoken: it is painful for the dead person [Heb. <i>met</i>] himself. Not because they believed that he has sensation and turned non-existent things into existing ones, but because the pain they spoke of is the pain of the dead person’s soul, which is still in existence and which beholds the disgrace of the body and is greatly pained by it; even the non-Jewish sages have agreed that the soul remains after death. This is the meaning of the verse in Job, 14:22: “Only his flesh shall pain [Heb. <i>yich’av</i>] him, and his soul mourn over him,” per Ibn Ezra’s commentary ad loc.: yich’av<i> here has the sense of destruction, as in “you will destroy [Heb. </i>tach’ivu<i>] every good piece of land with stones” (2 Kings 3:19). The word was borrowed for unfeeling objects, for whom destruction is like pain for a person.</i> The verse explains that the soul will indeed be in mourning on account of the pain it feels at seeing and recognizing the body in which it once was. [*And it is on the basis of this verse that one opinion in Shabbat 152b holds that as long as the flesh has not decomposed, the dead know whatever is said before them.] This is what they meant when they said that the worm is painful to the dead person, i.e. to the soul that knows of this. We can further deduce that this is what they meant because in speaking of the dead person they didn’t mention “flesh” and in speaking of the living one they said “the flesh of the living.” They should have used the same expression, saying either “like a needle in the living” or “in the flesh of the dead,” but they did not do so because they hold that the pain is felt by the dead person himself, i.e. his soul, and not his flesh, which feels nothing.You shouldn’t find it odd that the soul is called <i>met</i>, “the dead,” for we find the Torah using the word this way in the verse “or one who consults the dead” (Deuteronomy 18:11), which obviously refers to the souls of the dead. Since this consultation occurs where the bodies of the dead are located it is called “consulting the dead,” even though the consultation is actually with the souls of those bodies. In our case the pain is similarly said to affect the dead, even though it is the souls that are pained, because the act that brings about the pain of the soul is done to the body. This is what seems correct to me.[*I later found that Kol Bo writes in Hilchot Avel that the reason for burying the dead is that the soul is pained when it beholds the body in disgrace and lying about unburied, and says: <i>they had the same idea in mind when they said “the worm is as painful to the dead as a needle in the flesh of the living,” which is a parallel only in terms of the existence of pain, not what type of pain it is.</i> I also found that Rashba in responsum 1:369 considers it obvious that the dead do not feel the pain of the knife, and cites the embalming process as proof.]
  HAS ACQUIRED IT FOR HIMSELF [Heb. <i>le`atzmo</i>]. For his own benefit in this world—Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yosef ibn Nahamias. [*I found support for this explanation in the mishna in Shekalim 1:4, “the Kohanim expound this verse for themselves,” where Rav explains “for themselves” as “for their own benefit.”To me the mishna seems to be saying that he has acquired his essence [Heb. <i>atzmut</i>]. In having a good name he has clearly actualized his essence and become what he truly is, for anyone who does not have a good name is as though he hasn’t existed. It is well known that the definition of a name73<i class="footnote">The Hebrew <i>shem</i> was used by medieval translators for the Arabic <i>‘ism</i>, itself a translation of the Greek <i>logos</i>, referring to the definition or essence of a thing.</i> is something that refers to the essence of a thing, which is what Adam was doing when he gave names to all the creatures. Therefore, his good name points to his essence, as when the name is not good, better that he had not come into existence, and it is indeed as if he did not, and he has acquired nothing whatsoever.]
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  RECEIVED THE TRADITION FROM HILLEL AND SHAMMAI. While the Mishna was recording the teachings of the line of Hillel, there was no need to mention that those sages had received the tradition from him, but now it is necessary to do so before the teachings of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, who was not a descendant of Hillel. Also, because he had numerous students and legal disputes proliferated thenceforth, the mishna points out that although there were several disputes their Torah was in the main a received tradition, as I mentioned at the beginning of the first chapter.
  AS YOU WERE CREATED FOR THIS PURPOSE. <i>For the sake of this you came into the world, as per the verse “and there was evening, and there was morning, on the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31), which the Talmud expounds (Shabbat 88a): </i>this teaches that G-d stipulated with Creation that should Israel not accept the Torah, the world will return to chaos. <i>So it turns out that he has a tremendous responsibility and is not doing this as a favor</i>—Rashi.
  RABBAN YOCHANAN BEN ZAKKAI HAD FIVE STUDENTS. <i>The mishna mentions only the greatest ones, the ones to whom the tradition passed, but he had many other students</i>—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rashbatz.
  ELIEZER BEN HYRKANOS. <i>He mentions them by name without honorifics because they were his students</i>—Rashi.74<i class="footnote">The print before Rashi and the Tosafot Yom Tov did not have honorifics in the text. Our text does.</i>
  A PLASTERED CISTERN. The Rav reads <i>bor sud</i>, “plastered,” and not <i>bor sid</i>, “a plaster cistern.” Midrash Shmuel explains in the name of Rashbatz:<i> this is because a </i>bor sid<i>, “a plaster cistern,” means “a cistern made of plaster,” and what is the great praise in being compared to a cistern made of plaster? A plastered cistern, on the other hand, is one that has been plastered well and holds in all its water, preventing it from seeping into the earth. The word is properly </i>sayud<i>, in the present passive participle, but appears here as </i>sud<i> because of the hollow root.</i>75<i class="footnote">The root of <i>sid</i> is <i>samach, yud, daled</i>, called a “hollow root” because the middle letter is <i>yud</i>. The paradigm of the passive present participle is 1a2u3, where the numbers represent the consonants of the root, so the passive present participle of the verb “to plaster” should appear as <i>sayud</i>. But hollow verbs are irregular and their passive present participle appears as 1u3, in our case <i>sud</i>.</i>In Rashi’s commentary to Avodah Zarah 55a the text of our mishna is quoted as <i>bor sid</i>, as it appears in our printed editions.
  WHICH DOES NOT LOSE A DROP. This means to say that he is only like a plastered cistern in this respect but not in others, as a plastered cistern also has deficiencies. Its water does not taste as good as water from a well, both because cistern water is contained and well-water is flowing and because the water in the cistern absorbs the bitter taste of the plaster. The mishna therefore had to point out that only in this respect, in that he does not lose a drop, is he to be compared to a plastered cistern—Midrash Shmuel.
  PIOUS [Heb. <i>chasid</i>]. Rav: <i>he goes beyond the letter of the law</i>. Cf. what I wrote on Sotah 9:15.
  FEARS SIN. Rav: <i>he acts according to the most stringent interpretation of the law and forbids himself the things that are permitted out of fear that he come to sin. Otherwise, what is his great virtue? For even an ignoramus can be fearful of sin.</i> As per mishna 5.76<i class="footnote">There: <i>an unlearned person cannot be fearful of sin, and an ignoramus cannot be pious</i>. The implication is that an ignoramus, while he cannot be pious, can be one who fears of sin.</i> Cf. what I wrote at the end of Sotah (9:15).
  EVEN IF ELIEZER BEN HYRKANOS WERE WITH THEM. Rav: <i>I saw written that Abba Shaul does not disagree with the first tanna, and both things came from Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai and are both true. For with regards to breadth of learning and memory, Rabbi Eliezer was superior, and with regards to sharpness and argumentation Rabbi Elazar ben Arach was superior</i>. Since Abba Shaul was commenting on the words of the first tanna he had to mention that even Eliezer ben Hyrkanos, whom he had praised, is included on the other side of the scale. But the first tanna, whose words came first, did not need to explain himself, because when he said “all the Sages of Israel” it was understood that even Elazar ben Arach was included—Midrash Shmuel.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  GO FORTH AND SEE. The verb “go forth” has the same sense here as the common Talmudic expression (e.g. Berachot 16a) “he went forth, searched, and found.” Both of these mean that the mind goes forth and wanders in contemplation and deep thought in order to truly understand. “See” is used similarly, as in “my heart has seen much wisdom” (Ecclesiastes 1:16). Midrash Shmuel quotes Abarbanel saying that the text reads “come and see” in the first half of our mishna and “go and see” in the second. He then writes that R. Yosef ibn Shoshan testifies that this is indeed the text of all the editions that were then extant in Toledo and the surrounding areas and explains that since the path of good was to be found with R. Yochanan ben Zakkai, he said “come,” but for the path of evil he said “go,” because no evil dwelt near him.
  THAT A PERSON SHOULD CLEAVE TO. Midrash Shmuel: <i>Rabbenu Yonah explained that one certainly should cleave to all good and upright things. The mishna means to ask which trait one should perfect forever, for it is better to attain perfection in one area—at which point it will be much easier to acquire all the other good traits—than imperfection in many. This is a beautiful explanation.</i>Based on this, I can distinguish between our mishna and the first mishna in this chapter. There, Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi, who came after all these sages that spoke about the straight way that one should cleave to, asks again “what is the straight way that a person should choose for himself.” But this is because he was not saying which one trait a person should cleave to, through which he would gain perfection. He was saying, rather, that before all his actions and reactions in any given situation a person should consider which option to choose for himself, i.e. which action to perform. Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi therefore used the verb “choose,” and not the verb “cleave to” of our mishna.
  ONE WHO BORROWS AND DOES NOT PAY BACK. Rav: <i>this is the opposite of one who foresees consequences. For if he does not pay back, he won’t find anyone to lend him money and will go hungry. And he did not say simply “one who does not foresee consequences,” because it is possible that a person who does not foresee a consequence will still suffer no harm therefrom, because when the consequence actually comes about he will shield himself from it.</i>We are forced to conclude that when Rav, in his commentary above on “one who foresees consequences”, wrote that <i>on account of his ability to foresee consequences he will consider the loss incurred in performing a commandment as against the gain and the gain of transgressing a commandment as opposed to the loss</i>, he did not mean that this is the primary sense of “foreseeing consequences,” but that one who usually foresees consequences will eventually “consider the loss etc.” The primary sense of “foreseeing consequences” is what he wrote just before that: <i>he sees what is going to happen</i>, and that will apply to all areas of life. For if “consider the loss etc.” is the primary sense of “foreseeing consequences,” then Rav wouldn’t have been able to write that someone who does not foresee consequences might still shield himself from said consequences as they arise.77<i class="footnote">If the consequences in question are the reward and loss of performing and not performing commandments, which only come after death, there can be no talk of shielding oneself from those consequences when they do arise.</i>Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yehuda Lerma: <i>although foreseeing consequences is considered a “good path,” being unable to foresee them cannot be said to be evil. For we find many people who, though they are unable to foresee consequences, walk in the straight path, or people who keep the Torah purely for the sake of Heaven, and not out of hope of any reward or fear of any punishment, which is the ideal way to serve G-d. Rabbi Shimon therefore could not say that the inability to foresee consequences is an “evil path.”</i>78<i class="footnote">According to R. Yehuda Lerma’s explanation, we could indeed understand “foreseeing consequences” as referring primarily to “considering the loss etc.”</i>
  THE PLACE (or SPACE). <i>He is the place of the world, as per the verse </i>umitachat zero`ot `olam79<i class="footnote">A possible idiomatic rendering of the simple, poetic sense of the verse is: “and below, the arms everlasting,” but the Talmud in Chagigah 12b treats the word <i>`olam</i> as “the world,” and renders the phrase “the arms of the world.”</i><i> (Deuteronomy 33:27). But the world cannot include Him, as per the verse “the heavens and the heavens upon the heavens cannot contain You” (2 Kings 8:27)</i>—Rashi.
  AND THE RIGHTEOUS ONE [Heb. <i>tzaddik</i>]. Rav: <i>the Holy One, Who is the Righteous One of the world</i>. Rambam: <i>per the verses “He is righteous and upright” (Deuteronomy 32:4) and “You have been in the right [Heb. </i>tzaddik<i>] throughout all that has come upon us” (Nehemiah 9:33)</i>.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  YOUR FRIEND’S [Heb. <i>chaver</i>]80<i class="footnote"><i> Chaver</i> can mean either “friend” or “colleague.” This ambiguity played a role earlier in 1:6.</i> HONOR SHOULD BE AS DEAR TO YOU AS YOUR OWN. This does not disagree with the mishna later in 4:12, which says that “your friend’s honor should be as dear to you as the awe of your master,” because that mishna is discussing colleagues in Torah study—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.Midrash Shmuel notes that there are versions that have “your student’s honor” here. He writes: <i>we cannot possibly read “your friend’s honor should be as dear to you as your own” because in that case, someone who does not naturally care for his own honor need not concern himself over his friend’s honor, and that certainly is not the case. King David says as much in the verse “one who considers himself as disgraceful and disgusting, but who honors those who fear G-d” (Psalms 15:4). But for a student it is completely appropriate to say “your student’s honor should be as your own,” because the master needn’t honor the student more than he honors himself.</i> But this point does not bother me, for when the tanna says that “it should be as dear to you as your own” he is addressing people whose own honor is dear to them, for which reason he does not say more concisely81<i class="footnote">In Hebrew this proposed wording is slightly shorter, and the idea is less complicated.</i> that “your friend’s honor should be in your eyes as your own” but chooses the longer “your friend’s honor should be as dear to you as you own.” This point is also evident from mishna 12 of this chapter, in which Rabbi Yossi says “your friend’s money should be as dear to you as your own.” Would anyone interpret this to mean that a spendthrift who throws away his money may similarly spend and throw away his friend’s money? It is clear that Rabbi Yossi is addressing those whose money is dear to them and not spendthrifts, and in our case he is likewise addressing those whose honor is dear to them.
  BEWARE OF THEIR COALS. Rav: <i>do not treat them with frivolity</i>. Rambam: <i>when you come together with the sages, do not be playful or arrogant in their presence. When in their presence, act in such a way as lets them understand that you will allow yourself to be drawn near to them when they decide to draw you near. And do not attempt to draw closer to them than they draw you themselves, that you not ruin their designs for you and turn their love to contempt, at which point you will not receive the benefit you had hoped for. The tanna compares this to someone warming himself at the fire. If he maintains his distance, the fire will warm him, and if he draws too near, he will get burnt.</i>
  FOR THEIR BITE IS LIKE A FOX’S, THEIR STING IS LIKE A SCORPION’S, AND THEIR HISS IS LIKE A SNAKE’S. Meaning that sometimes they do a full act of damage, which is like a bite, specifically like the bite of a fox which is difficult to treat; sometimes they do a partial act of damage, which is merely like a sting, specifically a scorpion’s sting; sometimes they only damage through speech, which is like the hiss of a snake. This is what seems correct to me. [*But I also think these terms are epithets for the various types of excommunication. We find the sages of the Talmud using epithets, such as “he would bring you sparks of fire” in Bava Metzia 47a, and “I would split your leg with an iron club” in Bava Kamma 81b. The terms in our mishna are likewise epithets for various kinds of excommunication.]
  THE HISS OF A SNAKE. Rashi: <i>it hisses with its mouth, </i>siffler<i> in French, the way that geese hiss at one another.</i>
  SNAKE [Heb. <i>saraf</i>]. Rav: <i>this snake cannot be charmed the way other snakes are, as the verse says, “which does not listen to the voice of charmers” (Psalms 58:6).</i> The point is that the preceding verse finishes “like a deaf viper that stops up its ear” (ibid. 58:7). Rav continues: <i>so, too, if you quarrel with a sage and attempt to appease him he will not be appeased.</i> Rambam adds: <i>this can be seen from the case of Gehazi, who quarreled with his master Elisha and fell into the degrading illness of leprosy, as the Sages expounded (Sanhedrin 117b) on the matter of the four lepers, and from other cases as well, in all of which they clearly suffered afterward</i>.
  AND THEIR WORDS ARE ALL LIKE BURNING COALS. <i>Even the slightest one of them, for in transgressing them one breaches the boundary the Sages have set. Let us take the prohibition of secluding oneself with a single woman. A single woman is assumed to be ritually impure due to menstruation, because the Sages interpret the phrase “in her impurity” (Leviticus 15:33) to mean that a menstruating woman remains impure until she immerses in water (Shabbat 64b).</i>82<i class="footnote">And the assumption is that single women do not go to the <i>mikveh</i> to immerse.</i><i> [And the mishna in Niddah 3:5 considers a day-old baby already legally capable of becoming impure.] But the rabbinic prohibition of seclusion applies even to a single woman who has gone and immersed herself, because the prohibition was “seclusion with a single woman”—whether pure or impure</i>—Rashi.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  A BAD EYE [Heb. <i>`ayin hara`</i>]. Rav explains that this is the same as <i>`ayin ra`ah</i>, which is an “unhappy eye,” i.e. one that is unhappy with what he has and is constantly looking for other things.The mishna says that these things “drive a person out of the world,” and it need not be said that one should distance himself from them. So whereas R. Yehoshua earlier (mishna 9) says that the path one should distance oneself from is that of a “bad friend,” the things in our mishna are more serious. So Midrash Shmuel.
  AND THE EVIL INCLINATION. Excessive desire—Rambam.
  HATRED OF PEOPLE. Rav: <i>Rambam explains that this refers to one who hates peoples’ company and loves to be alone.</i> The language of Rambam here is: <i>this refers to an evil turn of spirit, the illness of black bile which brings a person to despise and be disgusted by what his eyes see and to prefer the company of animals and to dwell alone in deserts and forests and choose for himself a place free of any settlement. Such people do this not on account of asceticism but because of their evil desires and their envy of others. These things certainly kill a person, because his body will then fall ill and he will die an early death.</i>Concerning Rav’s alternate explanation of our mishna as referring to a difficult person who causes everyone to hate him, Midrash Shmuel writes: <i>some explain that everyone curses him and their curses take their toll on him, and he leaves this world. For the Sages say, “do not make light of a commoner’s curse” (Megillah 15a)</i>.
  DRIVE A PERSON FROM THE WORLD. Cf. the mishna in 4:21.
  
  Mishnah 12
  
  YOUR FELLOW’S PROPERTY SHOULD BE AS DEAR TO YOU AS YOUR OWN. Cf. what we wrote on mishna 10.
  PREPARE YOURSELF FOR TORAH STUDY, AS IT IS NOT YOUR INHERITANCE. Rav: <i>you should not say that since your father and grandfather are sages the Torah will “return to its lodgings” and you need not seek it out. </i>For the Sages have indeed expounded thus on the verse “they will not depart from your mouth, the mouth of your children, and the mouth of your children’s children from now on, forever” (Isaiah 59:21) in Bava Metziah 85a. R. Yossi informs us that this rule applies only to one who prepares himself for study, in which case he is more successful in his Torah study than others are. But one who does not, will not be.
  
  Mishnah 13
  
  BE CAREFUL WITH <i>KERIAT SHEMA</i> AND PRAYER. The tanna instructs care for these things especially, because they involve accepting the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven. Midrash Shmuel writes that Rabbenu Yonah has the text “be even more careful with <i>keriat shema</i> than with prayer.” He explains that while there is a long four-hour window for the morning prayers, there is only a short window from dawn until sunrise to say <i>keriat shema</i> according to the custom of <i>vatikin</i>83<i class="footnote">The optimal way of fulfilling the law of reciting <i>keriat shema</i>.</i>; the tanna therefore uses the expression “be careful,” because this requires great care.
  
  Mishnah 14
  
  STUDY TORAH DILIGENTLY, THAT YOU SHOULD KNOW WHAT TO ANSWER AN <i>APIKOROS</i>. Rabbenu Yonah explains this as “exert yourself and study Torah diligently in order that you should know what to answer an <i>apikoros</i>.” So also in Midrash Shmuel. We can then deduce that the correct version of the text does not have <i>veda</i>, “and you should know,” before “what to answer”, which also seems apparent from Rambam’s commentary.But other editions have <i>veda ma shetashiv</i>. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Moshe Almosnino that <i>veda ma shetashiv </i>should be read as follows: whatever it is that you are going to answer84<i class="footnote"><i> Ma shetashiv</i>—“what it is that you are going to answer,” in this interpretation, as opposed to “what you’ll answer” with the sense of “what to answer.” In this reading, <i>veda ma shetashiv</i> is a totally unrelated teaching: “know well what you will answer an <i>apikoros.”</i></i> an <i>apikoros</i>, you should know it well; your answer shouldn’t be something you’ve simply heard or learned from another, because in this way you will not be victorious over him.And in saying “what you will answer,” the mishna indicates that you shouldn’t go to them to attack their positions. If they come to you and attack you, you should know what to answer them; but do not sic the dog on yourself—Midrash Shmuel.
  DILIGENT. See Rav’s commentary on Sotah 9:15.
  AN <i>APIKOROS</i>. Rav: <i>this term comes from the Hebrew </i>hefker, “abandon, lawlessness.” <i>He denigrates the Torah</i>. Included in this category is one who denigrates those who study Torah, as the Rav himself writes at the end of his second explanation and on the mishna in Sanhedrin 10:1.
  AND KNOW BEFORE WHOM YOU LABOR. Rav: <i>in giving this answer to the </i>apikoros<i>, that he not sway your mind to follow his opinion</i>. Following this explanation, the antecedent of “whom” is “<i>apikoros</i>”. But it appears that he was taking his explanation from Rambam, and Rambam understands the antecedent of “whom” to be G-d: <i>and he says that although you must study the opinions of the nations to know what to answer them, beware that none of those opinions become your own. And bear in mind that the one before whom you labor knows the depths of your heart. This is the meaning of “know before whom you labor,” i.e. that one should direct one’s heart to belief in G-d.</i>
  AND YOUR TASKMASTER WILL FAITHFULLY PAY THE WAGES OF YOUR LABOR. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rabbenu Yonah that in saying the taskmaster will “faithfully pay your wages” the mishna does not disagree with the dictum “be not like servants” in 1:3, and I have already written about this at the beginning of this chapter, s.v. <i>and consider</i>. Still, the idea doesn’t have any relation to what came before it. And I saw an edition from the Land of Israel which has simply “and who your taskmaster is,” and nothing more.85<i class="footnote">The mishna would then read “and know before whom you labor, and who your taskmaster is.”</i>
  
  Mishnah 15
  
  
  
  Mishnah 16
  
  IF YOU HAVE LEARNED MUCH TORAH YOU WILL BE GIVEN MUCH REWARD. The preceding mishna says that “the reward is great,” and one might conclude therefrom that he will receive great reward for one hour of study followed by idleness. To counter this, our mishna says “if you learn much Torah you will receive much reward,” but not otherwise; in fact, one is punished for idling from Torah study. So Midrash Shmuel.Having said this, we are in a position to understand the mishna in Menachot 13:11: <i>the Torah calls both the wholly-burnt bird offering and the flour offering “a fire offering, a fragrant smell,” to teach that one who does little is just as one who does much, as long as he directs his heart to Heaven. </i>This is because the one who brings the flour offering is usually a poor person, as Rashi comments on the verse “should one bring a flour offering” (Leviticus 2:1): <i>who usually brings a flour offering? A poor person</i>. It is in this case that the tanna considers them equal, for both do as much as their resources and abilities allow, and G-d therefore looks at the little that the poor person gives the same way He looks at the large amount the rich person gives. But certainly one who is able to do much and does little is not the same as the one who does much, and on the other hand a poor person who contributes more than the flour offering receives much greater reward. Our mishna, which says “if you have learned much Torah you will be given much reward,” similarly refers to one who is able to do so.Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i> explains our mishna similarly. Also, cf. my comments on the mishna at 4:10.
  YOU WILL BE GIVEN MUCH REWARD. It is not possible to use the language of payment86<i class="footnote">I.e., “you will be paid much” instead of “you will be given much.”</i> here because payment refers only to what something is properly worth, and there cannot be “much” of it.
  AND YOUR TASKMASTER WILL FAITHFULLY PAY THE WAGES OF YOUR LABOR. Do not imagine that when you receive the things referred to in our mishna as “gift” and “much,” they will be deducted from your wages—Midrash Shmuel.
  AND KNOW THE REWARD THE RIGHTEOUS ARE GIVEN IN THE FUTURE. I.e., when I said “and your taskmaster will faithfully pay etc.” I did not mean that you should serve G-d with the intent of receiving reward—I meant only that you should know of it, as I wrote above (mishna 14).Some texts read “and know that the righteous are given their reward in the future.” If so, the meaning is that even what is “given,” i.e. what is a gift, does not come in this world. Do not wonder, therefore, if you see the righteous beset by one evil thing after another. So Midrash Shmuel.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  AKAVIA SON OF MAHALAL’EL. He lived during the Second Temple period, per the mishna in Eduyot, 5:6: <i>the throngs of the inner courtyard of the Temple, when its gate was closed, did not contain a man equal to Akavia son of Mahalal`el in wisdom and fear of Heaven</i>. Even so, the compiler of the mishna did not wish to interrupt the line of Hillel until he got all the way to Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi and his son. He then returned to the chronological sequence of the tradition, starting again with the dicta of Hillel and then proceeding to R. Yochanan ben Zakkai who received the tradition from him, and then to R. Yochanan ben Zakkai’s students. He then taught the dictum of R. Tarfon because it is similar to the dictum of R. Elazar, the last of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai’s students.
  KNOW. The tanna inserts the word “know”87<i class="footnote">Which would seem unnecessary, as the opening words of the mishna are “look at three things...”, and we would expect those things to be listed now, with no need for an another verb inbetween.</i> because “before whom you will eventually give a reckoning” is not something that can be known through sensory looking and examination, as it is a belief that can only be acquired through knowledge—Midrash Shmuel.
  WHENCE YOU COME AND WHITHER YOU ARE GOING. The interrogative governing the place of origin is <i>'ayin</i>, as in <i>me’ayin ba’u ha’anashim</i>, “whence came the men?” (cf. Joshua 2:4). The interrogative governing the place of arrival is <i>'anah</i>, as in <i>'anah elech meruchacha ve’anah mipanecha evrach</i>, “whither shall I go to escape Your spirit, and whither shall I flee from You?” (Psalms 139:7). Both appear in the same verse in the story of the concubine of Giv`ah: <i>'anah telech ume’ayin tavo</i>, “whither go you, and whence came you?” (Judges 19:17)—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.The word <i>le’an</i> has a <i>kamatz</i> under the <i>alef</i>.
  YOU ARE GOING. A person is always walking along the way to his eternal dwelling place and drawing near to death, for the day of death approaches from the very day of birth. This is why the mishna chooses the present particple and not the future tense—Midrash Shmuel.
  TO A PLACE OF DUST AND WORMS. The mishna does not say that one becomes dust, as per the language of the verse, “for you are88<i class="footnote">Presently. The mishna does not say that one becomes dust in adherence to the language of the verse, which characterizes a person as alreading being dust.</i> dust, and to dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:19)—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.
  GIVE A RECKONING [Heb. <i>din vecheshbon</i>]. While the word <i>din</i> can refer to the judgment or verdict at the end of a case, here it refers to the opening of the case, which is why <i>din</i>, the opening of the case, precedes <i>cheshbon</i>, the accounting. This explains the wording <i>latet din</i> of the mishna, “to cause a <i>din</i>”—since a case must be opened whenever one sins, one can be said to cause the case. One who has illicit relations, for example, causes a <i>din</i>. The mishna therefore says “he will eventually cause a <i>din</i>.” The passage in Bava Batra 73b on the two geese concerning which Israel “will eventually cause a <i>din</i>” is to be understood similarly—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  FOR THE WELFARE OF THE GOVERNMENT [Heb. <i>malchut</i>]. <i>Malchut</i> refers to the king and the ministers and advisors running his kingdom and executing law in the land. Hence, the mishna chose the word <i>malchut</i>, “kingdom,” instead of <i>melech</i>, “king.” So the commentaries.
  THIS IS A GATHERING OF SCOFFERS. For there can be no greater scoffer than one who is told that as many gold coins as he can count out of a pile in an hour will be his and sits idly. He certainly scoffs at the gold coins and disdains them. So is one who idles instead of studying Torah. For since he knows the great reward for its study, he must simply be a scoffer.This is the meaning of the tanna’s saying (Avot 6:2) “woe unto the people on account of the insult to Torah”—the tanna calls abandoning Torah study “insulting” the Torah. So Midrash Shmuel in the name of Chasid Ya’avetz.He also focuses on the phrase “and there is no Torah <i>among them</i>.” He explains that even though each of them individually is studying Torah, there is no Torah “among them,” i.e. they do not study together. This is solely because each one thinks nothing of the learning of the other and feels there would be nothing to gain from joint study. Such people are certainly scoffers, even if no words of mockery come out of their mouths.Rambam: <i>the tanna’s proof that any gathering that does not involve words of Torah is a gathering of scoffers comes from the verse immediately following the one quoted, which says “for his desire is only for G-d’s Torah, etc.” (Psalms 1:2). The inference is that because his desire is only for G-d’s Torah he would not join a gathering of scoffers, which must therefore have none of G-d’s Torah.</i>
  THE <i>SHECHINA</i> DWELLS AMONG THEM. As opposed to the scoffers, who are called “the group that does not see the face of the <i>shechina</i>” [as in Sotah, 42a]. For even after their death, the <i>shechina</i> remains distant from the scoffers, all the more so while they are alive. And the <i>shechina</i> dwells among these even when they are living, all the more so after their death—Midrash Shmuel.
  STUDIES TORAH. A person sitting by himself doesn’t usually say words of Torah out loud. The mishna therefore cannot say “words of Torah” the way it does in the case of two people, who speak to one another.
  ...THAT G-D SETS ASIDE REWARD FOR HIM? FROM THE VERSE “LET HIM SIT ALONE AND BE SILENT, FOR HE HAS TAKEN IT [Heb. <i>natal</i>] UPON HIMSELF.” Rav: <i>it is as if the giving of the Torah was entirely for his sake.</i> So also Rambam. But they had the version quoted by Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i> and by Midrash Shmuel in the name of Ramah: <i>whence do we see that scripture considers even one person who sits and studies as if he has upheld the entire Torah? From the verse “let him sit alone and be silent, for he has taken it upon himself.”</i>As for the text printed in our editions, we prefer the explanation of Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rambam, that “he has taken it upon himself” means that he has been paid his reward in full, or that he has already taken his reward, for it had been prepared for him. Cf. the commentary of Rashi that I will quote shortly for a different take.I see Midrash Shmuel quotes Rav the way we have it and explains that <i>natal</i> here has the meaning of “covering, shielding,” because Onkelos translates the word “you shall cover [Heb. <i>vesakota</i>]” (Exodus 40:3) as <i>vetatel</i>. He renders <i>natal</i> as “He has covered,” meaning that the <i>shechina</i> covers him to save him from all manner of evil, to be a protective shade over his head. In our editions Rav writes this as an explanation of mishna 6.I also see that Midrash Shmuel, in quoting Rashi’s commentary to our mishna, writes that he found written in Rashi’s commentary to mishna 6 the following: <i>“...and be silent, etc.” For he has taken for himself reward for that deed. And some say that it is a term of covering or protection, as in the verse </i>vesakota <i>etc.</i>89<i class="footnote"> Midrash Shmuel seems to suggest that this commentary, while printed on mishna 6, properly belongs here. Tosafot Yom Tov will dispute this.</i> The commentary of Rashi as printed in Maharal’s <i>Derech Chaim</i> also includes this explanation. If I were not afraid to say so, I would say that this explanation properly belongs there on mishna 6 and not here, and that Rashi had the text <i>from the verse, “let him sit alone and be silent, for he has taken upon himself”</i> and not <i>“wherever I cause my name to be mentioned, I shall come to you and I will bless you”</i>. For it is there, in that mishna, that we say that the <i>shechina</i> dwells even with one person. I further claim that Rashi had the text <i>“wherever etc.”</i> in our mishna, for which reason he wrote no commentary on this part of the mishna, because none is necessary. For the verse explicitly says “and I will bless you,” and there can be no greater setting aside of reward than this. So it seems to me. Maharal writes in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that in our editions the text reads <i>and whence do we know that G-d sets aside reward even a single person studying Torah, and that the </i>shechina<i> is with him? From the verse, let him sit alone, etc.</i> If we accept this version, we may say that Rashi here is explaining that the Hebrew <i>natal</i> is like <i>vesakota</i>.90<i class="footnote">In which case, Tosafot Yom Tov agrees with Midrash Shmuel that the commentary belongs here.</i>The Talmud in Berakhot 6a: <i>since this is true even of a single person, what need is there to say it of two people? [The answer is:] The words of two people studying are “written in the book of rememberance,” while the words of one are not.</i>91<i class="footnote">The Talmud evidently saw in our mishna that the <i>shechina</i> dwelt even with one person, supporting the version adduced in <i>Derech Chaim</i> above.</i> And our mishna adds to the case of a single person that “G-d sets aside reward for him” not beause two don’t get reward, but because in the case of one the verse says so explicitly, as it says, “for he has taken for himself.” Both ideas—that of reward, and that of the <i>shechina</i> dwelling—are derived from the word <i>natal</i>, which is explained using <i>vesakota</i> as above and according to the meaning “to take,” i.e. to take reward. The reason the verse says this of a single person is because it will then be understood to be true all the more so in the case of two people.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  THREE THAT ATE, etc. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Lev Avot that the mishna chooses three because the verse quoted as proof is speaking of three people: the sage, the priest, and the prophet. Chasid Ya’avetz says that two might slip into idle discussions and will be seen as unintentional sinners, but when there are three of them, the third one should have said something. Rashbam says that the mishna chooses three because a normal table has the three people necessary for a <i>zimun</i>.
  AND DID NOT SPEAK WORDS OF TORAH THERE. Rav: <i>they can fulfill their obligation through saying the Blessing after Meals, which is considered speaking words of Torah.</i> For there are three blessings in the Blessing after Meals, the fourth having been instuted at Yavneh, and they correspond to the three “mothers” mentioned later.92<i class="footnote">See Rav’s commentary ad loc., s.v. <i>shene’emar</i>.</i> They also correspond to the three books of Tanach. Moses instituted the first blessing, and the Torah is called by his name, as in “remember the Torah of Moses” (Malachi 3:22). Joshua instituted the second blessing, and his is the first book of the Prophets. David and Solomon instituted the third blessings, and their books are the first of the Writngs.The other explanation Rav mentions is that the three blessings correspond to Scripture, Mishna, and Talmud. We can explain this using the passage in the Talmud in Eruvin 21b: <i>“let us go early to the vineyards”—this refers to the synagogues and halls of study. “Let us see whether the vine has flowered </i>[<i>Heb.</i> parcha]<i>”—this refers to those fluent in Scripture. “Whether the blossoms </i>[Heb. s’madar]<i> have opened”—this refers to those fluent in Mishna. “Whether the pomegranates have bloomed”—this refers to those fluent in Talmud.</i> Rashi there:<i> just as “blossoms” [</i>s’madar<i>] are bigger than “flowers” [</i>perach<i>], so the Mishna goes into greater detail than Scripture. “The pomegranates have bloomed”—they are fully grown, etc.</i> The same is true of the three blessings. The second goes into greater detail than the first, for the first says simply that G-d sustains us, while the second mentions the good land that He gave us as an inheritance, to eat from its fruits and be sated with its goodness. The third goes into even greater detail, for there we pray for sustenance, “sustain us, provide for us, etc.” and for the rebuilding of the Temple, which is the ultimate purpose of inheriting the land, for there we can serve G-d.Now although I have pointed out how one might compare the Blessing After Meals to the three divisions of Tanach or to to Scripture, Mishna, and Talmud, I am not convinced of the ruling that this is how one fulfills this obligation of speaking words of Torah, as this is clearly not what R. Shimon intended. For our mishna is not dealing with the kinds of sinful people that do not say the Blessing After Meals, which it is a positive commandment in the Torah to say, as all of Avot is devoted to matters of piousness93<i class="footnote">And not merely the minimal requirements of the law.</i>, as per the Talmud in Bava Kamma 30a: “he who wishes to be a pious person should fulfill the words of Avot.” And Rashi’s language here is: <i>and people are in the habit of exempting themselves</i>94<i class="footnote">Implying not that this is what one ought to do, but that it is what people commonly do thinking it enough to satisfy our mishna—in other words, Rashi has taken this down from a prescription to a description, supportingTosafot Yom Tov’s discomfort with seeing this as a recommended way to fulfill the words of the mishna.</i><i> through saying the Blessing After Meals.</i>
  AS IF THEY HAVE EATEN FROM G-D’S [Heb. <i>makom</i>] TABLE. This means to say that Scripture treats them as though they have brought sacrifices, as the Sages regularly describe the portion of sacrifices allotted to the priests to eat with the phrase “the priests acquire [their portion] from G-d’s table”—Midrash Shmuel. The use of <i>makom</i> as a name for G-d has been discussed in my commentary to 2:9.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  AND ONE WHO TURNS HIS MIND TO IDLE THINGS. Other versions have “and turns his mind,” which is what Rav had, as he writes: <i>One who is up at night… and turns his mind… </i>Midrash Shmuel, too, notes in discussing Rav’s commentary that he had “and turns his mind” as opposed to “and one who turns his mind.” He also writes in the name of Chasid Ya’avetz that the version “and one who turns his mind” is a typographical error that has crept into various editions. For “one who is up” must either be turning his mind to idle things or not. If he is, that is nothing more than the case of “one who turns his mind to idle things.” If he is not, then what is his sin? He concludes that there is no way to read this version of the mishna.He writes in the name of Rashbam that “one who is up at night” could mean even in his home, and “one who is walking along the road” could be even during the day. In both cases he is alone, and the text does not read “one who is up at night alone.” And the danger is because <i>mazikin</i> might attack him. Based on Rashbam, we can properly read the version “and one who turns,” as we also can based on the words of R. Menachem Meiri quoted in Midrash Shmuel, but I am not going to go into this at length.Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i> writes that this version is the main version, and explains that “one who stays up at night” will be damaged because “night was created only for sleeping or Torah study,” as the Talmud says in Eruvin 65a. The case of “one who turns his mind to idle things” refers even to one who does so during the day, meaning that he is drawn to idleness and seeks to remain idle. But “one who stays up at night,” even if he does not seek to remain idle, he “forfeits his life” unless he is sleeping, studying, or plying his trade—because any Torah that is not accompanied by a trade eventually turns to naught. Whereas if we have the version “and turns his mind,” we must resort to the forced explanation that the reason the mishna doesn’t simply say “and one who turns his mind to idle things at night” is that this would seem to include even someone who turns his mind to idle things in order to fall asleep.Cf. my comments on mishna 8.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  THE YOKE OF TORAH. Constant study—Rambam.
  ARE REMOVED FROM HIM. Rambam: <i>and they said, “engraved [Heb. </i>charut<i>] upon the tablets, freedom [Heb. </i>cherut<i>] on the tablets.” Meaning freedom from the vicissitudes of time and the doings of kings for one who takes upon himself to do what is written on the tablets.</i> Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Matityahu HaYitzhari that Rambam’s text of the mishna ended with “as per the verse, ‘engraved upon the tablets’—read ‘freedom.’” This midrashic exposition is found in 6:2.
  WHOEVER THROWS OFF THE YOKE OF TORAH. Rav: <i>one who says that it is too hard for him to bear the yoke of Torah</i>.It isn’t that “forfeiting one’s life” in the case of one who turns his mind to idle things in the preceding mishna is more serious than “the yoke of kings and daily needs” being placed upon the one who throws off the yoke of Torah in our mishna—this is certainly not true. For when the preceding mishna says that the “forfeits his life,” it means simply that should bandits or <i>mazikin</i> attack him, he himself has forfeited his life, and will be held accountable or his death, as in the verse, “But for your own life-blood I will require a reckoning” (Genesis 9:5), per Rashi’s explanation there. But it is possible that no evil will befall him. In our case, on the other hand, the yoke “will be placed upon him,” and he will be unable to avoid bearing the burden of these yokes. So it seems to me.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  TEN WHO SIT AND STUDY TORAH. Rav: <i>the mishna should read, “ten who sit in judgment.”</i> We find courts comprised of ten members in cases of <i>erech</i> judgments, as in the first mishna in Sanhedrin, and a court can be comprised of two or even one member if the litigants agree to abide by their ruling. Alternately, “one” could refer to an outstanding expert,95<i class="footnote">Who is legally able to judge cases by himself, even without special acceptance from the litigants.</i> see Rav on Sanhedrin 1:1. [*See also below.]
  AND WHENCE THAT EVEN FIVE. Midrash Shmuel: <i>Rashbam reads “whence,” and not “and whence,” in this and the other instances in our mishna.</i> The explanation seems to be that one can only use the conjunctive “and whence” to find a source for a previously established idea which needs only a Scriptural allusion. But in our case, there is no previously established idea and the mishna seeks an actual derivation of the law. In that case, it is better to use the phrase “whence” without an “and,” as there is nothing preceding to tie it to and it is an independent idea.
  FIVE, FOR THE VERSE SAYS, “AND ESTABLISHED HIS GROUP UPON THE EARTH.” Tosafot in Sukkah 13a (s.v. <i>beshalosh</i>) uphold this version. See also below. [*Although Rav reads “who sit in judgment on a court” earlier in the mishna, there is no difficulty in the fact that he explains this “group” as a group of people studying Torah, because the mishna applies to them all the more so. Cf. my comments below.]
  EVEN TWO. Talmud, Berakhot 6a: <i>since this is true even of two, what need is there to say it of three? You might say that a judgment is mere peacemaking, and the </i>shechina<i> would not come. This tells us that a judgment is also considered Torah. Since this is true even of three, what need is there to say it of ten? For ten, the </i>shechina <i>appears first, but for three, it does not come until they sit in judgment.</i> The Talmud is commenting on the passage that was quoted there, which does not speak separately of the case of five.Midrash Shmuel writes that for ten, the <i>shechina</i> stands, i.e. it “stands” while they sit, while for five the verses does not mention the <i>shechina</i> standing.
  AND WHENCE THAT EVEN ONE. See what I wrote on mishna 2, where I quoted the Talmud in Berakhot 6a: <i>since this is true even of one, what need is there to say it of two, etc.</i>
  FOR THE VERSE SAYS “EVERYWHERE, ETC.” I’ve already written that in my opinion the text here should have the verse “let him sit alone, etc.” This is why Rav’s commentary here has the words “for he has taken upon himself—because <i>natal</i> here means ‘shading’ or ‘protecting’”, as does Rashi’s commentary, per the testimony of Midrash Shmuel but not per his conclusion, which is that those words should appear in Rashi’s commentary earlier.Tosafot uphold the version that quotes the verse “and his group etc.” in the case of five, as I wrote above, and their proof is that the Talmud in Berakhot 6a quotes “He Judges in the midst of judges” for the case of three. Now although that same passage in Berakhot 6a also quotes the verse “everywhere I cause my name to be mentioned” for the case of one, that is no proof that we should read this in the text of our mishna,96<i class="footnote">The argument goes as follows. Since Tosafot is willing to establish the text of our mishna for the case of five based on the passage in Berakhot 6a and Tosafot Yom Tov has accepted their argument for the case of five, consistency should force him to then accept the verse adduced in Berakhot 6a for the case of one as the verse to appear in our mishna as well. Tosafot Yom Tov now counters this argument.</i> because the Talmud might be discussing mishna 2. This is an especially strong argument if we take into consideration that Rav reads “ten that sit in judgment” in our mishna, making the case of one likewise one that sits in judgment, as I explained earlier. Therefore, when the Talmud in Berakhot 6a speaks of one who sits and studies Torah it is quoting the earlier mishna. That passage does present some difficulty, because since the material is taught in a mishna, it is unclear what the amora who says it independently is teaching us.One might object that if we emend the text to quote the verse “let him sit alone” for the case of one, how will this verse relate to someone sitting in judgment? But this is no objection, for when the judge has heard the claims and is thinking through the case he indeed “sits alone and is quiet,” since there is nobody with whom to discuss the case. In fact, a lone judge is more likely to sit quietly and think than one who is studying Torah, for although he is alone it is quite likely that he will study aloud to fulfill the verse “for they [the words] are life to those who find them” (Proverbs 4:22), which the Talmud in Eruvin 54a reads midrashically: <i>read not “those who find them” [Heb. </i>motz’eihem<i>] but “those who bring them forth from their mouths” [Heb. </i>motzi’eihem<i>].</i> But to judge one must think and ponder the case.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  AS THE IT SAYS OF DAVID, “FOR ALL IS FROM YOU, ETC.” Rashi: <i>David said this verse upon gathering silver and gold for the Temple</i>. One might dismiss this proof by saying that David’s case was exceptional, as he was giving the money to the Temple which G-d had specifically commanded he build, in the verse “and it shall be, when Hashem your G-d relieves you of your enemies around you, etc.” (Deuteronomy 25:19).97<i class="footnote">The verse in question speaks only of destroying Amalek and makes no mention of building the Temple. Rabbi S. Mannes in <i>Tosafot Yom Tov HaMevu’ar</i> suggests the text be emended to refer to the very similar verses earlier in Deuteronomy 12:10-11: “and G-d will relieve you of all of your enemies surrounding you and you shall dwell securely, and the place that G-d chooses etc.”, which the Talmud in Sahedrin 20b understands as a commandment to build the Temple.</i> Or one might claim that public funds are different. Therefore, the tanna does not use the words “as it is said,”98<i class="footnote">Heb. <i>shene'emar</i>, the standard way of introducing a prooftext in the Mishna.</i> for it is not an airtight proof—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.
  R. YAAKOV99<i class="footnote">In most printed editions, Rabbi Shimon.</i> SAYS. This is how the text reads in the version of Midrash Shmuel, who writes that he saw written somewhere that this R. Yaakov was the father of R. Eliezer ben Ya’akov whose teachings are called “a <i>kav</i>, but pure.”100<i class="footnote">Few in quantity, great in quality.</i> This version seems correct, because the teaching of R. Shimon was already mentioned earlier in mishna 3. One might argue that the mishna quotes R. Shimon’s teaching here to have it adjacent to the similar teaching of R. Meir in the next mishna about one who forgets his learning. But if that were the case, it should have come after that of R. Meir, especially since R. Meir preceeded R. Shimon chronologically [*as you will see if you look at the end of the fourth of the ten chapters of the Rambam’s introduction to the Mishna]; since their teachings are adjacent that of R. Meir should’ve come first, even though there are exceptions to this rule, as I wrote in Makkot 1:7 [s.v. R. Shimon].One might counter, however, that since the teaching of R. Shimon is also similar to the earlier teaching in mishna 4 concerning one who is walking along a road alone, it was placed here inbetween the two others. [*In fact, the entire objection of R. Meir’s chronological precedence seems unfounded, because it is R. Dostai who repeats the teaching in the name of R. Meir and not R. Meir himself speaking in mishna 7, and R. Shimon preceded R. Dostai, so it would make sense to quote his teaching first.]
  ONE WHO IS WALKING ALONG THE ROAD. Which is a dangerous place.Some say that the road in question is not a dangerous place and the mishna would apply even to someone at home; the road was chosen simply because one commonly encounters trees and fields along it and there is a greater chance he will interrupt his learning.
  HOW PLEASANT THIS FIELD IS! The mishna includes this second example because one might otherwise think that the dictum is limited to one who notes how pleasant a tree is, which he sees from afar. This is certainly interrupting. The mishna adds that even praising a field, which is right at one’s side as one walks along the road, is also interrrupting—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.
  SCRIPTURE CONSIDERS HIM. Maharal explains in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that the mishna is really based on the verse “only take care, etc.” quoted in the next mishna; so also Midrash Shmuel in his commentary to the next mishna. In his commentary to this mishna, however, Midrash Shmuel writes that the mishna is based on the verse “they would scrape moss from trees” (Job 30:4), which the Talmud in Chagiga 12b understands as referring to those who interrupt their Torah studies to engage in conversation. The Targum likewise translates that verse “they who abandon [inscribing] words of Torah on the tablet of their hearts for conversation.” Since this is explicit in the Targum it is considered obvious and the mishna sees no need to mention the verse, relying instead on the thinking person to understand this on his own; for the way of the tannaim is not to make explicit what they feel should have been understood. The mishna might also be midrashically interpreting the Hebrew <i>siach</i> as “tree,” as in the verse <i>vechol siach hasadeh</i> (Genesis 2:5) where the commentators understand it as “tree,” which is why the mishna’s example is one who says “how beautiful this tree is!”Rashi writes in his commentary here: <i>the text should not read “Scripture considers him,” for no verse is adduced.</i> Rav is likewise careful with his language and writes “they consider him as if.”101<i class="footnote">“They” meaning the Sages, not a verse.</i> On the other hand, Rav uses the same language in the next mishna, even though it quotes the verse “only take care, etc.”The reason our mishna does not say “he forfeits his life, as the verse says, etc.” as in mishna 4 and instead says “he is considered as if” is that the person in our mishna happens to interrupt his learning temporarily and immediately returns to it, whereas the person in mishna 4 “turns his mind to idle things.” Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Moshe Almosnino that our mishna says “he is considered as if” to show that mishna 4 is a case of one who is in the right place and time for solitary thought.According to Rav's the second explanation, that the person in our case says “Blessed is He who has made such things in His world,” the above question doesn’t begin. For since he interrupted to say a blessing, we wouldn’t have even assumed that “he is considered as if,” and so the mishna informs us that “he is considered as if” because Torah study is above all else.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  ANYONE WHO FORGETS. “Anyone” means to include even one who forgets out of laziness, as I will explain below. Midrash Shmuel writes that even one who forgets because he is busy providing for his family is as if he has forfeited his life, for the verse clearly says, “cast your burden upon G-d” (Psalms 55:23), and only he who forgets due to the difficulty of the material is exempt.
  ONE THING. For every one thing, there are many things that depend on it, so forgetting one thing can properly be included in “lest you forget the things”—Midrash Shmuel. I say that it is the double injunction “only take care, and be exceedingly wary” which implies that one should take care not to forget a single thing.
  UNLESS HE SITS AND REMOVES THEM FROM HIS HEART. I.e., that he sits and turns his mind to idle things, and through this they depart from his heart. Now this is true even if he does not intend thereby to forget, for the verse does not say “lest you remove them” but “lest they depart,” which implies that they depart on their own. The language of our mishna also indicates as much, as the mishna does not say “one might think that this is true even of one who hasn’t removed them,”102<i class="footnote">But they have departed on their own, due to idleness. The mishna says only “one might think that this is true even of one for whom the material was too difficult,” meaning that only that case is excluded. The middle case—someone who, on the one hand, does not intentionally forget, but on the other hand, forgets not due to difficulty but because of idleness—is included in the verse.</i> for the only exemption is for difficulty, whereas allowing them to depart on their own is included in “lest they depart.” So Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.Now if we read “and one who turns” in mishna 4 above, making it a separate case in that mishna,103<i class="footnote">See the Tosafot Yom Tov there.</i> we must somehow distinguish between that mishna, which is a case of one who turns his mind to idle things and who “forfeits his life,” and our mishna, which is a case of one who sits idly and is only “considered as if.” I say, therefore, that there are three categories here. The first is one who intends to remove the Torah from his heart, which is the case neither of our mishna nor the one discussed by R. Chanina ben Chachinai, but is R. Nechunya ben HaKana’s case of one who “throws off the yoke of Torah” in mishna 5. The second is one who does not intend for the Torah to depart from his heart and would be happy not forgetting it, but who prefers idleness over Torah study and is constantly seeking out idle pleasures; this is the case discussed by R. Chanina ben Chachinai, and that one forfeits his life. The third is one who does not prefer idleness over Torah study, but when some idle thing presents itself he idles and thereby gets lazy and does not review his learning, which is the case of our misha where he “sits and removes them from his heart,” i.e. through remaining idle they depart from his heart. This is what seems correct.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  ANYONE WHOSE FEAR OF HEAVEN PRECEDES HIS LEARNING, ETC. Rav: <i>I heard this explained as follows: one who thinks primarily of fear of Heaven over learning, in that he wants to study so that he come to fear of Heaven.</i> If so, we can avoid a potential contradiction between this mishna and the mishna of Hillel who said in 2:5 that an unlearned person cannot be fearful of sin. For our mishna is discussing his intent, not his actual deeds, and while an unlearned person cannot know what is and isn’t a sin that he should fear it, he can determine his intent and generally fear whatever it is that might be a sin. Cf. mishna 17 [s.v. <i>im ein chochma</i>].Midrash Shmuel points out the difficulty stemming from the two halves of this statement. For the first half implies that if they are at the same level his learning will not endure, whereas the second half implies that if they are at the same level his learning will endure. He answers by quoting the Talmud in Niddah 16b, that Heaven decrees whether a person will be a <i>chacham</i>104<i class="footnote">The word can mean either a generally intelligent and clever person or a person who is learned in addition. The latter meaning will be discussed first, but the former will come into play in Tosafot Yom Tov’s bracketed comment.</i> or a <i>tipesh.</i>105<i class="footnote">A stupid or silly person.</i> When our mishna says of one whose fear of heaven precedes his learning that his learning will endure it means that even if it was decreed that he be a fool, if his fear of heaven precedes his learning he can overcome that decree and G-d will cause his learning to endure, as per the Talmud in Megillah 6b: “to retain one’s learning requires the aid of heaven.” And if his learning precedes his fear of heaven, since he did not learn in order to do, even if it was decreed that he be a learned person G-d will make him into a fool and his learning will not endure on account of his sin, as he did not study the Torah with the proper intent of observing its laws. [He writes in his commentary to the second half of the mishna that the decree can be fulfilled in other areas in which he can be a <i>chacham</i> outside of Torah study.] If both are at the same level then whatever was decreed will come to pass, whether he was decreed to be a <i>chacham</i> or <i>tipesh</i>.He also writes that there are versions that read: <i>anyone whose fear of heaven precedes his learning, his learning will endure; anyone whose fear of heaven does not precede his learning, his learning will not endure.</i> In his commentary to the next section of the mishna he rejects this version.
  WHOSE FEAR OF SIN [Heb. <i>yir’at chet’o</i>]. Since “there is no man on earth so righteous as to only do good and never sin” (Ecclesiastes 7:20), the mishna uses the words <i>yir’at chet’o</i>, literally “the fear of his sin,” meaning that he fears the sin that he was created to tend towards. And for this reason we needn’t ask why the mishna does not use the phrasing <i>kol sheyir’ato mehachet</i>—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>. Cf. the beginning of the next chapter, s.v. <i>hakovesh et yitzro</i> [one who overcomes his inclination].
  ANYONE WHOSE DEEDS ARE GREATER THAN HIS LEARNING. Rav: <i>here the mishna discusses one who dutifully performs positive commandments, whereas the first section of the mishna, </i>kol sheyir’at chet’o kodemet lechochmato<i>, discusses one who takes care not to transgress a negative commandment</i>. Why, then, does the mishna not say “precedes” as it did in the previous section? Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rabbenu Yonah: <i>how is it possible for a person’s deeds to be greater than his learning? How can a person do what he has not learned about? The answer is that when a person accepts upon himself to do whatever the learned tell him and not veer from their words left or right, his “deeds are greater than his learning,” for from this point on he is considered as if he had fulfilled all the laws of the Torah, since he intends to do whatever the learned person tells him. This is also clear from a passage in Avot deRabbi Natan, 22:1: “anyone whose deeds are greater than his learning”—as the verse says “we shall do and we shall hear” (Exodus 24:7), for they put “we shall do” before “we shall hear” and received reward as if they had fulfilled every commandment before they had heard of it; “anyone whose learning is greater than his deeds”—a person should not say that he will first study a law and only then keep it.</i>Now we understand well why the mishna uses “greater than,” for “greater than” here is just like the “precedes” of the previous section.106<i class="footnote">Per Rav’s explanation of the first section, cited in Tosafot Yom Tov above, that “precedes” refers to his intent to observe the laws he learns about.</i> The reason the mishna didn’t simply use “precedes” is because the deeds themselves cannot really precede the learning since he does not know of them, but the resolution to heed those commandments can. When he takes that upon himself he is resolving to do everything, which is more than he can ever learn. The mishna therefore uses the language “greater than” to show that the precedence is in terms of the commitment, and the commitment is greater than the learning.107<i class="footnote">I.e., he accepts more laws than he can ever actually learn about and keep.</i>With this we also remove the grounds for a different objection that people raise, as Maharal mentions in <i>Derech Chaim</i>, which is that there are many gentile scholars whose learning is greater than their deeds and yet it endures. He answers that the mishna is discussing an average person. He also answers that the mishna is discussing specifically Torah learning. But I do not see the problem to begin with. For since “greater than” is in terms of the commitment, it is possible that these scholars had committed to behave in accordance with the results of the discipline that they study, and therefore their learning endures.
  ANYONE WHOSE LEARNING ETC. Some change the text and simply have the negation of the first half appear here: “anyone whose deeds are not etc.” But there is no need for this if we use the same approach we used for “anyone whose fear of sin etc.”, which applies here as well—Midrash Shmuel.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  WHOEVER IS FOUND PLEASING BY THE PEOPLE. Rav: <i>whoever is beloved below is certain to be beloved above.</i> So Rashi. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rashbam that this is based on the verse “and you will be found pleasing and wise in the eyes of G-d and man” (Proverbs 3:4), and the verse “and the kindness [Heb. <i>chesed</i>] of G-d is upon those who fear Him forever and ever” (Psalms 103:17)—anybody to whom a “thread of <i>chesed</i>”108<i class="footnote">This expression denotes a charming aura through which the affected person wins the love of those around him. Cf. Talmud, Megillah 13a.</i> extends is certain to be G-d-fearing.
  [*FOUND PLEASING [Heb. <i>ruach habriyot nocha hemenu</i>, lit. “the spirit/mood of the people is comfortable with him”]. This phrase is used at the end of the last mishna in Shevi’it (10:9): <i>ruach chachamim</i> [the Sages]<i> nocha hemenu</i>. There I quoted Rash and Rashi who explained this as “being appreciative”. In his commentary to the Talmud, Bava Metzia 48a s.v. <i>ein ruach</i>, Rashi writes that “the Sages of Israel are pleased with his actions and they are at ease. <i>Hemenu</i> [lit. “from him”] here means “through him.’” In his commentary to Kiddushin 17b s.v. <i>ein ruach</i>, where the abovementioned mishna in Shevi’it is cited, he mixes the two explanations and writes, “the Sages are not pleased with him, i.e. they do not appreciate what he did, as they did not require it of him,” as I wrote there in Shevi’it.I was astounded by Rashi’s comments to Bava Kamma 94b s.v. <i>ein ruach chachamim nocha heimenu</i>, where he writes “there is no spirit of wisdom or piousness within him.” But I did see a manuscript of the Mishna which has there in Shevi’it <i>ruach chochma</i>—“the spirit of wisdom.”109<i class="footnote">Making it possible that this was the text Rashi had in Bava Kamma as well.</i>]
  AND WHOEVER IS NOT FOUND PLEASING BY THE PEOPLE, ETC. We need both cases to be made clear. Had the mishna only included the first section, “whoever is found pleasing, etc.”, I would have had grounds to say that there is no clear implication that “whoever is not found pleasing, etc.” For it may be that the people do not find him pleasing because he is at the extreme of piousness but G-d is pleased with him. And had the mishna only included the last section, “whoever is not found pleasing, etc.”, I would have had grounds to say that there is no clear implication that “whoever is found pleasing, etc.” For perhaps the people will find him pleasing because he will make some pretense of goodness, but “he lays his ambush inside of him,” i.e. he sins in secret.The mishna therefore teaches us that this is a reliable test in both directions, whether positive or negative. And the reason for this is given by the verse, “and I shall place My spirit in your [Heb. plural “you”] midst” (Ezekiel 36:27)—we see that the spirit of the people is a reflection of the spirit of G-d.Now the mishna does not say “found pleasing by <i>all</i> the people,” for we pay no heed to the minority, as we find that Mordechai was only able to “find favor with most of his brothers” and not all of his brothers—Midrash Shmuel.
  AND NOONTIME WINE. Rav: <i>a person is drawn to it</i>. This is because in the morning a person is still drowsy from his sleep and by evening he is exhausted and wishes to rest. But noontime a person is at the peak of his strength and achieves total happiness110<i class="footnote">Making it possible that this was the text Rashi had in Bava Kamma as well.</i>—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  ONE WHO PROFANES <i>KODASHIM</i> [lit. “holy things”] ETC. All these cases are included in the category <i>apikores</i>, who has no share in the world to come, according to the mishna in Sanhedrin 10:1—Midrash Shmuel.Maharal writes in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that they might be in the category of “those who say the Torah is not from heaven” in that mishna (see further below). It is also possible that those listed in the mishna in Sanhedrin have no share in the world to come even if they have learned the entire Torah and kept all its laws. Our mishna, on the other hand, discusses someone who has as many sins as he does merits, and these five are the kinds of sins that “weigh down the pan of the scale” to a bad verdict. This explanation seems best to him.Cf. my comments on Kiddushin 1:10 and Avot 4:22.
  ONE WHO PROFANES <i>KODASHIM</i>. Talmud, Sanhedrin 99a: <i>the Sages taught: “for he has scorned the word of G-d” (Numbers 15:31)... based on this, R. Elazar HaModa`i said, One who profanes </i>kodashim<i>, etc.</i>, along with the entire text of our mishna. Rashi ad loc. explains: one who profanes the <i>kodashim</i> and one who dishonors the holidays are both included in the category of one who “has scorned the word of G-d.” Rashi in his commentary here writes that the passage in Sanhedrin does not include “one who embarrases his friend in public,” and he does not know how it is derived from the verse, but our editions of Sanhedrin do have it. Midrash Shmuel writes that he has “scorned the word of G-d” because there is no greater <i>apikoros</i> than one who embarrasses his friend in public.I would say that such a one has “scorned the word of G-d [Heb. <i>d’var Hashem bazah</i>]” because man is created in the image of G-d and is therefore himself “the word of G-d,” i.e. the idea or matter of G-d and His image. <i>Davar</i> can be said in the sense of “thing, matter, idea” as in the verse “is it not a <i>davar</i>?”111<i class="footnote">Unlike many of the commentaries on Samuel, who understand David’s answer to Eliab to have been a dismissive “isn’t it just talk?”, Tosafot Yom Tov seems to understand that David’s answer was to defend his interest in the war by saying “isn’t it an [important] matter?”</i> (1 Samuel 17:29). Also, the verse “and G-d said, ‘Let us make man in Our image’” is one of the ten “sayings”112<i class="footnote">Avot 5:1.</i>—therefore, he has “scorned the word of G-d.” [*Per the Talmud in Rosh HaShanah 32a which Rav quotes in Avot 5:1, which says that “In the beginning” is also one of the “sayings,” for the verse says “the heavens were made by the word of G-d” (Psalms 33:6).]
  ONE WHO EMBARASSES [Heb. <i>malbin</i>—lit. “cause to turn white”]. Rav: <i>the face of one who gets embarassed first turns red and then turns white.</i> Some commentaries read <i>ma’adim</i>, “cause to turn red” in the mishna, a version which is found in some editions of Rashi’s commentary.
  ONE WHO REVEALS WAYS TO READ THE TORAH CONTRARY TO THE <i>HALACHA</i>. Rav: <i>such as one who translates “and do not give of your seed to pass to Molech” as “do not give of your seed to impregnate an Aramean,” which is not the plain meaning of the verse</i>. He explains it this way in Megillah 9:4 as well, and I write about this verse there at length.The Rav also adds one who offers scornful interpretations of Torah. To this Rashi adds “like Menashe, who used to say, ‘Why should Moses write “and Timna was a concubine” (Genesis 36:12)?’”
  THOUGH HE HAS STUDIED TORAH AND DONE GOOD DEEDS, HE HAS NO SHARE IN THE WORLD TO COME. Rav: <i>if he did not repent… even if he suffered…</i> Because suffering and death atone for other sins, as in the Talmud in Yoma 86. See what we wrote at the beginning of this mishna in the name of Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>. See also the mishna at 4:22.Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Ephraim and Rashbam that we do not read “studied Torah” in the mishna.
  
  Mishnah 12
  
  <i>TISHCHORET</i>. Rav: <i>a young man, whose hair is black [Heb. </i>shachor<i>].</i> Per the mishna in Nedarim 8:3: <i>one who makes a </i>neder<i> forbidding himself pleasure from the “black-headed ones” etc.</i> But the mishna there says that women and children are not included in this epithet, as only men are called “black-headed ones,” but bald and old men are included. It is possible that the mishna discussing a <i>neder</i> is following popular usage, whereas our mishna is speaking in the register of the Sages, in which the word refers only to a young man. For if he is not a young man, he is included in the other part of the mishna, <i>lerosh</i>, lit. “head”—an elder—and we have only two possible categories here: either he is a <i>rosh</i>, which includes all men of standing, or he is part of <i>tishchoret</i>, which includes all men of no standing.
  AND RECEIVE [Heb. <i>mekabel</i>] EVERY MAN GLADLY. Rav: <i>stand with joy</i>. Mekabel<i> here is to be understood like </i>makbil. The medieval translator of Rambam writes on this mishna: <i>it seems he understands the word </i>mekabel<i> here as if it were </i>makbil, <i>as in </i>makbilot halula’ot (Exodus 26:5)<i>, based on the use of the cognate root in Aramaic, where the root is used to translate</i>113<i class="footnote">In the Targumim.</i><i> “opposite” or “in the presence of.” The Arabic language uses similar expressions: in speaking of meeting or standing opposite somebody one says “so-and-so met me with joy or anger.” The master</i>114<i class="footnote">Rambam.</i><i> explains </i>mekabel<i> this way here.</i>I do not know why he did not explain this point in the mishna at 1:15 above: <i>hevei mekabel et kol ha’adam besever panim yafot</i>.
  WITH JOY. Rambam: <i>this is more than what Shammai said, which was to greet every man in a friendly way.</i>
  
  Mishnah 13
  
  JEST AND LEVITY ACCUSTOM A MAN TO PROMISCUITY. Rabbenu Yonah writes that the implication is that seriousness and solemnity are a fence around promiscuity, for this entire mishna is discussing fences. Midrash Shmuel explains that the mishna does not explicitly say so, as it does in the other cases, because it tells us much more this way: that jest and levity accustom, i.e. they ingrain the habit. Had the mishna simply said that seriousness and solmenity are a fence around promiscuity, I would only have been able to conclude that jest and levity bring a man to promiscuity, but not that they accustom him to it.
  <i>MASORET</i> IS A FENCE FOR THE TORAH. When Rav writes “אתם, you—even mistakenly; אתם, you—even intentionally; אתם, you—even misled,” he is quoting the Talmud in Rosh HaShanah 25a. Rashi there comments: <i>“mistakenly”—of their own accord. They though it was supposed to be a leap month. “Misled”—by false witnesses</i>. The third part, “even intentionally,” is quoted by Tosafot in Rosh HaShana 22b s.v. <i>lehat`ot</i>, but Rambam in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh, 2:10 , reads “forced.”
  TITHES ARE A FENCE FOR WEALTH. Midrash Shmuel notes that in an edition of the Mishna from Jerusalem the text reads “tithes are a fence for Torah,” and explains that those receiving the tithes will be able to immerse themselves in Torah and study it, per the Sages’ saying, “the Torah was only given to those who eat <i>terumah</i>” [*and I have already written in Ma`asarot 1:16 that this is a general name for all of the priestly gifts]. He quotes R. Yisrael explaining this using the verse “and you shall eat before Hashem, your G-d… the tithes of your grain… In order that you may learn to fear Hashem, your G-d” (Deuteronomy 14:23).
  OATHS ARE A FENCE FOR ASCETICISM. Rav: <i>when a person first attempts to become an ascetic… he accepts upon himself via a </i>neder <i>that he will not do such-and-such</i>. See what I wrote on Nedarim 1:1, s.v. <i>kenidrei k’sherim</i>.
  A FENCE FOR WISDOM IS SILENCE. The mishna does not say “silence is a fence for wisdom,” following the order of the other sections, because it often changes the language of the last item in a list to make clear that it is the last—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>. Midrash Shmuel writes that this case differs from the others in that there is no fence for wisdom other than silence, for which reason the mishna says “a fence for wisdom is silence,” i.e. the only fence for wisdom is silence. Whereas in the other cases, though the mishna gives a fence for each one, other fences might exist.
  SILENCE. Rav: <i>refraining from saying permissible</i>115<i class="footnote">I.e., neither forbidden things, like gossip, nor things one ought to and must say, like words of Torah.</i><i> things. Concerning them Solmon said, “even a fool, if he stays silent, will be thought a wise man” (Mishlei 17:28)</i>. Since even a fool, should he stay silent, will be thought a wise man, we can infer that anyone who stays silent is wise.116<i class="footnote">It would be tempting to say that this is a printer's error, as the verse says that even fools who stay silent are considered wise. Not all those who are silent, then, are actually wise! But if we reverse the sentence to read “we can infer that anyone who is wise stays silent,” we are still left with a conclusion that in no way follows from the verse. There is no error here, and Tosafot Yom Tov understands the verse in Proverbs as Meiri does in his commentary there. It is not that a fool will mistakenly be considered a wise man if he remains silent. Rather, though he is a fool, in this respect he will be considered wise: he stays silent when he has nothing substantive to say. So also Ibn Yachya there. Now there is proof that it is a wise thing to remain silent, for then one will not end up offering opinions out of ignorance and looking foolish.</i> Moreover, the verse before this one says “a discerning man spares his words, an understanding one is reticent” (Proverbs 17:27); commenting on this first verse, Proverbs continues “even a fool, etc.” Since the words in the mishna are “a fence for wisdom,” Rav wished to quote a verse that mentions a wise man.
  
  Mishnah 14
  
  BELOVED IS MAN, WHO WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE. EVEN GREATER LOVE… AS THE VERSE SAYS, “FOR HE HAS CREATED MAN IN THE IMAGE OF GOD.” Rashi: <i>man is beloved, as he was created in the image. Therefore, he must do the will of his Maker. </i>R. Akiva was speaking of all men, as the verse he quotes for proof was said to all the sons of Noah, and not only to the sons of Israel. R. Akiva wished to find merit for all men, including Noahides.Rambam says this clearly in Hilchot Melachim 8:10: <i>Moses commanded us in the name of G-d to compel all men to accept the seven commandments that the sons of Noah were commanded. Whoever does not accept them shall be executed. Such a one as accepts them is referred to as </i>ger toshav <i>in rabbinic literature… Whoever accepts the seven commandments and is careful to keep them is called one of the “pious of the nations” and has a share in the world to come. This is provided he accepts them keeps them because G-d has commanded them in the Torah and made known through Moses that the sons of Noah had previously been commanded to keep them. But if he does these things because his reason compels him he is not a </i>ger toshav <i>and is not one of the “pious of the nations,” or even </i>[the text should read “but rather”] <i>one of their wise men.</i>Therefore, I wonder why it is that the commentators remained so distant from this approach and did not want to use it to explain the words of R. Akiva as applying to all men, limiting them instead to Jews alone. They drew support from the passage in the Talmud (Yevamot 61a), “you are called ‘man’, etc.”, stacking one midrashic reading on top of another!117<i class="footnote">The passage in Yevamot 61a is a midrashic reading of the word “man” in a verse in Ezekiel, and to assume that our mishna is using the word “man” to mean Jews only is likewise a midrashic reading; the end result, therefore, is midrashically reading “man” in our mishna based on further midrashically reading “man” in Ezekiel.</i> Because of this they had to contrive a forced understanding of the “image” and the verse that our mishna brings as proof.In my opinion, the following approach is the spacious, paved road. R. Akiva intends to instruct all men as we were commanded to do by Moses, per Rambam above. If that command extends to threats of destruction by the sword, it certainly includes persuasive speech intended to draw them to the will of their Maker. He speaks well of them and says that they are beloved in that they are created “in the image” in order to show them that the law of man is to keep the statutes and laws of G-d, as Rambam says. For since man is beloved of G-d, to the point that they he was created in His image, he must do the will of his maker, as Rashi writes.Now we understand why the mishna chooses this verse, despite the fact that there are several similar verses that precede it, for instance “Let us make man in Our image.” For this verse is the only one that is given as a rationale for a commandment; when G-d commands Noah and his sons not to kill, he gives the reason “because G-d has made man in His image,” and R. Akiva is speaking to the Noahides as well.We also understand why here the mishna says “in the image” and leaves out the verse’s descriptor “of G-d”, but later in the section about “children” it says “they were called children of G-d”, for this is a rebuke to the nations. They were created “in the image,” i.e. “in the image of G-d”, but only created such—since they do not keep the commandments, or if they do keep them they do not do so because G-d commanded them, they cannot be described as being “in the image of G-d”.This also accords with the idea of “the image,” which Rambam has explained in the Guide for the Perplexed 1:1 as referring to the intellect that is unique to man and is his true essence. The purpose of this intellect is to know G-d to the extent it is possible and within man’s abilities. This truly wise sage chose his words cleverly and did not say that they are “in the image of G-d,” for they are lacking knowledge of G-d, and when the verse says that He “made man in the image of G-d” it means that this was the intent of the creation of man, i.e. that he have the kind of intellect which can reach knowledge of G-d. Since, however, the reality is that “they neither know nor understand, they go about in darkness” (Psalms 82:5) and the potential has not been actualized, it is only fitting that the mishna say they were created “in the image” and not “in the image of G-d”, since the intended knowledge of G-d was not achieved and they are left only with potential, which is fittingly called simply “the image.” This seems to be the explanation of R. Akiva’s words.Based on this, we can see that the following mishna has chosen its language very carefully, as I will explain there.Also, this is another facet of why Israel is “especially beloved”—for they are already beloved to G-d as part of mankind, which He made in His image, and they are still more beloved, “foremost in rank and foremost in honor” (Genesis 49:3), on account of two other things: they are children of G-d, which is the “rank” as it is a great virtue, and they possess the desirable utensil, the Torah, which is “honor,” as in “G-d will give his nation honor” (Psalms 29:11) [*which verse the Sages have expounded in the Talmud, Zevachim 116a as referring to the Torah].
  AS THE VERSE SAYS, “YOU ARE THE CHLIDREN OF HASHEM, YOUR G-D” (Deuteronomy 14:1). The mishna does not cite the earlier verse “Israel is my firstborn son” (Exodus 4:22) because one might interpret that verse as referring only to that generation, which G-d desired to bring out of Egypt and called “my children.” The mishna therefore cites this verse, which was said in the context of the commandments that we have been commanded to keep forever, laws that never pass: “Do not cut yourselves, etc.” These are “obligations of the body,” which apply in every place and in every generation.Midrash Shmuel explains in the name of Chasid Ya’avetz that the mishna chooses this verse because only in it does G-d tell Israel themselves that they are “His children,” as the verse says “you are the children.” In the earlier section of the mishna, concerning “the image of G-d,” He likewise tells the people themselves. This is also the case in the next section, with the verse “for I have given you a good teaching.” This explanation accords well with Rambam’s understanding of “made known to them.” According to Rav, however, who does not explain “made known to them” literally, instead understanding it as “clear to all,” the mishna does not bring proof from the fact that the verse speaks to the people and means simply that this is something clear and well-known to all people. In that case, my approach118<i class="footnote">That this verse was chosen because it refers to all generations.</i> works better.
  DESIRABLE UTENSIL [Heb. <i>k’li chemda</i>, lit. “desired utensil”]. This is the Torah, which is called <i>chemda</i>, for shortly after the verse “the Torah of G-d is perfect” (Psalms 19:8) comes the verse “which are more desirable [Heb. <i>nechmadim</i>] than gold, even much fine gold” (Psalms 19:11)—so Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yisrael.I say that the mishna calls it a <i>k’li chemda</i> because through it the world was created, and the word <i>chemda</i> describes the creation of the world. For in the <i>sh’moneh esreh</i> for Shabbat the Sages wrote “you have called it119<i class="footnote">Shabbat.</i> the <i>chemda</i> of days,” based on the Targum Yerushalmi120<i class="footnote">Abarbanel quotes this Targum ad loc., as do others, but it is not in our editions.</i> which translates the word <i>vayechal</i>, “and He completed” (Genesis 2:2) with the Aramaic <i>vechamed</i>. The idea is that the finished creation in its entirety was desirable in His eyes, for which reason He also said it was “good”. This is what Rav is referring to when he writes that the “good teaching” refers to creation, which is also “good”.Since “good” refers more naturally to physical things and “desirable” is closer to intellectual things—as it is the soul which desires—the mishna does not call it the “good utensil” after the “good” of creation but the “desirable utensil.” This point is made clear in the verse “...that the tree is good for eating… and desirable for understanding” (Genesis 3:6), where “good” is said of the physical, of eating, while “desirable” is said of understanding.
  
  Mishnah 15
  
  ALL IS SEEN. The mishna is referring to the entire world, both Jews and gentiles, which is why at the end it speaks of “the world,” which also refers to everybody. For this reason the mishna does not open with the words “he used to say,” as it is a direct continuation of the preceding mishna, in which “beloved is man, etc.” was said of all the nations of the world in order to instruct them and draw them to the commandments they were commanded in, as I wrote above. Our mishna now proceeds to call on all people, Jew and gentile, and warn them that “all is seen… and the world is judged well.”
  ALL IS SEEN, AND PERMISSION IS GIVEN. Rav in the name of Rambam: <i>“all is seen”—all of a person’s deeds, what he has done and what he will do, are known to Him. And say not that since G-d knows all that a person will do he is forced to do everything he does, whether for good or for evil, because “permission is given.”</i> For G-d’s knowledge is not like ours, and although we use the same word to speak of His “knowledge” and our knowledge it is nothing more than a borrowed term. Just as we are unable to know the true nature of His existence, as the verse says, “Can you achieve an understanding of God? Can you fathom the extent of the Almighty?” (Job 11:7), we are unable to understand the nature of His knowledge. For He and His knowledge are one, unlike man and his knowledge, which are two separate things. This is what the prophet means when he says “for my thoughts are not your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8)—these are the words of Rambam at the end of the eight chapters that he appended as an introduction to this tractate. They are repeated in Mishne Torah, in the fifth chapter of Hilchot T’shuva, and appear yet again in the Guide for the Perplexed, 3:20, where he writes about this at length.[*Ra’avad writes in a gloss on Hilchot T’shuva 5:5: <i>this author has not followed the ways of the wise, for a person should not begin a thing he does not know how to complete. He began with questions and difficulties, left the difficulties unanswered, and advised the reader to just go back to faith; it were better to leave the matter simple for the simple people and not to draw their attention to this and leave them in doubt. For they might later think heretical thoughts about this. </i>I say that he has, in fact, followed the ways of the wise, the wise being the Sages, who said just the kind of incomplete things that Ra’avad criticized Rambam for. For the mishna in Chagiga 2:1 plainly says as much: <i>anyone who looks into these four things would be better off not having come into this world: what is above, what is below, what is in front, and what is behind.</i> I see no difference between the words of the tannaitic sage and the words of Rambam. For when the tanna says that such a person “would be better off not having come into this world” he is forbidding him to look into and research these things. Why would he do this? Hasn’t he made people aware of this issue? By Ra’avad’s reasoning he should’ve remained silent lest people think heretical thoughts. Should one deflect and say that this is actually what the tanna’s words mean, i.e. that he shouldn’t think heretical thoughts, one can similarly deflect and say that this is what Rambam meant, for he has told us that we cannot understand this and we therefore should not think of it as we will not gain understanding.I say that in saying “all is seen and permission given” our tanna means to say that both things are true, as Rambam writes in his commentary. Now it would seem that the tanna should’ve reversed the order and said “permission is given and all is seen,” i.e. “permission”, which is free will, is given to man, and no action goes unaccounted for because it is seen and known to Him and He will reward and punish. For free will is the foundation of the entire Torah, and because of our free will G-d’s knowledge of our actions will then lead to reward or punishment. But there seems to be no logic in first saying that “all is seen,” for what difference does it make to us that “all is seen” if we do not yet know that “permission is given”? We must conclude, therefore, that the tanna’s intent is to bring to people’s attention that even though “all is seen,” there is no contradiction to free will, for “permission is given.” In formulating the mishna this way the tanna has brought up the issue and yet has offered no resolution, the expectation then being that one understand that there is none, as is clear from the fact that the mishna does not offer any. In any case, since we have shown that the mishna is to be understood as saying “even though all is seen, permission is given,” the tanna clearly does bring up the issue hidden in his words.I also found a passage in Bereshit Rabbah 22:10 on Cain’s murder of Abel: <i>R. Shimon bar Yochai said: this is difficult to say and impossible for the mouth to explain. This is like two fighters who were standing and fighting in front of the king. If the king wanted to, he could have separated them, but he did not want to separate them. One of them overcame the other and killed him, and he said, Who will seek out justice for me from the king? So too, “your brother’s blood cries out to me from the earth”. </i>This is just like Rambam—R. Shimon bar Yochai points out that the king could have separated them, for he knew and saw that they were fighting, and does not answer why it is that he didn’t separate them, noting only that “this is difficult to say and impossible for the mouth to explain”; even so, the sage, the G-dly tanna R. Shimon bar Yochai, did not hold back from bringing up the issue.As for why R. Shimon bar Yochai did not say this about the earlier sin of Adam, it might be because the story of Cain and Abel hints to the notion of free will. For they correspond to the two drives on which free will hinges: the drive for good and the drive for evil, as Rambam writes in the Guide for the Perplexed, 2:30.The overall point is that Rambam spoke well and followed the ways of the wise and perfect, the G-dly tannaim.]Midrash Shmuel writes that there is no difficulty to begin with, because G-d’s knowledge is like that of one who looks and observes the deed a person does. One person simply seeing what another is doing does not force the other person to do so, and G-d seeing a person’s deeds does not force him to do them. And there are no grounds to object that since He knows what a person will do, the person must be forced to do those things, because for G-d there is no before and after, as He does not exist in time. He writes that R. Moshe Almosnino writes that this is the opinion of Rambam himself. When he distinguishes between G-d’s knowledge and our knowledge he means this distinction: His knowledge is always in the present, as there is no future in relation to Him, and just as our knowledge of the present does not force anything to happen in the present, His constant knowledge of the present does not force anything to happen in the present. People are confused on this point because they cannot imagine how He could constantly know in the present even things that are, in relation to us, in the future. Rambam therefore establishes that His knowledge is not like our knowledge, and we should not err this way. This is also why the mishna says “everything is seen,” i.e. already known, for everything is revealed before Him and He does not look into the future.[You should know Midrash Shmuel’s opinion that G-d knows things as one who observes the deeds that a person does is the answer given by the Ra’avad in the gloss quoted earlier, where he says that G-d’s knowledge is like the knowledge of the astrologers, etc. The gloss ends, however, with “and all this does not satisfy me.” You should further know that the Ra’avad was likewise preceded in this opinion by R. Sa`adiah Gaon in his book <i>Emunot VeDe`ot</i>, in the fourth treatise, where he writes something very similar. That will do for now.]Maharal writes in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that the mishna says “is seen” instead of “sees” because even evil things that G-d does not desire are also seen. Saying “sees” would imply that He wishes to see them, and conerning evil things the verse says “and you cannot look upon wrongdoing” (Habakkuk 1:17).
  AND THE WORLD IS JUDGED WELL [Heb. <i>b’tov</i>]. Rav writes in the name of Rambam: <i>since the case is that “permission is given,” “the world is judged well”, etc.</i> Although this is a good explanation, it is not found in our editions of Rambam’s commentary, which has the following: <i>the mishna then says that G-d judges people with kindness and goodness, not accoding to what they truly deserve in judgment. He clarified His ways in this in saying “slow to anger” (Exodus 34:6), which the Talmud (Bava Kamma 50b) explains as applying to both the righteous and the wicked. And the poetic prophet says “G-d is good to all” (Psalms 145:9).</i>
  AND EVERYTHING GOES BY THE MAJORITY OF DEEDS [or HOW NUMEROUS THE DEEDS ARE, Heb. <i>l’fi rov hama`aseh</i>]. Rav, in his “alternate explanation” above, writes that a person is judged according to the majority of his deeds. Cf. my comments on Kiddushin 1:10 (s.v. <i>vechol she’eino</i>).Rav writes in the name of Rambam: <i>a person who constantly does numerous good deeds will get great reward… Rambam’s text of the mishna is “and everything goes by how numerous the deeds are [Heb. </i>l’fi rov hama`aseh121<i class="footnote">The Hebrew <i>rov</i> can be read either as “majority” or “numerousness”.</i><i>], but not by the deed.”</i> But I do not know where he got this from, as this is not evident from Rambam’s commentary here, which reads: <i>the mishna says that one acquires good character traits not through one great deed but through a large number of deeds… and the same is true of the reward for performing the Torah’s commandments… based on this, the mishna uses the language </i>l’fi rov hama`aseh<i> [by how numerous the deeds are], but not </i>l’fi godel hama`aseh <i>[by how great the deed is]</i>. He is simply explaining why the mishna uses <i>rov</i> instead of <i>godel</i>. And Midrash Shmuel, who also writes that the text quoted by Rav was Rambam’s text, is not giving his own testimony but is testifying based on the testimony of a previous witness, as he takes his words from Rav even though he does not cite him by name.I also saw that Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Moshe Alashkar that some versions have “and the world is judged with goodness but not by the majority of deeds.” He goes on to explain that the world is judged with goodness, with the attributes of kindness and mercy, but not by the majority of people’s deeds, for if He would look at the majority of deeds the world would be destroyed and cease to exist.You should know that even so, a person is given the just deserts of all his deeds, for “if one says that G-d lets things go, his innards will be let go” [Bava Kamma 50a]. G-d judges the world with goodness in order that it not be destroyed and cease to exist, and “collects what is owed” at the points that He, whose memory is eternal, determines. Cf. my comments on Kiddushin 1:10 (s.v. <i>metivin</i>).
  
  Mishnah 16
  
  HE USED TO SAY: EVERYTHING IS GIVEN ON PLEDGE, ETC. This mishna is also speaking to all people and is a continuation of what he said above, “beloved is man, etc.”, which is about all people, as I explained there. Now I wrote that mishna 15 simply starts “all is seen” and omits “he used to say” because it is a direct continuation of mishna 14 and not a new topic, and this mishna is likewise a continuation of mishna 15 and speaks to all people. Even so, the mishna starts with “he used to say,” because it is nothing more than an expanded clarification of mishna 15, and “he used to say” here means that he himself used to explain his words. Alternately, “he used to say” here might mean “he used to say the same thing in other words.”Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Chasid Ya`vetz that “everything is given on pledge” corresponds to “all is seen” in mishna 15. That is, even though “all is seen” and G-d knows of the evildoers, he does not give them what they deserve on account of their evil immediately because “everything is given on pledge,” i.e. He has guarantees, and this one will not escape Him. One can explain the words of Rav, that “a person’s feet are his guarantors,” similarly.
  AND THE COLLECTORS. Rav: <i>suffering and disasters</i>. Rambam: <i>a metaphor for death and other punishments, etc.</i>, which is what Rav writes on “the net is spread out”.
  WHETHER HE IS CONSCIOUS OF IT OR NOT. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rashbam that there are editions that have “whether they intend it or not,” which is the best version of the text. The antecedent of “they” is “the collectors,” per the passage in the Talmud, Chagiga 4b: <i>Whenever Rav Yosef got to the verse “there are those who perish unjustly” (Proverbs 13:23) he would cry. He said, “Does anybody die before his time?” Yes, as in the incident with Rav Bibi bar Abaye, who was in regular contact with the angel of death. Once, the angel of death said to his messenger, “Go bring me Miriam the women’s hairdresser [Aram. </i>megad'la se`ar n'shaya<i>].” He went and brought Miriam the babysitter [Aram. </i>megad’la dardekei<i>]. The angel of death said to him, “I asked you for Miriam the women’s hairdresser!” He said to him, “If so, I’ll bring her back.” The angel of death said, “Now that you’ve brought her, she stays. But how did you manage to take her?” Etc.</i> This is what is meant by “whether they are conscious of it or not,” they carry out G-d’s command.
  AND THE JUDGMENT IS A TRUE JUDGMENT. Rav: <i>G-d does not deal despotically [Heb. </i>b’tyronia<i>] with his creatures.</i> The Aruch explains <i>b’tyronia</i> as “by force and with false accusations.”Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rashbam that in his edition of the Mishna the text is “and the one judging is a true judge.” He also writes in the name of Rabbenu Ephraim that some editions have “and when he judges, the judgment is true,” and some have “and the judge is a true judge.”
  AND EVERYTHING IS PREPARED FOR THE FEAST. Rav: <i>both the righteous and the wicked have a share in the World to Come once their debts have been collected. </i>Other than those listed above in mishna 11 and in Sanhedrin 10:1. Cf. Eduyot 2:10.
  
  Mishnah 17
  
  IF THERE IS NO TORAH, THERE IS NO <i>DERECH ERETZ</i>, ETC. Rav explains <i>derech eretz</i> as proper business dealings with others. He writes: <i>one who has no </i>derech eretz <i>eventually forgets his Torah</i>. The tanna does not mean to say that one is a prerequisite for the other and must precede it in time, for if so neither would exist. For if each requires the other to exist first for its own existence, since they cannot both be first neither would come into being. And besides, <i>derech eretz</i> certainly must precede Torah chronologically, as I wrote on 2:2. The tanna simply means that if one does not study Torah, when he does business he won’t deal properly with others because he will not know what to do, along the lines of what the Sages said in the Talmud, Bava Kamma 30a: “one who wishes to be pious should study the laws of torts and commerce.” Similarly, one who does not do business properly with others will eventually forget his Torah for the sin of profaning G-d’s name, as people will say “Look at this Torah scholar and how disgusting his behavior is!” [Yoma 86a.]
  IF THERE IS NO WISDOM, THERE IS NO FEAR [OF HEAVEN or OF SIN]. Rav already explained, in his commentary on mishna 9, the mishna of “anyone whose fear of Heaven does not precede his wisdom etc.,” that one must intend from the outset to study in order to become one who fears sin. Here, we can explain the mishna as follows. “If there is no wisdom,” even if a person wishes to be one who fears sin, his fear of sin cannot be realized because he doesn’t know what is a sin that he should avoid it, as in 2:9, “an unlearned person cannot be one who fears sin.” And “if there is no fear of sin,” i.e. a person does not intend to be one who fears sin, then “there is no wisdom,” i.e. his wisdom does not remain with him as in mishna 9.In light of our explanation, we can see that this section of the mishna is parallel to the one that precedes it. For in the first part of the first section, the subject of the protasis—Torah—brings about the existence of the subject of the apodosis—<i>derech eretz</i>; in the last part of the first section, the subject of the protasis—<i>derech eretz</i>—ensures the continued existence of the subject of the apodosis—Torah. The same is true of the second section. In the first part, the subject of the protasis—wisdom—brings about the existence of the subject of the apodosis—fear of heaven; in the last part, the subject of the protasis—fear of heaven—ensures the continued existence of the subject of the apodosis—wisdom. Similarly, erudition brings about the existence of understanding, for without erudition there is nothing to understand; understanding ensures the continued existence of erudition, for without understanding, one’s erudition turns to naught. Similarly, flour brings about the existence of Torah, as maintenance of the body certainly must chronologically precede the intellection of the soul; the Torah ensures the continued existence of the flour, for if there is no Torah he will be punished and lack for flour until he starves to death. This explanation and this version of the text seem best.Some editions have, in the first part of this section, “if there is no fear, etc.,” and we can say that this is because fear of sin has a virtue over and is more important than wisdom, for the purpose of wisdom is to have fear of sin. But then we have difficulty with the fourth section, where the first part says “if there is no flour, etc.” in place of the expected “if there is no Torah, etc.” Maharal resolves this in <i>Derech Chaim</i> by saying that since the tanna has already placed Torah first in the first section he does not wish to do so again, for which reason he also does not put the last section right after the first. Also, since it is last, there is another reason not to start the section with “if there is no Torah.” If the section would start that way, the mishna would finish with Torah, and it is improper to put Torah last.Going along with this explanation, I say that the section didn’t start “if there is no Torah” because then the last words of the mishna would be “there is no Torah,”122<i class="footnote">It would read, “if there is no flour, there is no Torah.”</i> and one should not end the mishna this way because of the idea of “do not stop at an evil thing,” as Rav explains at the end of Mo`ed Kattan and at the end of Yadaim.
  UNDERSTANDING [Heb. <i>da`at</i>]. Rav: <i>he provides a reason </i>[Heb. <i>ta`am</i>] <i>for a thing</i>. If so, the words<i> ta`am</i> and <i>da`at</i> in the verse “Teach me good<i> ta`am</i> and <i>da`at</i>” (Psalms 119:66) are synonyms.
  FLOUR. Flour, as opposed to wheat or bread. The mishna does not require that one have wheat, which one stores for a long time. On the other hand, the mishna is not satisfied with bread, which lasts only a day or a week, concerning which the Talmud expounds: “ ‘And your life will hang in doubt’—this refers to one who relies on the shopkeeper” (Menachot 103b). The mishna recommends the middle path of flour. This lasts several days, and can be used to make both bread and other baked goods—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Lev Avot.
  ANYONE WHOSE LEARNING IS GREATER THAN HIS DEEDS. Rav does not comment here because a very similar teaching appears earlier in mishna 9, and our tanna is simply dressing it in an appropriate parable. Rambam likewise writes in his commentary: <i>“anyone whose learning is greater, etc.”—we have already explained these things in this chapter</i>.
  BUT FEW ROOTS. Deeds are like the roots because they are the main thing, as the mishna says earlier in 1:18, “deeds, not study, are the main thing”—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rashbam.
  AS THE VERSE SAYS, “HE WILL BE LIKE A LONE TREE, ETC.” The verse before this one says “accursed is the one who trusts in man,” i.e. he does not trust that G-d will provide him his livelihood, instead turning to theft and trusting in the people that aid him. On the other hand, the verse before “and he will be like a tree planted etc.” says “blessed is the man who trusts in G-d”—Rashi.Midrash Shmuel writes that the imagery of the wind uprooting the tree is also from this verse, which uses the word <i>ar`ar</i>, “a lone tree”, and <i>aravah</i>, “a plain” to emphasize that the absence of other trees and mountains around the plain leaves no obstacle in the way of the wind, which will buffet the tree until it moves it from its place. The other verse reads “and he will be like a tree planted by water, which spreads it roots out along the brook,” meaning that the tree will be well-rooted in the earth and all the winds in the world will not move it.Rashi quotes a variant text of the mishna in which neither verse is quoted. It is possible that this was the text before Rav and Rambam, who would otherwise have commented and explained the proofs. Maharal, however, writes in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that the mishna is using the verses to prove only that upstanding and wicked people are likened to trees, but is not finding support in the verses for the other details of the parable, which it supplies on its own.
  [*BY WATER. This is my emendation of the text, which should not read “by streams of water” because our tanna is quoting Jeremiah, 17:8. The text was corrupted to read “streams” based on Psalms 1:3, a verse which is much more commonly said by all than the verse in Jeremiah which our tanna brings as proof, where the word “streams” does not appear. The reason the mishna does not quote the verse from Psalms, even though King David preceded Jeremiah, is that it wishes to make the point that “even all the winds in the world… cannot move it from its place”; this is seen more clearly in the verse in Jeremiah, which says that the tree “spreads its roots out along the brook.”]
  
  Mishnah 18
  
  R. ELIEZER CHISMA. This is the correct text, not the one in the printed editions which reads “R. Eliezer son of Chisma”. For he himself was called Chisma, as in the passage in Vayikra Rabbah 23:5 which says that he did not know how to do <i>prisa al shema</i>,123<i class="footnote">This refers to a public recitation of some part of the daily prayers—possibly the first bracha of <i>birchot kriat shema</i>, possibly also <i>kaddish</i> and <i>barchu</i>. For the range of opinions, see the medieval commentaries on Megillah 23b.</i> and the people dishonored him and said “this is what you call a Rabbi?” He came before R. Akiva and learnt how to do it, at which point the people said “R. Eliezer has grown strong! [Heb. <i>it-chasam</i>]” and called him R. Eliezer Chisma. [*The mishna in Terumot 5:3 also has R. Eliezer Chisma.]
  THE LAWS OF BIRD-OFFERINGS AND THE BEGINNINGS OF MENSTRUAL PERIODS. The laws of bird-offerings are treated in a separate tractate, and the beginnings of menstrual periods are the subject of the mishna in the beginning of the second chapter of Arachin.[*Rav writes that in some cases the woman requires 95 immersions. This is the opinion of Beit Shammai in a baraita quoted in Niddah 29b, but the opinion of Beit Hillel is that she needs only 35. There might be a scribal error in Rav’s commentary, which should read “35” instead of “95”. But it is possible that Rav simply intends to point out how complicated this can get, for which reason he quotes the opinion of Beit Shammai; rather than issuing a halachic ruling he is merely emphasizing the potential difficulty, even though the halacha does not follow that opinion. The conclusion of Tosafot there (30a, s.v. <i>sh’ma minah</i>), moreover, is that the halacha follows R. Yossi ben Yehuda who says that one immersion at the end suffices. If so, the halacha does not even follow the opinion of Beit Hillel. It is all the more reasonable, then, to suggest that Rav meant only to emphasize the difficulty, for even had he quoted the opinion of Beit Hillel it would not have been the final halacha.]
  THEY ARE THE MAIN OF THE LAW. The mishna does not mean to exclude other areas of law, only astronomy and geometry. It picks these areas to contrast them to astronomy and geometry, which also involve calculations [cf. below]—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>. He also writes that the mishna chooses these areas of law to make an additional point: even though these laws involve calculations that arise from cases of uncertainty, whereas astronomy and geometry involve no uncertainty, the laws are still more valuable.Kesef Mishne writes on Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 4:13 that although bird-offerings seem to be a thing of little value and the beginnings of menstrual periods revolve around an unseemly subject, they are the main of the law on account of the great reward one receives for their study. Astronomy and geometry, while their subject is an elevated one [see the explanation of <i>gimatriyot</i> below], are not the most important things but are like side dishes for wisdom. I will reproduce the end of his comment below.
  THEY ARE THE MAIN OF THE LAW [Heb. <i>hen hen gufei halachot</i>]. The mishna at the end of the first chapter of Chagigah uses similar language: <i>hen hen gufei torah</i>, which the Talmud (Chagigah 11b) explains as “these [<i>hen</i>] and these [<i>vehen</i>] are <i>gufei torah</i>”, as Rav writes on the mishna there; the meaning in our mishna is the same. R. Eliezer Chisma was a student of R. Akiva and lived after the destruction of the Temple, as Rambam writes in the fourth of the ten chapters in his Introduction to the Mishna, and the laws of bird-offerings have no practical application when the Temple is not standing. He therefore found it necessary to let us know that these are the main of the law even wen the Temple is not standing, because the study of these laws is a substitute for the sacrificial service, as I write on the mishna in 1:2.
  THE MAIN OF THE LAW. The reason that the mishna does not say “the main of the Torah” as it does at the end of the first chapter of Chagigah is that these laws deal with cases of doubt, and there is no mention of such things in the written Torah, only in the oral law that the Sages taught.
  ASTRONOMY [Heb. <i>tekufot</i>]. Rav: <i>the movement of the constellations</i>. So also Rashi. Because they travel around [Heb. <i>makifim</i>] the world in a circular motion [Heb. <i>hekef</i>] their movement is called <i>tekufah</i>.A variant text of Rashi’s commentary has: <i>the dimension of the sun’s orbit and when it switches quarters</i>. This is what the word <i>tekufah</i> means in the language of those who calculate the `<i>evron,</i>124<i class="footnote">Lit. “passing”. See notes below.</i> which is the point at which the sun passes from one quarter of its sphere to another,125<i class="footnote">In classical and medieval astronomy, the earth occupies the center of the universe. Surrounding it are several celestial spheres, containing different planets and stars, which revolve around the earth from east to west. The sun, by contrast, has its own celestial sphere which moves from west to east. In addition, while the other celestial spheres complete their orbits around the earth daily, the sun moves incrementally and only completes its orbit every 365 days. The position of the sun in its sphere is divided into four quarters, their starting points corresponding to the solstices and equinoxes, which rabbinic literature calls <i>tekufot</i>. The act of intercalation is called <i>`ibur</i>, a word of unclear etymology. Numerous medieval commentators unterstand it as deriving from the word <i>me`uberet</i>, “pregnant” in the Mishna and Talmud. R. Avraham bar Chiyya, the 11th-century philosopher, astronomer, and mathematician, offers an additional etymology based on <i>`avar</i>, the Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew “passed”, explaining that the Sages take a month that has already passed and make it pass by again (<i>Sefer Ha`ibur</i>, ed. Filipowski, <i>Ma’amar Sheni, Sha`ar Shelishi</i>). Tosafot Yom Tov here offers a different etymology, making the verb <i>le`aber</i> a denominative deriving from the noun <i>`evron</i>, “a passing”, referring to the point at which the sun passes from one quarter of the sphere into the next. Tosafot Yom Tov seems to be conjecturing that the term was current in the Mishnaic and Talmudic periods, as it does not actually appear in Talmudic or subsequent astronomical literature. I have not made an exhaustive survey, but it appears that this etymology is original to Tosafot Yom Tov. </i> as Rav writes on the mishna in Sahnedrin 1:2 (s.v. <i>bishlosha</i>), that the court must intercalate [Heb. <i>me`abrin</i>] on account of the <i>tekufah.</i>126<i class="footnote">This connects <i>`ibur</i> to the <i>tekufah</i>.</i> Although leap years are now added based on a fixed formula and there is no longer a need for this, in the times of R. Eliezer Chisma they were still calculating the <i>tekufot</i> and detemining when to make a leap year based on their calculations, for this is what they did up until the days of Abaye and Rava, as Rambam writes in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 5:3.If we accept this explanation of the word <i>tekufot</i>, we must say that R. Eliezer Chisma’s dictum aplies only to the knowledge of the sun’s motion itself and not the legal ramifications thereof in the sanctification of the month and the making of a leap year; these are certainly both the main of the law. R. Eliezer Chisma was addressing himself only to those people that study these things simply to know them and be well-rounded scholars; to them R. Eliezer Chisma says these are merely side dishes.
  AND GIMATRIOT. Rav: <i>alphanumeric calculations</i>. Such as the midrash that the word Jacob said to his sons when he told them “go down (Heb. <i>r’du</i>, רדו) there” (Geneis 42:2) is a hint to the 210 years that Israel would spend in Egypt (Bereshit Rabbah 91:2). Or that the verse “with this (Heb. <i>bezot</i>, בזאת) shall Aharon enter the Sanctuary” (Leviticus 15:3) hints to the fact that the first Temple would stand 410 years. Rashi similarly explains <i>gimatriot</i> as alphanumeric calculations and the reading of a single word as an acronym. Aruch likewise writes: gimatriot<i>—writing א instead of 1, writing ק instead of 100</i>.It seems to me that this is a loan-word from Greek, by which the Greeks call the science of measurement and arithmetic. Our Sages borrowed the word for all matters of calculation and number. So also the anonymous commentary on Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 18:13. I also saw that Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i> explains the word in our mishna as referring to the science of measurement and arithmetic.If so, these are truly words that befit the one who said them: in the Talmud, Horayot 10a, R. Yehoshua testifies that R. Eliezer Chisma was able to estimate how many drops of water there are in the sea. This is through the discipline of engineering, for which measurement and arithmetic are prerequisites. It is because he had mastered all of these disciplines that it was proper for him to say this, as it would be improper for some other person who had not mastered these disciplines to speak this way, as the Sages say in Kohellet Rabbah 3:11. Therefore, this explanation of <i>gimatriot</i> as referring to measurement and arithmetic seems most likely. Cf. what I quote below from Maggid Mishne.Now this discipline must chronologically precede astronomy, for without it a person dare not raise a finger in discussing the paths of the constellations and the hosts of the heavens. Even so, because of the importance of astronomy and its subject, the mishna places it before the chronologically earlier<i> gimatriot</i>.
  <i>PARPRA’OT</i> FOR WISDOM [Heb. <i>parpra’ot lechochma</i>]. Rav: <i>like the </i>parpra'ot <i>people eat at the end of a meal for pleasure for dessert, these disciplines give a person honor in peoples’ eyes.</i> If so, the Hebrew <i>lechochma</i>, which usually means “for wisdom”, means “of wisdom”127<i class="footnote">Honor comes from knowledge of these disciplines, and is therefore “of wisdom”. The simple reading would have the word <i>lechochma</i> mean “for wisdom”, implying that knowledge of these peripheral disciplines is somehow beneficial to the main body of wisdom which is Torah.</i> in our mishna. Rashi: <i>because they are only </i>parpra'ot<i>, i.e. matters of wisdom</i>.The end of the Kesef Mishne I quoted above reads: <i>“for wisdom” means the wisdom of the Talmud which alone is worthy of being called “wisdom” without qualifiers, because it deals with G-d’s commandments and because of the great reward given to those who study it and keep its laws. These disciplines, therefore, are merely </i>parpra'ot <i>for it, for they are not the main thing the way it is</i>. My difficulty with this is that the first section of the mishna should then have said “these are the main of wisdom”.128<i class="footnote">If the “wisdom” referred to at the end of the mishna is the wisdom of the Talmud, the mishna’s contrast should have been between the main of “wisdom” and the side dishes thereof; there would be no reason to call it first law and then wisdom.</i>I found the Maggid Mishne on Hilchot G’nevah 8:1 giving the following explanation. <i>Tekufot</i> is arithmetic [Heb. <i>cheshbon</i>] per the the Talmud’s language “to be <i>choshev</i> the <i>tekufot</i>” (Shabbat 75a), <i>gimatri’ot</i> is the art of measurement, and “<i>parpra'ot </i>for wisdom” means for the discipline of astronomy, which is called <i>chochma</i> and <i>binah</i> in that same passage in Shabbat. This explanation also encounters difficulties, because <i>tekufot</i> certainly means the path of the stars and their orbit, not arithmetic. His proof from “to be <i>choshev</i> the <i>tekufot</i>” actually proves the exact opposite, that <i>tekufah</i> is not <i>cheshbon</i>!129<i class="footnote">For if it were, the verb and its object would be redundant, along the lines of “calculating calculations”.</i> Also, how could the mishna call these <i>parpra'ot</i> when in fact they come before the meal? He must’ve understood <i>parpra'ot</i> to mean foods that come before the meal to create an appetite, as Rav explains the word in Berachot 6:5.Now that we’ve mentioned that possibility, I say that <i>tekufot</i> refers to astronomy itself—the paths of the constellations and the whole host of the heavens. It, along with the geometry which precedes it, are appetizers that draw a person to that wisdom beyond which no greater wisdom lies for man: theology. For from a knowledge of the spheres of the heavens he will come to know the Creator, who is the one who “rides the heavens” (Deuteronomy 33:26)—from knowing what is ridden one comes to know the rider. Even according to the explanations of Rashi and Rav that <i>gimatriot</i> refers to alphanumerical calculations, we can say that “for wisdom” means “for theology,” because <i>Sefer Yetzirah</i> and similar works make extensive use of alphanumeric values, words read as acronyms, and permutations of the letters of a word. Based on this, we can also say that the tanna perhaps intended both things at the same time: <i>tekufot</i> are appetizers for human wisdom that can be attained through reasoning and investigation, and <i>gimatriot</i> are appetizers for our received theology.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  WHO IS WISE. Rav explains the question as “which wise person can take pride in his wisdom?” At first, this might seem like a contradictoin to what Jeremiah said: “Let not the wise man take pride in his wisdom, nor the strong man take pride in his strength, nor the rich man take pride in his riches—only in [Heb. <i>ki im</i>] this should one take pride: understanding and knowing Me” (Jeremiah 9:22). It is not, however, because our tanna understands the verse as follows. When Jeremiah says “only in this” he is speaking of the abovementioned things themselves. What he means to say is that the wise man should not take pride in his wisdom, unless [Heb. <i>ki im</i>]130<i class="footnote">The Hebrew can mean “only in” or “only if”, the latter rendered here as “unless”.</i> it be to understand and know Me; the strong man should not take pride in his strength, unless it be to understand and know Me; the rich man should not take pride in his riches, unless they be to understand and know Me. Our tanna therefore asks “which is the wise person” and so on as a question in response to the verse—since the verse says that there are wise, strong, and rich people that can take pride in their accomplishments but does not specify who they are, we must now ask to whom the verse refers.The tanna has investigated the matter and found that the wise person in question is the one who learns from every man. Rav explains that this shows that his intent in acquiring wisdom is purely for the sake of Heaven, which would be precisely in order to “understand and know Me.” The strong man is he who subdues his desires. This is strength for the sake of Heaven, i.e. in order that one not sin before G-d, and there can be no greater “understanding and knowing Me,” as the purpose of this “knowing” is to fear G-d and keep his commandments. And the rich man who is satisfied with his lot and does not chase after wealth uses his time to engage in the service of Heaven, which is also “understanding and knowing Me.” The mishna therefore says of him “you are praiseworthy in this world, and it will go well for you in the next.” And the Talmud says in Berachot 8a that “whoever eats the fruits of his labor is greater than one who fears Heaven” for the same reason: one who has fear of Heaven but is not content with what he has and chases after wealth will not have time for the service of G-d.
  AS THE VERSE SAYS, “I HAVE GROWN WISE FROM ALL MY TEACHERS”. Rav: <i>and the end of the verse says, “for your laws are all my speech.”</i> Which shows that the beginning of the verse means “I learned Torah from all of my teachers.”131<i class="footnote">That being the meaning of “growing wise”. The second half of the verse provides a reason for the first. If the reason is “for your laws are all my speech”, i.e. they are what I speak of all the time, the first half of the verse must mean “I have grown wise from all my teachers,” i.e. I have eagerly absorbed their instruction because all my desire was to know your laws. This is contra the following interpretation mentioned and dismissed by Maharal.</i> And we should not read the first half of the verse as “I have grown wiser than all of my teachers,”132<i class="footnote">The Hebrew supports both readings, because the prefixed <i>mi-</i> in <i>mi-kol melamdai hiskalti</i> can mean either “from” or “more than”.</i> for it is not unexpected that after one learns from a teacher he becomes sharp and understanding in the subject, and it is no surprise if he gets to understand more than what his teachers taught him133<i class="footnote">Precisely this rejected interpretation is offered by Ibn Ezra ad loc.</i>—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.Rav: <i>“for your laws are all my speech”, my intent is entirely for the sake of Heaven</i>. I.e., since all my speech is of Torah, it is clear that my intent is entirely for the sake of Heaven.134<i class="footnote">The reasoning is: I have learned Torah from all my teachers because my study was for the sake of Heaven, and it is evident that my study was for the sake of Heaven because it was the subject of all my speech. The middle premise, that my study was for the sake of Heaven, is implied by the two extremal premises. Rav assumes it and Tosafot Yom Tov clarifies the syllogism, which, written in syllogistic form, would go: 1. If Torah is all my speech, my study is for the sake of Heaven. 2. If my study is for the sake of Heaven, I learn from all my teachers. Therefore, since Torah is all my speech, I learn from all my teachers.</i>
  ONE WHO SUBDUES HIS INCLINATION. The inclination to evil [Heb. <i>yetzer hara</i>] is called “inclination” [Heb. <i>yetzer</i>] without qualification, as it precedes the desire for good, at which point it rules over the body alone—Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yosef Karo. He also writes that this inclination is more particular to a person and a more basic part of his essence than the inclination to good, as the nature of man is to incline to evil. Cf. what I wrote on 3:9 on “anyone whose fear of sin etc.”
  AS THE VERSE SAYS, “BEING SLOW TO ANGER IS BETTER THAN BEING STRONG.” Rav: <i>the meaning of the verse is that it is better to be slow to anger as a function of the strength involved in subduing one's inclination, not because of a lack of appetite.</i> For if the verse means simply that being slow to anger is better than being strong, we would wonder why that is, as being slow to anger because of lack of appetite is not better.135<i class="footnote">It is just not comparable—one is an act of strength, and the other a lack of a quality.</i>
  YOU ARE PRAISEWORTHY IN THIS WORLD. Rashi: <i>for he will not need to take from others. And in the next world because he enjoys the fruits of his labor and does not end up stealing, and will inherit both worlds</i>.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  AS TO A WEIGHTY ONE [Heb. <i>kevachamura</i>]. Other versions do not have this word, and the ones that do mistakenly inserted it due to the similarity of our mishna to the mishna in 2:1: “be as careful with a light commandment as with a weighty one [Heb. <i>Kevachamura</i>].” And the texts that do have it should read <i>kelachamura.</i>136<i class="footnote">“As to a weighty one,” not “as with a weighty one”, which has no meaning in our mishna.</i> I saw a manuscript copy of Avot from the Land of Israel that does not have the word <i>kevachamura</i>.
  FROM SIN. The mishna does not say “from a light sin” the way it says “to a light commandment” because “light” here has the sense that it is easy for a person to do, but all sins are easy for a person to do as they are all enjoyable; it is therefore not possible to say “from a light sin”—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.
  THE REWARD OF SIN IS SIN. G-d leaves him in the hands of his evil nature. But G-d will not aid him in sinning, the way that Rav writes. He would aid someone in performing a commandment, as the Talmud says: “One who wishes to purify himself receives G-d’s aid; one who wishes to become impure receives His permission” (Yoma 38b). So also Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rabbenu Yonah.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  BE [VERY] LOWLY OF SPIRIT. Midrash Shmuel has “before every man”. See mishna 10 (s.v. “before every man”).
  THE HOPE [Heb. <i>tikvat</i>] OF MAN [Heb. <i>enosh</i>] IS THE WORM. Rambam: <i>he should consider his end and his return to the worm</i>. I found a similar approach in Rashi’s commentary to the verse “the only desire of the righteous is the good, and the hope of the wicked is wrath” (Proverbs 11:23): <i>they are assured of and hoping for Gehinnom</i>. This shows that once a person is sure that something will happen it can be said to be “his hope”.Maharal writes in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that the mishna does not say “for your hope is the worm” because no person hopes to be eaten by the worms. It says instead “for the hope of man is the worm”, i.e. that every person is destined to be eaten by the worms.137<i class="footnote">The “hope of man” refers not to any actual person’s hope but to the fate of every person insofar as he is human, per the use of “hope” Tosafot Yom Tov has established above. Saying “your hope” would imply a personal hope, which is not true.</i> He also writes that the alphanumeric value of “man” [Heb. <i>enosh</i>, אנוש] is the same as the alphanumeric value of the sum of two other synonyms for “man”, אדם and איש. It is because of the joining of earth, אדמה, and the essence, i.e. potential, of man, אישות, that a person is the flesh, בשר, which is eaten by worms. He did not concern himself over the difference of one between the two values138<i class="footnote">The value of אנוש is 357, and the value of אדם + איש is 356.</i> [because one alludes to the joining of earth and the essence of man].Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Chasid Ya’avetz that the mishna means “be lowly of spirit” before those who insult you, and do not answer them becase “the hope of [the] man” who insults you is the worm, and why should you care what he says? He then says that this is based on the words of the prophet Isaiah: “Do not fear the disparagement of man, and do not be broken by their insults; for like a garment, a moth will eat them, and like wool, a worm will eat them” (Isaiah 51:7-8).Midrash Shmuel also writes that “hope” here is to be understood literally, and explains the mishna as saying that the hope and desire of a person is that he receive a proper burial and not be buried like a donkey. I say that although everyone hopes to have a proper burial befitting a person, it cannot be said that his hope and desire is to be eaten by the worm. If he were to be buried and not eaten by any worms, that would be best. Not only that, we find the Sages mentioning people whom the worms did not touch (Bava Batra 17a) and, we find the story of R. Elazar bar Shimon in Bava Metzia 83b.139<i class="footnote">In this story, R. Elazar bar Shimon’s daughter stores his body in her attic. One day she sees a worm coming out of his ear. He appears to her in a dream and explains that he once heard someone insulting a Torah scholar and did not sufficiently protest; the worm is a punishment for this. The import of the story is that worms only eat bodies that were engaged in sin, and it is possible to hope to be sinless and therefore not subject to worms.</i>I say that what caused the commentators all this difficulty is their understanding of the word <i>tikvah</i> as coming from the root <i>k.v.h</i>, meaning “to hope”. But this is not so, and the root is in fact <i>k.v</i>, as in the verse “<i>kav</i> by <i>kav</i>” (Isaiah 28:10). The second <i>tav</i> in the word <i>tikvat</i> is not in place of a <i>hey</i>140<i class="footnote">If the word in our mishna is “hope” from the root <i>k.v.h.</i>, “to hope”, then we understand <i>tikvat</i> as the word <i>tikvah</i> appearing in the construct state and we read <i>tikvat enosh</i> as “the hope of man”.</i>; it is simply a suffix, of the kind that appears in the words <i>tif’eret</i>, <i>tilboshet.</i>141<i class="footnote">The roots of which are <i>p.’.r.</i> and <i>l.b.sh.</i>, respectively—the <i>tav</i> at the end is a suffix added on to the root. Tosafot Yom Tov suggests that our word <i>tikvat</i> should be understood similarly, the <i>tav</i> being a suffix. </i> We find this word in the verse “the line [Heb. <i>tikvat</i>] of scarlet cord” (Joshua 2:18). We understand the <i>kav </i>in Isaiah the same way—as a measuring cord, with the verse meaning that one receives measure for measure. We also explain the verse in Proverbs 11:23, <i>tikvat enosh `evra</i>, to mean that the wicked are judged by the measuring cord and condemned to the wrath and rage of G-d. And this is what our tanna means when he says <i>tikvat enosh rimah</i>: the measuring cord by which punishment will be dealt out to a person is the worm. [I later saw a passage in Bereshit Rabbah 5:1 on the verse <i>yikavu hamayim</i>, “let the waters be gathered” (Genesis 1:9): <i>he shall make a measure for the water, as the verse says, “a </i>kav<i> [line] shall be stretched over Jerusalem</i>.]
  ANYONE WHO DESECRATES G-D’S NAME IN PRIVATE. Rav explains in Yoma 10:8 that “desecrating G-d’s name” means sinning and causing others to sin, and I wrote there that this means that others learn from the sin to sin themselves, as Rav himself writes on the mishna later in 5:9. If so, how is it possible to do this in private?One approach is that of Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>, that “in private” means that few people know about it, not that it is truly in private. He also gives the case of ten Torah scholars who are together and one of them steals or enters a brothel, and it is unclear who it was.Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rabbenu Yonah that the desecration of G-d’s name in private here refers to someone who worships other gods, which is desecration because he does not acknolwedge the true G-d, or someone who swears falsely, concerning which the verse says “and do not swear falsely in My name, such that you desecrate the name of your G-d” (Leviticus 19:12). He also writes in the name of Rabbenu Ephraim that our mishna is discussing a Torah scholar sinning in private, who, had he sinned in public, would have caused others to learn from his sin and would have desecrated G-d’s name. [*This seems very forced to me, because in the end he did not sin in public and didn’t cause an actual desecration of G-d’s name, and the language of the mishna does not support this reading. Anytime somebody sins in private there is no desecration of G-d’s name, and the mishna speaks specifically of a desecration of G-d’s name.As for what the case of the mishna would then be, I say that it would be the case of a sin that cannot be done without another’s participation, such as illicit relations and the like. The woman is forced,142<i class="footnote">In which case he desecrates G-d’s name because she comes to despise Torah scholars and Torah itself.</i> or even if she is seduced, she has only agreed to it because she reasons that there must not be any sin involved if he is willing to do it, causing a desecration of G-d’s name. Whereas when someone eats a forbidden food or the like and nobody sees him this does not cause any desecration of G-d’s name.]
  THERE IS NO DIFERENCE BETWEEN INTENTIONAL AND UNINTENTIONAL SINS. Rambam: <i>you already know from Scripture that even when one sins unintentionally, he has still sinned and requires atonement through a sacrifice, and G-d says that “he shall be forgiven for the sin that he sinned” (Leviticus 19:22).</i>143<i class="footnote">So he clearly is considered having sinned, and required forgiveness.</i><i> But he is not the same as one who sins intentionally. G-d forbid that the just ways of G-d would treat an unintentional sinner like an intentional one in any way. The mishna here simply means that the punishment for the desecration of G-d’s name, whether it happened in public or in private, will be in public. The punishment will be the one appropriate for the case, whether he sinned intentionally or unintentionally, but either way it will be in public</i>. Rashi also writes that the intentional and unintentional sins are only treated equally in terms of the publicity, not in terms of the punishment itself. He brings a proof from the case of the Jews who deserved to be destroyed for bowing down to the statue of Nebuchadnezzar and were not destroyed, which the Talmud explains is because “they only did this outwardly; G-d likewise only appeared to be destorying them” (Megillah 12a).Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Moshe Almosnino that it is fitting to treat the intentional and unintentional sinner equally with regards to the publicity of his punishment, because the one who sinned in private was sinning in public as far as the One against Whom he sinned is concerned, for nothing is hidden from His eyes. The mishna then repeats “in the desecration of G-d’s name” to clarify that it is for this reason that the unintentional and intentional sinner are treated equally with public punishments; a sin that desecrates G-d’s name is a sin against Him before whom all is revealed.144<i class="footnote">The reasoning seems to be that since every sin against G-d is like a sin in public, and the punishment for desecrating G-d’s name would happen publicly, a sin which (in public) would be a desecration of G-d’s name is likewise treated as though it happened in public at least in regards to the publicity of the punishment.</i>
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  ONE WHO STUDIES IN ORDER TO TEACH. “To teach” does not mean to the exclusion of actually doing, for of such a one “G-d says, Why should you speak of my laws?” (Psalms 50:16).145<i class="footnote">The verse there discusses a wicked person.</i> Cf. what I write below in the name of Kesef Mishne.
  IS GIVEN THE ABILITY TO BOTH STUDY AND TEACH. I.e., he is given the ability to study and to fulfill his plan of teaching. The mishna needs not speak of one who studies in order to learn, for his good intent to study will certainly come to fruition. Our case tells us something more: when his intent is to teach, he is given the ability to teach and his own studies will also succeed, so that neither will suffer, for G-d will give him wisdom146<i class="footnote">Based on Proverbs 2:6.</i>—so Midrash Shmuel.Maharal writes in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that one who studies only in order to learn for himself does not need much learning, and is indeed not given the ability to do all that he plans, for even if he learns a single law he has learnt.147<i class="footnote">If his only intent is to learn, he will not receive Divine assistance to do anything more than the bare minimum of learning. If his intent is to teach, however, he will be given much more; see <i>Derech Chaim</i>.</i>Kesef Mishne writes in Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:10 that “in order to teach” here means that he does not study for learning’s sake but to gain honor by becoming a <i>rosh yeshiva</i>, based on the Talmud in Nedarim 62a: <i>“To love Hashem, your G-d, to listen to His word and cleave to Him”—a person should not say, “I will study Tanach in order that people call me </i>chacham<i>; I will study the Mishna and Talmud in order that people call me </i>rabbi; <i>I will continue my studies so that I will be one of the elders and sit in council.”</i> Alternatively, his intent is to study and earn money the way that one would in learning any trade. In this case, he is given the ability to study and teach as he planned, but not more. Whereas one who studies in order to do is studying with pure intentions. R. Tzadok then tells us that it is sinful to study only in order to teach, which is what he means by “do not make them into a crown, etc.”148<i class="footnote"> Kesef Mishne there says that the two parts of R. Tzadok’s warning apply to the two kinds of intent he mentioned earlier: learning in order to gain honor (making Torah into a crown), and learning in order to earn money (making Torah into a spade).</i>
  TO KEEP AND TO DO. Even though his intent was only “to do”, he is given the ability “to keep” away from sin, in order that he not be “one who immerses while holding a rodent”149<i class="footnote">Touching a rodent makes one impure. To purify himself he must immerse in a <i>mikveh</i>. Immersing in the <i>mikveh</i> while holding the rodent is an exercise in futility, as he is still touching the rodent and remains impure. In the rabbinic idiom, one who “immerses while holding a rodent” is acting in order to achieve some outcome while simultaneously doing something else that prevents the outcome. Here, the desired outcome of performing positive commandments, doing G-d’s will, is being counteracted by the regular transgression of negative commandments.</i>—so Midrash Shmuel.In a copy of Avot from the land of Israel the word “to keep” does not appear, and this seems to be the correct text. For “to do” would obviously include keeping away from sin; as I wrote earlier, far be it that that doing positive commandments but not keeping away from negative ones be good in G-d’s eyes and an expression of His will! “To do”, rather, means simply to keep all the laws of the Torah.
  DO NOT MAKE THEM INTO A CROWN ETC. Not to gain honor through them and not to earn money through them, and both are necessary to say—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.
  NOR A SPADE WITH WHICH TO DIG. Rav: <i>it is forbidden to take money for teaching Torah, as the verse says “and G-d commanded at that moment to teach you laws and statutes” (Deuteronomy 4:14), </i>and another verse earlier150<i class="footnote">Tosafot Yom Tov clarifies that these are two separate verses that Rav wrote as one.</i> says <i>“...as Hashem my G-d commanded me” (Deuteronomy 4:5)—just as I learnt for free, you must learn for free. </i>This is based on the Talmud in Nedarim 37a, where Ran writes (s.v. <i>uchtiv re’eh</i>): <i>“As He commanded me.” I.e. he commanded me to teach for free. Otherwise, to what could “as He commanded me” be referring to? We cannot say that it means “[as He commanded me] to teach for pay”, for how could Moses say “as he commanded me”—had G-d commanded him this? Is it impossible to teach without taking pay? We also cannot say that he meant G-d commanded him these things and they were not of his own invention, for the people certainly would not have entertained such doubts, as the verse says “they will believe in you forever” (Exodus 19:9). We must say, rather, that “as He commanded me” must mean that He commanded me to teach for free.</i>Rav also writes: <i>similarly, a judge may not take money for rendering judgment… and if [he does], his rulings are void</i>. This is a mishna in Bechorot 4:6, see our comments there.Rav also writes: <i>the Torah has allowed him to benefit… in that his merchandise should be sold in the market first, and that the first customers in the market be directed to him.</i>151<i class="footnote">Our editions of Rav do not have this second benefit, but Rambam includes it in his commentary on the mishna, which is Rav’s source.</i> Rambam in his commentary here: <i>...for merchants regularly honor one another by doing these two things, even though there is no learning among them. A Torah scholar is not worse than a respected ignoramus.</i>Rav also writes: <i>he is also exempt from all taxes and burdens</i>. This is based on a verse in Ezra 7:24: “We also declare to you that it is unlawful to levy <i>minda</i>, <i>b’lo</i>, and <i>halach</i>152<i class="footnote">Types of taxes.</i> on all the priests and Levites, singers and gatekeeprs, Nethinim and whoever serves in this Temple of God.”
  AS HILLEL USED TO SAY. 1:13.
  WHOEVER DERIVES BENEFIT FROM WORDS OF TORAH TAKES HIS LIFE FROM THE WORLD. Rambam: <i>whoever benefits from the honor of Torah in this world takes his life from “the world”, i.e. the World to Come.</i>
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  AND POINTLESS OATHS [Heb. <i>shvuat shav</i>]. Rav writes in his second explanation: <i>the tanna calls a false oath a pointless oath</i>. This is based on the Talmud, Shevuot 20b, where Rav Dimi says in the name of R. Yochanan that a pointless oath is when one swears that he has eaten or not eaten, and the opposite is true. Rashi ad loc. explains: shav<i> here means “nothing”, as in the verses “cords of nothingness [Heb. </i>chavlei shav<i>]” (Isaiah 5:10) and “I have struck your children for nothing [Heb. </i>leshav<i>]” (Jeremiah 2:30); in this instance, as well, the oath has left his mouth for nothing. The souce for the prohibition is “Do not mention the name of Hashem, your G-d, in vain [Heb. </i>leshav<i>]” (Exodus 20:7).</i>I first wondered at this, because the mishna in Shevuot 3:8 asks “What is an oath of <i>shav</i>?” and does not list the case of one who makes an oath about past events. We can answer this as follows. The Talmud there says that Ravin disagrees with Rav Dimi and calls the oath of “I have eaten/I haven’t eaten” a false oath [*see my comments on Temurah 1:1, s.v. <i>sofeg</i>], while a pointless oath is one that involves an obviously false claim, such as “this is a woman” of a man. He holds that one who makes a false oath receives lashes, and the Talmud traces the source for this to the double use of the word <i>shav</i> in the verse in Exodus 20:7: one <i>shav</i> indicates that a pointless oath incurs lashes; the second <i>shav</i>, which now seems unnecessary, indicates that even a false oath incurs lashes. How, the Talmud asks, does Ravin know that a false oath is about a past event? It answers that, since the Torah clearly compares the false oath to the pointless oath, it is reasonable to assume that just as the pointless oath concerns a past event, a false oath concerns a past event. Rashi ad loc. explains that a pointless oath is about a “past event” because it makes a claim that is obviously false, as opposed to an oath about doing or not doing something in the future.We can similarly say that Rav Dimi would agree that any oath about a past event would follow logically from the classic case of a pointless oath, which is making an obviously false claim. Because the term “pointless oath” refers most directly to an oath claiming the opposite of what is well-known, the mishna defines a pointless oath as “making an oath claiming the opposite of something well-known,” but indeed, any false oath concerning a past event would be included in this.[*But there is a simpler approach. The Talmud says there (Shevuot 21b) that one who makes the oath “I have/haven’t eaten” is obligated to bring a sacrifice of atonement, whereas the abovementioned mishna says that one who makes a pointless oath is not obligated to bring a sacrifice. For this reason, the end of that same mishna says “this is the ‘pointless oath’ which one who makes intentionally must receive lashes for, but for which one who makes it unintentionally need not bring a sacrifice,” and the Talmud says that “this” means to exclude the case of “I have/haven’t eaten” which would require a sacrifice, as I wrote on that mishna (Shevuot 3:8, s.v. <i>zo hi</i>). Now even though the Talmud was in the middle of defending Ravin’s position, it is clear that even Rav Dimi agrees to this detail, as the Talmud says in Shevuot at the beginning of page 21a that Rav Dimi holds that swearing “I have/haven’t eaten” falsely would obligate one to bring a sacrifice.153<i class="footnote">This is why that mishna could not include the case of swearing about a past event in the “pointless oath”, even though it actually is—the mishna means to list those pointless oaths that would not obligate one to bring a sacrifice, and a false oath about a past event, even though it is included in the category of pointless oaths, does obligate one to bring a sacrifice.</i>]Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan that our mishna mentions pointless oaths and not false oaths because even when the law requires an oath and the one swearing is telling the truth, such an oath is considered a pointless oath as far as the litigant is concerned because he knows what is true, and making a true oath of something that is already known is called a pointless oath. If so, our mishna would be following the opinion of those who argue with Rav Dimi and hold that “I have/haven’t eaten” goes in the category of false oaths, which are forbidden by “do not swear falsely in My name” (Leviticus 19:12).154<i class="footnote">According to Midrash Shmuel, the mishna's warning is not that involvement in court cases will cause one to swear falsely. It is rather that even the legitimate oaths one makes in court have a dimension of pointlessness to them, and so our mishna is discussing piously refraining even from legitimate oaths as opposed to refraining from truly transgressing any prohibitions. If so, <i>shav</i> refers exclusively to these somewhat “pointless” oaths and not to any truly problematic ones, and cannot include false oaths. As such, it cannot be following the opinion of Rav Dimi, according to whom the word <i>shav</i> includes false oaths about past events; it must be following the opinion of those who argue and hold that the word <i>shav</i> simply means “pointless”, and can therefore be borrowed to describe these somewhat pointless oaths.</i> Rambam follows this opinion in Hilchot Shevuot 1:3. Cf. Rav’s commentary on on 5:9.
  A FOOL, WICKED, AND ARROGANT. A fool, because he causes others to hate him. Wicked, because it bothers him little if he causes the innocent party to pay or make needless oaths. He is also arrogant, because it is out of arrogance that he wishes to judge and issue rulings, that he may become famous and have the kind of reputation the great men of the land have—Midrash Shmuel.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  DO NOT JUDGE A CASE ALONE. Rav writes that this even applies to a single expert judge, who is authorized to judge cases alone, as Rav writes in Sanhedrin 3:1. [*Rav also writes: <i>but if the litigants accepted him as a judge, even one who wishes to act piously can judge the case alone</i>. I don’t see the logic here, for even in this case it is better to work the ruling out with others. Additionally, when there are three judges the litigant who is ordered to pay doesn’t know which of the judges decided against him; in considering each judge individually, he can always assume that this judge ruled in his favor but was overruled by the other two. Maharil uses this in the <i>Likutim</i> to explain Shmuel's saying155<i class="footnote">Sanhedrin 3a.</i> that although the ruling of a court that convenes with only two judges is valid, the court is called a “brazen court”: they are brazen and do not care that the litigant they order to pay will know that neither of them ruled in his favor.Indeed, Tur writes at the beginning of Choshen Mishpat 10 that “through much back-and-forth, the judge will penetrate to the depth of the case.” The word “back-and-forth” usually means discussion with another person, not internal back-and-forth, and it does not seem reasonable to distinguish between expert and non-expert judges in this respect.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  ANYONE WHO UPHOLDS THE TORAH IN POVERTY [Heb. <i>me`oni</i>]. Rav: <i>he is tight on food and still puts his work aside in order to study Torah</i>. The mishna does not says “anyone who studies” because of the second section. There, the mishna did not want to say “anyone who does not study Torah” because we might understand this to refer to one who does not study Torah out of arrogance on account of his wealth. The mishna therefore says “anyone who leaves aside the Torah because of wealth,” i.e. because he needs to busy himself with it he leaves aside his Torah study. In the first section, as well, when the mishna says “anyone who upholds the Torah in poverty” it means that his business needs do not cause him to cast aside his study; instead, he maintains his study—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>. If we go with this approach that the first section of the mishna was so worded under the influence of the last section, we can also understand the use of the word <i>me`oni</i>, which really means “because of poverty”. Though it would have been more natural to say <i>be`oni</i>, “in poverty,” the mishna used the <i>me-</i> prefix under the influence of the second section which says <i>me`osher</i>, meaning “because of wealth”.156<i class="footnote">Where the meaning really is “because of wealth”, as Maharal has explained.</i>
  WILL EVENTUALLY UPHOLD IT IN WEALTH. Experience has shown that this is often untrue,157<i class="footnote">I.e., that such people don’t always become wealthy.</i> as in the story of the poverty-stricken R. Elazar ben P’dat in Ta`anit 25a, whom G-d asked: “would you like me to remake the world, so that perhaps you will be born in a time of plenty?” Maharal writes in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that our mishna is discussing a person with average luck.158<i class="footnote">Heb. <i>mazal</i>, a term with complicated theological connotations.</i> And sometimes this happens to a person so that wealth not take him away from his studies,159<i class="footnote">Even though the person in question deserves the wealth promised to him by the mishna, G-d keeps it from him in the knowledge that if he gets to be wealthy he will abandon his Torah study. The mishna’s promise, then, is only fulfilled for the kind of person that will not abandon his studies.</i> as in the midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Mishlei 934): <i>the Torah said before G-d: the verse says “In its left are wealth and honor” (Proverbs 3:16)—why then are there Torah scholars in poverty? G-d answered, “To cause those who love Me to inherit what truly is”</i>160<i class="footnote">This seems to be how the midrash is reading the verse.</i><i> (Proverbs 8:21)—why are they poor in this world? In order that they not busy themselves with other things and forget the Torah, as the verse says “for a wise man praises poverty, and the mindless fool, gifts”</i>161<i class="footnote">This seems to be how the midrash is reading the verse. Unlike the commentators, who see עשק as the subject and חכם as the object, and understand the verb יהולל to mean something like “make foolish, mad” (from הוללות), the midrash sees עשק as the object and חכם as the subject, and understands the verb יהולל to mean “to praise”. This sets up a nice parallelism for the second half of the verse.</i><i> (Ecclesiastes 7:7).</i>And sometimes this is the result of a sin, for which suffering atones. Of such a case King Solmon says, “honor G-d with your wealth, etc”, and immediately afterwards, “do not despise G-d’s disciplining” (Proverbs 3:9, 3:11). Rabbenu Yonah ad loc. explains the juxtaposition of the two verses as follows: if, in doing good, you do not see a life of success, do not doubt G-d and do not despise G-d’s discipline, my son, etc.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  DO LESS BUSINESS [Heb. <i>be`esek</i>] AND BUSY YOURSELF WITH TORAH. This seems obvious. Perhaps the mishna means to say that one should spend less time on business not because it is too difficult or because on is lazy, but specifically in order to study Torah—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.Rav has <i>`esek</i> without a <i>bet</i>,162<i class="footnote">Which would make the phrase “do little business”.</i> and the text of the Mishna I have from the land of Israel was thus emended.
  BEFORE EVERY MAN. Rav: <i>and learn even from one who is below you in wisdom</i>. This agrees with the version of mishna 4 quoted by Midrash Shmuel: “be lowly of spirit before every man”—that mishna is in terms of arrogance, while our mishna is in terms of learning.But Rambam explains our mishna in terms of arrogance. This agrees with the text of mishna 4 in our editions, which does not have the words “before every man”.163<i class="footnote">The difference between mishna 4 and our mishna would then be one of degree. Indeed, Rambam explains that our mishna emphasizes that one must be lowly of spirit not just in the presence of great men (as one might have concluded from mishna 4), but “before every man”.</i>
  IF YOU HAVE LABORED MUCH IN TORAH. And exerted yourself and expended great effort on it, “there is much reward, etc.”, because the reward is commensurate with the effort and exertion and not with the learning. This is why the mishna says “if you have labored,” not “if you have learned”; everything depends on the labor, whether one has learned much or little. The mishna in 5:23, “the reward is commensurate with the suffering,” is a proof to this—Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yehuda Lerma. See my comments on 2:16, s.v. <i>if you have learned</i>.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  HE WHO PERFORMS ONE COMMANDMENT ACQUIRES ONE ADVOCATE [Heb. <i>praklit</i>]. Aruch (s.v. <i>praklit</i>) notes that the Targum translates “my advocates, my friends” (Job 16:20) as <i>praklitai, chavrai.</i>
  REPENTANCE AND GOOD DEEDS. Rambam: <i>“repentance” after evil deeds, or “good deeds” to begin with</i>. Midrash Shmuel adds that the mishna puts “repentance” before “good deeds” based on the Talmud, Berachot 34b: “even the perfectly righteous cannot stand where those who have totally repented stand.” He also writes in the name of Chasid Ya`avetz that Rashbam reads “Torah and good deeds,” for every action is included in “good deeds”—if a person confesses his sin to G-d, he has merely fulfilled what the Torah has commanded: “and they shall confess” (Numbers 5:7). The same is true if he returns what he has stolen or receives lashes prescribed by law. But Chasid Ya`avetz notes that all of the versions have “repentance”, and says that “repentance” refers to regret and contrition, which are the main components of repentance, for confession without contrition is nothing. This is the meaning of the verse in Leviticus 26:40, which is now to be read “and they shall confess their sins”—but without regret, which is the meaning of “in the treacherous way that they betrayed Me”. Then, “I will bring them to the land of their enemies,” and “perhaps then their uncircumcised heart will be humbled and they will gain appeasement for their sin”, and their repentance will be complete. Cf. my comments below.
  LIKE A <i>TRIS</i>. A shield; the word appears in the Aramaic translation of the verse “he will not approach it with a shield” (2 Kings 19:32). Some explain it as deriving from the shutters that were used to lock up storefronts [Heb. <i>trisei chanuyot</i>]. Both explanations are quoted by Aruch.
  FROM PUNISHMENT. The statement of the Talmud in Yoma 86a that “repentance and Yom Kippur 'suspend' the punishment and suffering completes the atonement” does not contradict our mishna, for the “shield” in the mishna is that very “suspension” the Sages were referring to. The idea is that people are not entirely destroyed, but suffer just enough for their sins to be atoned for and for them to return to their previous states, as much as is judged necessary by the account of the G-d who knows every individual's circumstances. In short, they serve as a shield that protects people from complete destruction—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Abarbanel.I say that the “punishment” in our mishna is not the punishment for a sin but the afflictions and misfortunes of daily life, and I will prove that this is the case. We mentioned earlier that Rambam explains “good deeds” as referring to good deeds done before any sin has been done. If so, since he has not sinned and no punishment for sin is forthcoming, to what end would he need this shield? We must conclude that “punishment” here refers to the accidents and ills that occur in the world. Maharal writes in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that we follow the opinion in the Tamud, Shabbat 55b that “there is suffering without sin”. And even according to the opinion that “there is no suffering without sin” all that is required is a minor sin for punishment to come, as is evident from the Talmud in Berachot 5b; repentance is a shield from that punishment.[*Maharal felt it necessary to justify his position even according to the opinion that “there is no suffering without sin” because when the Talmud concludes that “there is suffering without sin” it is doing so because this is one of two statements made by R. Ami, the other of which is “there is no death without sin”; the latter having been disproven, it was assumed that the former was as well. The truth of the matter, however, might be that since the former was never explicitly rebutted it stands. In fact, Tosafot write ad loc.: <i>“We conclude there is death without sin and there is suffering without sin”—even though the statement “there is no suffering without sin” was not rebutted</i>.
  WILL BE ESTABLISHED IN THE END. Rashi: <i>the resolutions they make will endure and succeed</i>. Midrash Shmuel explains “will be established” as referring to the assembly itself, which is why the mishna says <i>sofah</i>, meaning “its end”.164<i class="footnote">The Hebrew is <i>sofah lehitkayyem</i>, lit. “its end is to endure”. There is no antecedent for “its” other than “assembly”.</i> The mishna means that even if the assembly seems to be faring poorly at the beginning, in the end it will be well-established. And an assembly that is not for the sake of Heaven, even if it initially seems to be successful, in the end will not endure. And do not be bothered by the verse “an assembly of idols is Ephraim; let him be” (Hosea 4:17), for they also did not endure in the end.165<i class="footnote"> Midrash Shmuel is reading the words <i>chavur atzabim</i> as “an assembly of idols”. None of the commentators understand it this way; they all read these words to mean “attached to idols”. </i>
  WHICH IS NOT FOR THE SAKE OF HEAVEN. Even if the assembly is for a good purpose, if there is any disqualifying intent behind it—such as arrogance, which is common among public activists—it is called “not for the sake of Heaven.” For this reason the mishna does not say “which is for the sake of sin.”166<i class="footnote">The mishna could have drawn a contrast between and assembly which is “for the sake of Heaven” and one which is “for the sake of sin” but did not do so; the contrast is instead a much more subtle one: it is between an assembly which is “for the sake of heaven” and one which is “not for the sake of heaven”.</i>
  
  Mishnah 12
  
  THE HONOR OF YOUR STUDENT SHOULD BE AS DEAR TO YOU AS YOUR OWN. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Meiri that the text is “as dear to you as your colleague’s.” R. Moshe Almosnino likewise writes that Rashi has “as your colleague’s” and that this is the correct version. Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i> agrees with our editions because for any given person it is unclear how dear a colleague’s honor is, so it should not be used for comparison. Cf. my comments on 2:10.
  AND THE HONOR OF YOUR COLLEAGUE AS THE FEAR OF YOUR MASTER. As the Talmud says in Bava Metzia 33a: <i>the Torah scholars in Babylon stand for one another, rend their garments in mourning for one another, and deliver eulogies for one another</i>. Rashi ad loc. explains: <i>as a student must do for his master; for they sit together in the study hall, raise difficulties and resolve them together, and learn from one another—</i>Midrash Shmuel in the name of Abarbanel. He also writes in the name of the commentators that the mishna does not mean to totally equate the two things, for then any distinction would be erased; it equates them only in that the two things should be equally beloved. That is, honoring a colleague should be as dear to him as it is naturally beloved and dear to him to honor or fear someone at a greater level than he is. If so, the word “dear” applies to the entire mishna.167<i class="footnote">I.e., when the mishna says “and the honor your colleague as the fear of your master” it means “and the honor of your colleague [should be as dear to you] as the fear of your master.”</i>
  AND THE HONOR OF YOUR COLLEAGUE AS THE FEAR OF YOUR MASTER. Rav: <i>for Aaron said to Moses, “I beg you, my lord” (Numbers 12:11). He was older than Moses, and yet called him “my lord”.</i> So also in Avot deRabbi Natan 27. Rashi also quotes this at the end of parsahat Beshalach. These sources do not use the earlier verse “let my lord not be angry” from parashat Ki Tisa (Exodus 32:22) as one could deflect the proof by saying that perhaps Aaron called Moses “my lord” at that point because he was afraid of his wrath. But when he said “I beg you, my lord” he was speaking not for himself but on account of his sister, at which point there was no reason to call Moses “lord”; it is clear, then, that the honor of a colleague should be as the fear of the master.As for what Rav writes about Aaron being older, which is also mentioned in Avot deRabbi Natan, the intent is that even though Moses was his master Aaron had the point of being his older brother, and the Talmud says in Ketubot 103a that “[honor your father] and your mother” (Exodus 20:11) means to include an older brother. Moses and Aaron then come out equal in terms of honor and would have the status of colleagues with regards to one another, and yet Aaron calls Moses “my lord”.And it seems that all of this is merely <i>drash</i> and <i>asmachta</i>168<i class="footnote">Meaning, these laws are not actually a straightforward interpretation of the verses; they are a pious behavior for which a hint has been found in the verses.</i> and a teaching for the pious. As such, the Talmud asks in Kiddushin 33b whether a person whose son is his master should stand before the son or vice versa and does not bring any conclusive proof one way or another; if our mishna were saying a full-fledged halacha the Talmud should have quoted it as proof.169<i class="footnote">For even though Aaron was Moses’ older brother, since Moses was his master he treated him as such.</i> Rambam’s ruling in Hilchot Mamrim 6:4 that a father does not stand for his son who is his master would be even more difficult, as it would be a contradiction170<i class="footnote">Whereas the Talmud in Kiddushin simply does not quote our mishna, Rambam would be openly contradicting it.</i> to our mishna, which would seem to obligate the older brother to honor and fear the younger brother who is his master.It is possible that the obligation to honor one’s father, which is explicit in the verse, differs from the obligation to honor one’s older brother, which is only midrashically read into the verse; indeed, Rambam calls this latter obligation “the words of the Scribes” in that same chapter. This is consistent with his approach in labeling any law that emerges from a midrashic reading of a verse as “the words of the Scribes”, as I have written on Eruvin 1:2.
  
  Mishnah 13
  
  BE CAREFUL IN YOUR STUDIES. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Ritva that some versions have “be careful with your student,” meaning that one should take care to teach the student well, because otherwise the student’s mistaken ruling will be considered intentional on the part of the one who taught him.
  [*THE CROWN OF A GOOD NAME ETC. Rav is quoting the Talmud in Yoma, towards the top of 71b: <i>The Rabbis taught: once, the high priest left the Temple with the people in tow. Once they saw Shemaya and Avtalion they left him and followed Shemaya and Avtalion. When Shemaya and Avtalion turned to the high priest to take their leave of him, he said: Go in peace, sons of the nations!</i> This is an insult, for they were descendants of Sennacherib, as Rav writes on 1:10.<i> They said to him: the sons of the nations who act like Aaron will go in peace, but the son of Aaron who does not act like Aaron will not go in peace.</i> Rashi explains ad loc.: <i>you have insulted us, and a baraita (Bava Metzia 58b) says that “Do not pain one another” (Leviticus 25:17) refers to paining one with words; people should not say to a descendant of proselytes “Remember what your ancestors did?”</i> as the mishna says in Bava Metzia 4:10.]
  
  Mishnah 14
  
  BECAUSE YOUR COLLEAGUES WILL TEACH IT TO YOU. Rav: <i>do not rely on your colleagues to come from the master’s house and teach you the Torah</i>. If so, the entire mishna reads as one thing: Exile yourself… and do not say that it will come after you because your friends will teach it to you. Some editions have “and that your friends will teach it to you,” as Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Abarbanel.
  
  Mishnah 15
  
  NEITHER THE TRANQUILITY OF THE WICKED ETC. Rav: <i>we do not know why the wicked succeed or why the righteous are crushed with suffering</i>. The mishna’s two cases then go from the lesser to the greater: not only do we not understand the tranquility of the wicked, who we know are wicked and whom we see doing well, we don’t understand the suffering of the righteous, who might only appear to be but not truly be righteous; this is why the mishna uses “nor even”—Midrash Shmuel in the name of the commentators.According to Rav’s second explanation,171<i class="footnote">“We in exile have neither the tranquility that G-d would grant the truly wicked in order to deny them any portion in the World to Come, nor the suffering that is brought upon the righteous which is likewise for their good—we are somewhere in between, being neither fully wicked nor fully righteous.”</i> the reason the mishna says “nor even” is because the first part—that we do not have tranquility—is obvious to us who strain in the exile.One might ask: according to Rav’s second explanation, what is R. Yannai telling us? What is the purpose of this mishna? Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rabbenu Ephraim and Ramah that this is so that we do not despair and see ourselves as totally wicked people with no hope, G-d forbid; neither should we think we are righteous and have done all that we are supposed to in terms of studying Torah and keeping the commandments.
  BE AT THE TAIL OF LIONS ETC. Rav: <i>people greater than yourself</i>. For this will be of benefit to you, as Rambam writes.Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Meiri that the text of the mishna should include: “as the verse says, ‘he who walks with the wise will grow wise, and he who befriends fools will end badly’ (Proverbs 13:20).” Rabbenu Yonah does not have this verse in his text of the mishna but does quote it as a proof to the mishna. He explains that the word “with” implies that he is secondary to them, while the word <i>ro`eh</i>, “befriend” here connotes that he is a master over them, as the <i>ro`eh</i>172<i class="footnote">The word also means “shepherd”.</i> is always at the head.
  AND NOT AT THE HEAD OF FOXES. Lions seem appropriate for the first part of the parable, as they are the most honorable of and rule over all the animals, and possess great strength and courage; they appropriately stand for the great and famous men, who possess the great strength it takes to bear the yoke of the Torah. Foxes, however, do not seem as appropriate. There are certainly lesser animals, so why use them in the parable?Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Yehuda Lerma that the parable conveys that one should not be lazy and abandon the study of wisdom to the point that he must get his victories through cunning and trickery—for example, by mocking a colleague and thereby causing him to fumble his arguments and other such tricks. For such a one is like the foxes, who must be victorious over the other animals through their cunning because of their lack of strength.I say that “at the head of foxes” is discussing people who have not yet learned enough to answer legal questions, of whom the verse says “she has felled many dead” (Proverbs 7:26).173<i class="footnote">This is the Talmud’s reading of the verse in Avodah Zarah 19b.</i> They are likened to foxes, for when they decide to occupy the seat of judgment and they wish for people to accept their rulings they must engage in cunning and trickery and fool people.174<i class="footnote">Who would not accept them based on the true level of their learning.</i> And the mishna says “at the head of foxes”175<i class="footnote">And not just “do not be one of the foxes”. According to Tosafot Yom Tov, the mishna is warning against assuming the position of judge or decisor when one is actually not ready for it. Why, then, does it warn specifically against being “at the head of foxes”? Being one of the foxes is itself the problem.</i> to teach that even if one sees many unqualified people issuing legal decisions and knows that he is a greater scholar than they, i.e. “at their head”, he should not be envious of these sinful people.176<i class="footnote">That is, he should not be envious of them because he thinks of himself as being at their head and yet does not have a position. They are unworthy of issuing rulings and their positions were gotten by dishonest means, so he shouldn’t take them into account at all.</i> And I say of them what King Solmon said: “Catch us the foxes, the little foxes destroying the vineyards, for our vineyard is in blossom” (Song of Songs 2:15)—the vineyard being the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts, which is the gathering of the Sages, as I write on the mishna in Eduyot 2:4 which mentions “the vineyard of Yavneh”.177<i class="footnote">These were the Sages of Yavneh, called Jamnia in non-Hebrew sources. Seforno on Song of Songs comments that the foxes in question are those who pretend to be scholars.</i>I subsequently found that Rambam in Hilchot Talmud Torah 5:4 quotes the abovementioned reading of the verse “she has felled many dead” as referring to insufficiently learned students who decide legal questions and then adds: <i>and of them Solomon said in his wisdom, “catch us the foxes, the little foxes destroying the vinyeards”—</i>i.e., the vineyards of the Lord of Hosts. It pleased me that I was able to arrive at the conclusion that someone as great as he had arrived at previously.
  
  Mishnah 16
  
  
  
  Mishnah 17
  
  ONE HOUR OF REPENTANCE AND GOOD DEEDS IN THIS WORLD IS BETTER THAN A WHOLE LIFETIME IN THE WORLD TO COME. The first part of the mishna does not contradict the second, because this world is for action and the World to Come is for reward and contentment178<i class="footnote">So while this world is “better” in regard to the ability to improve and do more, which cannot be done in th next, the World to Come is better in regard to the actual pleasure that one experiences there.</i>—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rabbenu Yonah.
  REPENTANCE AND GOOD DEEDS. Cf. my comment on mishna 11.
  THE WORLD TO COME. Abarbanel writes that this could refer to either the World of Souls or the World of Resurrection. As for the “World to Come” mentioned in Sanhedrin 10:1, Rav explains it as referring to the World of Resurrection, see his comments there. So also Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>, see his comments on mishna 16.
  CONTENTMENT [Heb. <i>korat ruach</i>]. Rashi: <i>as in the expression “his mind was cooled” [Heb. </i>nitkarerah da`ato<i>], for his mind is cooled and settled because he is happy</i>.
  
  Mishnah 18
  
  WHILE THE BODY LIES BEFORE HIM. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rashbatz that the mishna should read “do not comfort him while he is in mourning,” and that the versions that read “while the body lies before him” are the result of a deliberate alteration of the text to account for fact that after burial, people would make rows and comfort the mourner, as is mentioned in Avel Rabbati179<i class="footnote">Known as tracte Semachot.</i> and in the Talmud in Berachot 16b. He says that there is no reason to change the text, however, because it doesn’t say “during his days of mourning” or “during his mourning process.” The text says “while he is mourning,” i.e. while he is in mournful grief. [*I still feel that this is difficult to reconcile with the practice of making rows. According to this, if the bereaved is indeed in a state of mournful grief they shouldn’t comfort him, and we do not find the Sages making this distinction.]
  
  Mishnah 19
  
  SHMUEL HAKATAN [lit. Samuel the small]. Midrash Shmuel explains in the name of the Jerusalem Talmud that he was called this because he made himself small.180<i class="footnote">He was self-effacing and humble.</i> Alternatively, this name was to distinguish him from Samuel the Prophet, for this Samuel also prophesied at the hour of his death and was worthy of having the <i>shechina</i> dwell with him [Talmud, Sotah 48b] if not for the unworthiness of his generation. In either case, this nickname was meant as praise.
  [*YOUR ENEMY [Heb. <i>oyivcha</i>]. This is the <i>keri—</i>the <i>yud</i> is vocalized with a <i>chirik</i>, and the <i>vet</i> is vocalized with a <i>sheva</i>. The <i>ktiv</i>, however, is <i>oyvecha</i>.181<i class="footnote">“Your enemies”, plural.</i>
  AND IN HIS FALTERING [Heb. <i>uvikashlo</i>]. The <i>bet</i> is vocalized with the <i>chirik</i> that should have vocalized the <i>hey</i> which has been ellided.182<i class="footnote">The word is properly <i>uvhikashlo</i>, but due to ellision is <i>uvikashlo</i>.</i>]
  AND TURN BACK HIS ANGER FROM HIM. From Rambam’s commentary it seems he had the following addition to our text: <i>it does not say “his wrath” [Heb. </i>charon apo<i>], but “his anger” [Heb. </i>apo<i>]. This teaches that G-d forgins him all his sins</i>. Rashi also quotes this version. Midrash Shmuel explains this version in the name of R. Matitya HaYitzhari as follows: the verse does not say that G-d will remove only his <i>charon apo</i>, lit. the “heat of the nose,” but <i>apo</i>, “his nose”, i.e. his entire anger. [*This version seems to be the best one, for according to it Shmuel HaKatan has taught us this subtle point about the verse.]
  
  Mishnah 20
  
  ONE WHO LEARNS AS A CHILD [Heb. <i>halomed yeled</i>]. Rambam: <i>what one learns as a child endures and is not easily forgotten</i>. If so, the text means “one who learns as a child”.183<i class="footnote">The question is whether to reat the word <i>lomed</i> as “learn” or “teach”. Although the word does not appear frequently with the latter meaning, Tosafot Yom Tov proceeds to quote others who understand it that way here.</i> So also Rav. It is then clear why the mishna likens this to ink written on new parchment, as opposed to one who writes with ink on a new parchment.Some versions have <i>halomed leyeled</i>, meaning “one who teaches a child”. So Midrash Shmuel, who also writes that even the versions that have <i>halomed yeled</i> can be read this way. Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i> explains our mishna this way, and says that the mishna does not liken this to one who writes because the teacher is not like somebody writing, for he does not inscribe the things in the memory of the student. He is like a somebody showing his friend a picture on the wall. This causes the picture to be engraved in the friend’s memory, but we cannot on account of this say that he himself engraved that picture in his friend’s memory.
  PAPER THAT HAS BEEN ERASED. For numerous thoughts and calculations having to do with worldly matters have already been engraved in his mind. When he desires to remember words of Torah he will have to erase all of those thoughts, and this is not easy to do well. This is why the mishna speakes of a paper that has been erased as opposed to an old paper, which is the opposite of a new one—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Abarbanel.
  LIKE EATING UNRIPE GRAPES AND DRINKING WINE FROM THE VAT. When one eats unripe grapes he detects their bad taste as he chews them, which corresponds to what Rav writes about the learning of a child—that it has not been thought through and is therefore unconvincing. When one drinks wine from the vat he enjoys it because it pleases the palate but it causes him stomach pains afterwards, which corresponds to the other point Rav makes about the learning of a child—that it is mixed with unclear points; ingredients in a mixture are not immediately perceived upon the first examination.Most commentators explain that grapes refer to the simple meaning of the Torah, and wine refers to the hidden meaning of the Torah. The Sages say (Sanhedrin 38a) that the alphanumeric value of <i>yayin</i>, “wine” is the same as that of <i>sod</i>, “secret”.
  
  Mishnah 21
  
  ENVY, DESIRE, AND HONOR REMOVE A PERSON FROM THE WORLD. This follows the teaching of R. Yehoshua in 2:11 that an evil eye, the evil inclintion, and the hatred of the people remove a person from the world. Envy comes from having an evil eye, and desire comes from the evil inclination. Honor causes people to hate, for nobody is as hated as somebody who chases honor.184<i class="footnote">“Hatred of people” is understood as the hatred that other people have for him.</i> Even though they will honor him in his presence and wil not openly rebuke him, they inwardly hate him and discuss how much they despise him. Midrash Shmuel writes that honor causes one to hate people and reject their company when he feels they are not honoring him sufficiently.185<i class="footnote">According to Midrash Shmuel, “hatred of people” is understood as the hatred that he has for other people.</i>
  REMOVE A PERSON FROM THE WORLD. Some versions of Rashi have the following: <i>envy, as Korach was envious of Moses and Aaron; desire, as Gehazi desired to take the money of Na`aman; honor, from Jeroboam, as the verse says “if the people go up to Jerusalem, etc.” (1 Kings 12:27)</i>.186<i class="footnote">These three people do not have a share in the World to Come according to the Talmud in Sanhedrin, 109-111. Whether or not Korach and his followers have a share is the subject of a dispute there; this approach would seem to be taking the position that they do not. The Talmud there sees Jeroboam’s refusal to let the people go to the Temple as stemming from slighted honor.</i>
  
  Mishnah 22
  
  THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN BORN WILL DIE. Rav explains that they are certain to die eventually, similar to what I wrote on 3:1 on “where you are going”. “And the dead will be brought to life”—the mishna does not say “will live” because it is necessary for some other agent to cause them to live. They are not naturally disposed to this, as it is not natural to come to life after death the same way it is for all things to die.
  THE LIVING WILL BE JUDGED. Rav’s text has “and live to die”, which is modifying the life after death mentioned earlier.187<i class="footnote">The mishna would then read “the dead will live and they live to be judged”.</i>
  HE IS THE JUDGE, HE IS THE WITNESS, AND HE IS THE LITIGANT. The mishna arranges the cases from most to least obvious, but chronologically the litigant first makes his claim, then he brings witnesses, and then the judge issues his ruling.
  THERE IS NO PARTIALITY. Rav explains that there is no partiality even to a completely righteous person. Rambam adds: <i>as we see from the punishment of Moses for the sin of anger. And similarly G-d does not deal unfairly even with a completely evil person, as Esau received reward for honoring his father and mother, and Nebuchadnezzar for honoring G-d, as the Talmud says in Sanhedrin 96a</i>.
  AND NO TAKING OF BRIBES. Rambam explains that G-d does not take the fulfillment of a commandment as a bribe to overlook a sin, etc. For to say that G-d does not take bribes to rule unjustly is unnecessary, as it is utter foolishness and completely meaningless, for what would it mean to bribe G-d, and what could the bribe possibly be? The subsequent commentators raised the point that if so, the words “for all is His” do not provide a reason for not taking the “bribe” of a fulfilled commandment. Midrash Shmuel answers that even the doing of a commandment is included in “all is His” [*per the Talmud in Yoma 72a and Shabbat 104a], for “G-d aids one who wishes to purify Himself,” and “a commandment is only known by the name of the one who completes it” (Devarim Rabbah 8:4).188<i class="footnote">As G-d made the doing of the commandment possible, he is, in a sense, the one who “finished” or “completed” it; therefire, it is His.</i> Cf. my comments to Kiddushin 1:10.And this is no contradiction to the idea that G-d accepts repentance, for repentance is not some separate commandment but directly deals with the sin and pushes it away. See also what Rav writes on the mishna in Yoma 8:8 [s.v. <i>al aseh</i>].
  TAKING [Heb. מקח]. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rabbenu Ephraim that the <i>mem</i> should be vocalized with a <i>chirik</i>.189<i class="footnote">Making the word <i>mikach</i>.</i><i> </i>Some read <i>makach</i>, with a <i>patach</i> under the <i>mem</i>. Both are correct, for one is Biblical Hebrew and the other is Rabbinic Hebrew. So far his words.He means that we find the word vocalized with a <i>chirik</i> in the Bible, in 2 Chronicles 19:7: וְעַתָּה יְהִי פַחַד יְהוָה עֲלֵיכֶם שִׁמְרוּ וַעֲשׂוּ כִּי אֵין עִם יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ עַוְלָה וּמַשֹּׂא פָנִים וּמִקַּח שֹׁחַד. I say that it is unnecessary to resort to the distinction between Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew, for even though we never find the word <i>makach</i> itself with a <i>patach</i>, we do find words vocalized according to this paradigm, for example the word <i>masa`</i> in 1 Kings 6:7: אֶבֶן שְׁלֵמָה מַסָּע and the word <i>matan</i> in Proverbs 18:16: מַתָּן אָדָם יַרְחִיב לוֹ.190<i class="footnote">Since the paradigm <i>ma-X-X</i> exists in the Bible, we may consider the spelling <i>makach</i> an acceptable Biblical spelling, i.e. one that would have been considered grammatical in Biblical Hebrew, even though the word never appears spelled that way.</i>But we never find this word or any similar word vocalized with a <i>segol</i>. This is because the initial <i>mem</i> is a prefix and the first letter of the triliteral root has been ellided,191<i class="footnote">The root of <i>makach</i> being <i>l.k.ch</i>, of <i>masa`</i> being <i>n.s.`</i>, and of <i>matan</i> being <i>n.t.n.</i></i> so the second letter in the word has been geminated to compensate. One may therefore only vocalize the word with a <i>patach</i>, but not a <i>segol</i>.192<i class="footnote">Gemination refers to the doubling of a consonant. <i>Mikach</i>, properly, is <i>mikkach</i>. In order for the <i>kuf</i> to be doubled, it must become the end of a closed syllable, i.e. it must now close the syllable that precedes in—formerly just <i>mi</i>, now to be <i>mik</i>—in addition to being the first letter in the next syllable, <i>kach</i>. If the vowel of the first syllable were a long vowel such as <i>tzeireh</i> (making the word <i>mekkach</i>) the consonant following it would have to be vocalized with a <i>shva na`</i>, making the word <i>mek’kach</i>. Geminated consonants, however, are not pronounced as two separate consonants with a vowel inbetween but as one long one, as in Italian <i>libretto</i>. Of the five short vowels, three are acceptable for vocalizing the prefixed <i>mem</i>: <i>patach</i>, <i>chirik</i>, and <i>segol</i> (the other two only appear in pariticipial prefixes, while our <i>mem</i> is a noun (or verbal noun) prefix). It is unclear what rule Tosafot Yom Tov is referring to when he says that <i>segol</i> is unacceptable here, although it is true that <i>segol</i> almost never appears before a geminated consonant, coming only before suffixes like <i>-nu</i>.</i>
  THAT <i>SHE’OL</i>. I.e., the grave.
  FOR YOU ARE CREATED AGAINST YOUR WILL, ETC. Rambam: <i>take note of this, for the mishna mentions natural processes in which man’s free will plays no role, concerning which the Sages said “everything is in the hands of Heaven aside from fear of Heaven” (Berachot 33b). The mishna does not, however, say that one sins or passes or walks or stands or the like against one’s will, for these are all things that depend on a person’s decision and are not compulsory</i>.
  AND YOU ARE BORN AGAINST YOUR WILL. Rav explains that at birth the fetus does not want to leave the womb. Rashi adds: <i>because he sees from one end of the world to another, as the verse says [Job 29:3] “when His lamp would shine over my head”.</i>193<i class="footnote">Niddah 30b.</i>
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  THE WORLD WAS CREATED THROUGH TEN UTTERANCES. WHAT DOES THIS TEACH US? COULDN’T IT HAVE BEEN CREATED WITH ONE? RATHER, ETC. The meaning is as follows. “What does this—the world being created through ten utterances—teach us,” i.e. what lesson can be drawn from this? This is not a question concerning the creation itself, as in “why was the world created through ten utterances?” The mishna simply means that we should extract some lesson from creation having happened through ten utterances instead of one; it does not mean that the world was created through ten utterances <i>so that</i> the wicked could be punished, etc., for it does not accord with His goodness to do something extra specifically to punish. Maharal explains it thus in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.
  THE WORLD WAS CREATED. “Could have been created, etc.” The mishna’s choice of the passive voice over “[G-d] created the world” or “[G-d] could have created” in the active voice is a wonderfully subtle way of indicating that the world was created out of total nothingness, as opposed to the opinion that maintains there exists an eternal prime matter.194<i class="footnote">An opinion popularly attributed to Aristotle.</i> For if we believe in creation completely <i>ex nihilo</i> we can properly say that, in and of itself, something “could have been created” in any way, for since there previously was complete nothingness, nothing prevented the world from being created through one utterance the same way it was created through ten. But if there existed some prime matter we cannot say with such certainty that the world could have been created with one utterance out of the prime matter, for perhaps the nature of the matter would not have allowed creation through one utterance.
  TO GIVE GOOD REWARD. My comments on the mishna in 2:1 address the use of the verb “to give” regarding wages or reward.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  TEN GENERATIONS FROM ADAM TO NOAH, TO MAKE KNOWN ETC. I.e., this fact of ten generations tells us how patient G-d is—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.
  TO MAKE KNOWN HOW PATIENT ETC. Rav: <i>accordingly, you should not wonder that G-d has had such patience with the nations of the world for all these years that they have enslaved His children, for he had greater patience with the generations from Adam to Noah and they were subsequently drowned</i>. For the flood happened 1656 years after creation and the Temple was destroyed 3828 years after creation. Make the calculation, and wait for Him, for He will not delay.195<i class="footnote">3828 + 1656 = 5484, which is the year 1724. Tosafot Yom Tov printed the first edition of his commentary between 1614-1617, the second edition in 1645, and died in 1654.</i> Midrash Shmuel explains in the name of Rabbenu Yonah that this tells us that just as G-d eventually gave them their just desserts and brought the flood upon them, so also the day is coming when He will repay them for their deeds and will save and redeem us, may it come speedily in our days, Amen.
  TEN GENERATIONS FROM NOAH TO ABRAHAM. The second “from” is not the same as the first. In the first count both Adam and Noah were included in the ten, while in the second count Noah is not included. Since the first list concluded with him the mishna mentioned him again as the beginning of the second.
  TO MAKE KNOWN HOW MUCH PATIENCE ETC. This tells us of even greater patience than the first set of ten, for in this case G-d was patient and did not even collect what was owed Him through complete destruction as He did in the generation of the flood. This might be why the mishna uses the Hebrew phrase <i>erech apaim</i>, lit. “length of noses”, instead of <i>erech af</i>, “length of nose”. For there are two types of wrath: 0ne is actualized and destroys everything, while the other is never actualized through a flood of utter destruction, for “the righteous man rules through his fear of G-d.”196<i class="footnote">The verse in 2 Samuel 23:3 reads: “...a righteous ruler over men, one who rules with fear of G-d”. The Talmud in Moed Kattan 16b midrashically reads this verse as saying that even when G-d decrees something, the righteous person can overturn the decree.</i>
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  OUR FATHER ABRAHAM. We merit and receive goodness in his merit, for he withstood all of the trials. This is why the tanna calls him “our father” here.
  AND WITHSTOOD ALL OF THEM. Rashi: <i>he never questioned G-d’s ways</i>.
  TO MAKE KNOWN HOW MUCH LOVE ETC. For through this we certainly know how beloved he was, as Rashi writes in his commentary on the Torah (Genesis 22:12): <i>“now I know”—what to answer the Satan and the nations who wonder what the cause of my love for you is</i>.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  TEN MIRACLES WERE DONE FOR OUR ANCESTORS IN EGYPT. Rav: <i>they were spared during the ten plagues</i>. Rambam: <i>and this is miraculous, without a doubt. The Torah writes of each plague that it was brought only upon the Egyptians with the exception of the plague of lice in which this is not made explicit; it is understood, however, that it did not touch the Jews. These plagues were present in their areas but did not affect them, as the Sages explain.</i>
  AND TEN BY THE SEA. Rav writes that the fifth miracle was that the solidified water was formed into small pieces like bricks [*so also Rambam]. What purpose was there in having the water formed like bricks? [*I say that it was simply for beauty, for the glory of Israel, just like the second miracle of the sea becoming like a tent. Even without a tent it would sufficed for the sea simply to split for them. And as for protecting them from the sun and rain, the Clouds of Glory certainly did not depart from them even as they were walking through the sea. Rather, both of these miracles occurred solely for the honor of Israel.]
  TEN PLAGUES. This is the text in other versions, and is the text that Rav had. [*He writes that they correspond to דצ"ך עד"ש באח"ב, which is the mnemonic that R. Yehudah gives in the Passover Haggadah. This year, in the sermon that I gave in the synagogue over Shabbat HaGadol here in Krakow in the year 1644197<i class="footnote">There is a clever use of Hebrew here. The Tosafot Yom Tov writes פה בקראק"א לפ"ק, “here, in Krakow, not counting thousands.” The meaning of this is that “in Krakow” is both where he delivered the sermon and, if one takes the sum of its alphanumeric values, the year in which he delivered it. So the phrase reads “here, in Krakow = 404, not counting thousands (i.e., in the year 5404).” Tosafot Yom Tov had actually just recently been appointed chief rabbi and judge over Krakow.</i> I brought up that the acronym doesn’t seem to have any meaning. In answer I said that the words should be vocalized and read as <i>ditzach `adush be’ichav</i>, and the meaning is as follows: it is as if G-d says, “your joy [<i>ditzach</i>] will be when I trample [<i>’adush</i> with initial <i>’alef</i>, in the mnemonic <i>`adush</i> with initial <i>`ayin</i>] with the dread [<i>be’ivchat</i>, in the mnemonic <i>be’ichav</i>] of the sword.” For <i>`ayin</i> and <i>’alef</i> are frequently interchanged in Hebrew, and two letters can switch places in a single word,198<i class="footnote">This is called metathesis.</i> as in the words <i>simla</i> and <i>keves</i>, which are often written <i>salma</i> and <i>kesev</i>.199<i class="footnote"><i>Be’ichav</i> can therefore be derived from <i>be’ivchat</i> of Ezekiel.</i><i> `adush</i> is based on the verse in Habakkuk 3:12, “you trampled [Heb. <i>tadush</i>] the nations with wrath”. <i>Be’ichav</i> is based on the verse in Ezekiel 21:20, “dread of the sword” [Heb. <i>’ivchat cherev</i>], where Rashi explains that the <i>tav</i> is only there because the words is in the construct state and is not part of the root.]
  GOD BROUGHT… UPON. The tanna makes G-d, who is the true judge, the explicit subject and actor here because the Egyptians fully deserved the plagues, which were brought upon them justly. But in describing the miracles done for our ancestors, the tanna does not make G-d the subject and actor, and He is omitted by the use of the passive voice in the phrase “were done for our ancestors.” This is because in the lens of strict judgment they would not have been found worthy of these miracles, as they were also idolaters, as Rashi writes in his commentary on parashat Beshalach (Exodus 14:19): “these are idolaters and these are idolaters”—Midrash Shmuel.
  AND TEN AT THE SEA. The tanna puts the miracles at the sea before the miracles in Egypt.200<i class="footnote">It seems that Tosafot Yom Tov is suggesting that the mishna should have said “G-d did ten miracles for our ancestors and brought ten plagues upon the Egyptians in Egypt, and did ten miracles for our ancestors and brought ten plagues upon the Egyptians by the sea,” as the mishna should put what came first chronologically first in the text. It instead puts together the sets of miracles done for the Jews, which makes the ten miracles by the sea precede the ten plagues brought upon the Egyptians in Egypt. This is problematic, because both the question and the answer come from Midrash Shmuel, who is clearly asking a different question: since the miracles (at least in Egypt) were precisely in being saved from the plagues, the mishna should have first mentioned the plagues and then the miracle of being saved from those plagues. He answers that since the miracles are what distinguished between the Jews and the Egyptians they come first in the mishna.Perhaps Tosafot Yom Tov rejected the possibility of the plagues coming first in the mishna out of hand for a different reason: the mishna primarily wishes to speak in praise of G-d, as the mishnayot before and after it do, for which reason the miracles would certainly come first (in fact, Midrash Shmuel's version of the mishna did not even mention the plagues; he cites “other versions” of this mishna as mentioning the plagues and then presents his question and answer). Since, however, the mishna mentions the plagues as well, it should pair the miracles and plagues that occurred at the same time, and not pair the miracles on the one hand and the plagues on the other hand in a way that unnecessarily violates the chronological order of events. To answer this question, Tosafot Yom Tov draws on Midrash Shmuel's answer, which answers Tosafot Yom Tov's question just as well it answered Midrash Shmuel's.</i> Midrash Shmuel explains that the main purpose of the plagues was to make G-d’s name known in the world, and people arrived at the conclusion that G-d was responsible for the plagues mainly because he distinguished between the Egyptians and the Jews.201<i class="footnote">In Egypt through bringing the plagues upon the Egyptians and not upon the Jews (which is the very meaning of the “miracles in Egypt”, as Tosafot Yom Tov explained above), and at the sea through the splitting of the sea and the miracles attendant thereto, which happened only for the Jews and not for the Egyptians, who drowned in the sea. The miracles, therefore, serve to make the distinction.</i> Therefore, since the miracles are primary in terms of the quality of spreading G-d’s name, the mishna puts them first even though chronologically they come after.
  OUR ANCESTORS TRIED G-D WITH TEN TRIALS IN THE DESERT. Even though the Golden Calf was a sin it is called a “trial” because the notion of a “trial” of G-d is doubt and lack of faith in Him, and the sin of the calf was that they did not believe and trust in Him that they would go securely on their way in the desert through which He had guided them from Egypt until that point.Rav does not list them chronologically, putting them in pairs instead. But there is difficulty with Rav saying that the trial at their “ascent from the sea” was that of “and they came to Marah” (Exodus 15:23)—how can this be called “ascent from the sea” when it happened three days after they had crossed? And Rambam, whose commentary Rav is quoting here, does not say that the trial at Marah had anything to do with the ascent from the sea.The Talmud in Arachin 15a, when it says that one of the ten trials was at the ascent from the sea, explains that this trial occurred immediately upon their ascending from the sea: “They said: just as we have ascended at this point, so have the Egyptians ascended at some other point!” And the Talmud quotes the verse “And they rebelled at the sea, at the Red Sea”202<i class="footnote">We have translated <i>yam suf</i> as “Red Sea” in deference to convention. It is actually uncertain which sea <i>yam suf</i> was.</i> (Psalms 106:7) in support of this. The Talmud’s count, despite this addition, is balanced by the omission of the trial of the “complainers”.But why, indeed, does the Talmud not count the complainers? It seems that the Talmud understood the “complainers” (Numbers 11:1) and the “rabble” (Number 11:4) to have been one thing—even though G-d sent fire upon them they were not quieted, “and the rabble in [the nation’s] midst etc.” This is why the verse says that they “went back and wept,” for they returned to the initial complaint of the “complainers”. This accords with the Talmud in Shabbat 116a: <i>R. Shimon ben Gamliel says: in the future, this section </i>[“And when the ark traveled” (Numbers 10:35), which the Talmud is discussing there]<i> will be removed from here and written in its proper place. Why was it written here? To provide a pause between the first story of punishment and the second. What is the second story of punishment? “And the people were like complainers” (Numbers 11:1). The first story of punishment is “And they travelled from the mountain of G-d [Heb. </i>vayis`u mehar Hashem<i>]” (Numbers 10:33), as R. Chama bar Chanina said, for they turned away from G-d [Heb. </i>saru me'acharei Hashem<i>].</i> Tosafot raise the question that the text still ends up putting two stories of punishment adjacent to one another, and offer a very forced answer.203<i class="footnote">It is unclear which Tosafot is being referred to, as our editions of the Talmud do not have Tosafot raising this question.</i> But according to what I wrote earlier, this is precisely the point the Talmud is making: that the “complainers” and the “rabble” are just parts of one story of punishment.We can show this as follows. For the Talmud there asks “what is the second story of punishment” but does not first ask “what is the first story”, from which we can infer that the Talmud had an idea of what the first story was. And when the line “the first story of punishment is ‘And they travelled from the mountain of G-d’” following that was subsequently put into the text it was not phrased as a question, “what is the first story of punishment”, for it was the redactor of the text who was clarifying for us what the first story was, but the question as it was originally asked in the study hall was only concerning the second story. For the original assumption in the question was that the “complainers” were complaining about the amount of Torah they had learnt at the mountain of G-d—see below—and there is no break in the text [between the punishment of the “complainers” and the punishment of the “rabble”]. The Talmud answers by saying that the second punishment is actually that of the “complainers”, and the entire succeeding text, including the story of the “rabble”, is one long story of punishment.204<i class="footnote">And the first story is the separate story of their travelling away from the mountain of G-d.</i>This is unlike Rashi’s approach, that the Talmud answers that the story of the “rabble” is the first story of punishment, which had started after they turned away from G-d. Tosafot there already take issue with his approach and quote the Midrash Vayechulu saying that the first punishment is that they turned away from G-d because they had learned much Torah at Sinai, like a child running out of school.[*I found support for this in Midrash Rabbah on parashat Metzora (Vayikra Rabbah 18:4), which asks why Israel was punished with the afflictions of emissions and leprosy and quotes several amoraic opinions. One of them is that of R. Yehudah berabbi Shimon who says that they come from the “complainers”, for the verse there says “until it comes out of your noses and becomes nauseating [Heb. <i>lezara</i>] to you” (Numbers 11:20): “What is <i>zara?</i> It will be <i>zorna</i> and <i>bisna</i> for you.” Matnot Kehuna there explains in the name of Aruch that these are types of swelling and boils. And numerous other amoraim there explain <i>lezara</i> as somehow referring to such things. Now if the “complainers” and the “rabble” were not both part of the same story, how could the midrash say that the source is from the “complainers” and proceed to bring a proof from “it will become nauseating to you”, a verse that was said in the story of the “rabble”? It must be that the whole thing is one story, and this is a strong proof of my position.Also, I say that the plain meaning of the verses indicates as much, for the text says “and the rabble… went back and wept”, and the meaning of “went back” is that they went back to what they had already been doing. And otherwise, what is the purpose of writing that they “went back” altogether? This is also a clear proof.]For Rambam and Rav, who see the “complainers” and “rabble” as two separate trials, one might say that they hold like Rabbi in that passage in Shabbat 116a who says that the section “and when the ark travelled” is in its proper place and does not see it as a break between two stories of punishment,205<i class="footnote">He must hold, in general, that there is no need for a break between two stories of punishment. The stories of the “complainers” and the “rabble” can then also be seen as two stories, even though there is no break between them.</i> and the mishna in Yadayim 3:5 goes according to Rabbi. In any case, I feel that the Golden Calf should not be included in this count at all,206<i class="footnote">If we follow Rav and Rambam’s position of counting the “complainers” and the “rabble” as two, we cannot also include the trials at the ascent from the sea and at Marah as two separate trials—as Tosafot Yom Tov has shown they are—for then the count comes to eleven. Tosafot Yom Tov proposes deleting the sin of the Golden Calf from the list of trials and preserving the trials at the ascent from the sea and Marah as separate ones.</i> for it is a sin, not a trial. In its stead I would count what the Talmud says in Arachin based on the verse “and they rebelled at the sea, at the Red Sea”. And the Torah has seventy facets.207<i class="footnote">I.e., there are many different ways to count the ten trials throughout the midrashic and medieval literature, and Tosafot Yom Tov is merely adding another.</i>
  OUR ANCESTORS TRIED G-D [Heb. <i>hamakom</i>] WITH TEN TRIALS IN THE DESERT. They were in a desolate desert bereft of people and containing nothing and thought that it might be because of a lack of Divine supervision over that area, and because of that they tried G-d. This is why our mishna specifically says “in the desert” and calls G-d <i>hamakom</i>, lit. “the place”—to teach that He is the place of the world, and there is nothing that He does not oversee—so Midrash Shmuel.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  TEN MIRACLES WERE DONE FOR OUR ANCESTORS IN THE TEMPLE. The mishna goes though them because there is no hint to them in any verses.
  NO WOMEN MISCARRIED BECAUSE OF THE SMELL OF THE SACRIFICIAL MEAT. From a desire for the sacrificial meat. Alternatively, from the smell of the limbs burning on the altar, for if a woman would smell it and desire to taste it we would not be able to give her any of the sacrificial meat to eat—Rashi.
  AND THE SACRIFICIAL MEAT NEVER BECAME RANCID. Rashi: <i>when there wasn’t enough time at night to burn up all the pieces of the sacrifices that were left over from evening, the priests would leave the pieces lying on the altar, where they would stay for two or three days until the priest had an opportunity to burn them up, for staying on the altar overnight does not disqualify the pieces from being burnt.</i>208<i class="footnote">If a piece of the sacrifice is not burnt on the altar by the next morning (in the case of sacrificies that can only be burnt until morning) it is <i>pasul</i>, or disqualified from the rest of the sacrificial service. The exception to this is if the pieces stay on the altar, in which case they are not disqualified, even if they have not burnt by morning.</i><i> Miraculously, the pieces never became rancid during this period of delay</i>.Midrash Shmuel writes that a possible reason that the mishna says “never” in this case is to indicate that this miracle took place even outside of the Temple, on outside altars or in the tabernacles of Nov and Giv`on. One might add the tabernacle in the desert as well.
  AND A FLY WAS NEVER SEEN IN THE SLAUGHTERING AREA. Rashi: <i>in the inner coutyard where there were marble tables on which they would wash out the innards. Flies never descended on the innards, as that would have been disgusting.</i>
  THE HIGH PRIEST NEVER HAD A NOCTURNAL EMISSION ON YOM KIPPUR. Some ask, what is so miraculous in this case? Why would we expect him to have a nocturnal emission? For seven days prior the priests would urge him on to matters of purity, he remained ritually pure the entire day before, and the elders kept him from falling asleep that entire night. The answer is that the inclinations to good and to evil are constantly in competition with one another the way two adversaries are. When one of them is on the verge of being defeated he strengthens his hold knowing that he close to being dealt a fatal blow, just as it often happens that shortly before their deaths people have renewed strength and speak fair speech as though they were in good health. For this reason it is more likely that the high priest would have an emission—so Midrash Shmuel in the name of Chasid Ya`avetz.See my comments on Demai 1:1, s.v. <i>hachometz shebi(ye)huda</i>, where I deal with the mishna in Yoma 1:1 that says they would prepare an alternate high priest, and Rav there explains that they were concerned for a nocturnal emission.
  RAIN NEVER EXTINGUISHED THE FIRE ON THE ALTAR, THE WIND NEVER DISPERSED THE COLUMN OF SMOKE. This is the text that Rav and Rambam have. But Rashi writes that these two should not be in the text of the mishna, because the Talmud in Yoma 21a quotes our mishna and does not mention them, and brings a baraita afterwards that does mention them. He says that the miracles of the <i>omer</i> sacrifice, two loaves, and the showbread are counted as three separate miracles in the list, thereby completing the count of ten. This is clear from the fact that the Talmud notes that our mishna claims to list ten miracles that took place in the Temple and ends up including two that happened in Jerusalem, and answers by quoting a baraita that two other miracles did take place in the Temple: the rain never extinguished the fire etc.
  THE COLUMN OF SMOKE. Rambam: <i>that arose from the sacrifices; rather, the wind was calm during the sacrifice.</i>
  THERE WAS NEVER A DISQUALIFICATION IN THE <i>OMER</i> SACRIFICE. Rav writes that the barley for the <i>omer</i> was cut by night, and they did not cut down much. Rashi in Yoma 21a adds that they only harvested enough to end up with an <i>isaron</i> of flour that had been sifted thirteen times.209<i class="footnote">Both Rav and Rashi are addressing the problem that even if the sacrifice were somehow ruined it would have been a simple matter to cut down more barely and bring another. What need, then, for this miracle?</i>
  NEITHER A SNAKE NOR A SCORPION EVER INJURED ANYBODY. The mishna does not say “never bit”—even if it sometimes happened that one of them did bite somebody, the bite did not injure.Maharal explains in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that the mishna says “in Jerusalem” because it is no great surprise that there wouldn’t be injurious things like these in the Temple. See what I wrote above, quoting the Talmud in Yoma 21a.Midrash Shmuel writes that perhaps the mishna says “ever” to indicate that even when there is no Temple in Jerusalem this miracle occurs, for the sanctity of the land alone is enough to save one from the injuries caused by snakes and scorpions.
  THAT I SHOULD SLEEP. Rav: <i>there are editions which have “when I sleep”, in which case the text is referring to the pilgrims that came for the festivals</i>. They did not live there year-round, hence the “when” in “when I sleep”, which means “when it happens that I sleep”, as he is not always there.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  TEN THINGS WERE CREATED AT THE DUSK OF THE SABBATH, AND THEY ARE: THE MOUTH OF THE EARTH, ETC. Rambam: <i>the Sages do not believe that G-d’s will is renewed every moment. Rather, when He first created things he made their natures such that whatever should happen to them will happen, whether that should be something constant, which we call natural, or some unusual thing that happens infrequently, which we call miraculous. They therefore said that on the sixth day He put it into the nature of the earth that Korach and his followers should be swallowed up by it, into the nature of the well that it should give forth water, into the nature of the donkey that she should speak, and so on. One might object that if all miracles were implanted into the nature of things during the six days of creation, why does the mishna single out these ten things? You should know, in answer to this, that they did not single them out because no miracles other than these were implanted into the nature of things. They meant simply that these were the only things that were put in during dusk, whereas the other miracles were put into the nature of things from the very beginning, at the moment they were made. They would say, for example, that when the waters were divided on the second day, it was made part of their nature that the Red Sea should part for Moses, and the Jordan for Joshua and Elisha. And when the sun was created on the fourth day, it was made part of its nature that it should stop in its orbit at a given time when spoken to by Joshua. This is so for all other miracles aside from these ten, which were put into the nature of those things during dusk.</i>He clarifies this further in his book the Guide for the Perplexed, 2:29. There, after quoting the midrash that says G-d stipulated with the sea that it should split for Israel and with all of what was created during the six days similarly (Bereshit Rabbah 5:5), he concludes: <i>when G-d has a prophet perform a sign he tells him the moment at which what he is saying will come to pass, and it happens in accordance with the nature that was implanted into the thing.</i>But there is great difficulty with this position, for Moses said to Pharaoh, “for what time should I entreat for you… to excise the frogs” (Exodus 8:5), and Isaiah said, “request a sign from Hashem, your G-d, request it in the depths or high above” (Isaiah 7:11). And Gideon’s request of the sign with the wool involved two opposing possibilities (Judges 6:36). Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Meiri that the Sages do not believe that these stipulations the midrash refers to were made in the permanent nature of the thing that was acted upon; they were undoubtedly speaking from the perspective of the Actor and His will. They mean to say that there was no change in His will, G-d forbid, for at the moment that He created the heavens and the earth and all that is within them His knowledge encompassed and included all of the things that would happen in the future; He knew that there would come a point at which He would change the nature of a particular created thing, and He created it with that in mind. The act of the miracle, therefore, was not a change in His knowledge or a new element in His will, etc.This means that all the signs were created and done at that particular moment in time, and were not implanted into nature such that they should come into existence and be done at that moment. And although His knowledge already encompassed them we have already noted above on the mishna of “all is seen”, 3:15, that His knowledge does not turn the possible into the necessary. As such, all miracles depend on what a person chooses from among the things that are possible, as they are all done for people.And I say that, just as Rambam resolves the paradox of “all is seen, but permission is given” using the verse “for My thoughts are not your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8), as I wrote on the mishna at 3:15, I will likewise answer that the end of that verse itself is the resolution of the great paradox inherent in the subject of miracles. For there is no change in His will, which is the meaning of the end of the verse, “and your ways are not My ways” (ibid.). His “ways” are His actions, as Moses said, “make Your ways known to me” (Exodus 33:13), which are His actions and administration of the world. When Isaiah says “your ways are not My ways” he means that you should not understand My ways in terms of your ways, and then this great paradox will not arise. Rambam himself writes in the Guide for the Perplexed at the end of 3:20: <i>the terms supervision, knowledge, and intent when said of G-d are not the same as when said of us. When these different kinds of supervision, knowledge, and intent are conflated and treated as though they are the same, the abovementioned paradoxes arise. But when it becomes clear that whatever is said of us differs from what is said of Him, the truth becomes clear. And the prophet told us of the difference between the things said of Him and of us when he said “and your ways are not My ways.”</i>It also seems from his language in the above-quoted segment from Guide for the Perplexed 2:29210<i class="footnote">There, Rambam calls the words of the midrash “strange,” though a better translation might be “extroardinary.”</i> that although he explains the opinion of the Sages that way, it is not his own. It suffices for us that we have rescued Rambam, at least as far as his own opinion, even if we cannot rescue him regarding the opinion he attributes to the Sages.But I say that the opinion of Meiri is that of the Sages as well and is not foreign to them, G-d forbid—it emerges clearly from explicit verses in the Tanach which every elementary schooler knows. When they say these things were created at the dusk of the Sabbath they are speaking only of His knowledge, like the mishna of “all is seen”, as Meiri says. As for their saying that G-d stipulated with the sea during the six days of creation that it should split, I feel that this is not at all about refuting the notion of a change in His will. Rather, this dictum is of the same tenor as the one on the verse “on the sixth day” that I quoted earlier in my commentary to 2:8, which says that G-d stipulated with all of creation that it only continue if the Jewish people accept the five books of the Torah. This has nothing to do with the nature of the created things, and speaks rather about the purpose of the creation of the world, which was only created for the Jewish people to receive the Torah; should they not accept it, the world will return to “formlessness and void”, for it was only created for this purpose. All of the conditions mentioned in the midrash were said in the same vein, using language that emphasized the merit and great importance of Israel. G-d stipulated with the sea during creation that it part for Israel, as it is for that purpose that He created the sea; and with the sun that is stand still for Joshua, as it is for that purpose that it was created.They thus conveyed to us one of the fundamentals of faith: that everything was created solely for Israel, which accords with the midrash that says “ ‘In the beginning’—for the sake of Israel, who are called ‘the beginning’ “ (Vayikra Rabbah 36:4) and numerous other dicta that speak the praises and merits of Israel. Now we do not deny that, in saying this, they also meant that He knows the conclusions of things at their beginnings and sees the end of something from the very first moment, but only insofar as this is the nature of His knowledge, as in “all is seen”. But it was not their primary intent to rid us of the mistaken notion that His will and knowledge are subject to change, for they never entertained these ideas to begin with, as Isaiah the prophet already removed the confusion surrounding this by saying “My thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not My ways,” meaning that they are not to be compared at all, which will prevent us from falling into the paradox. And in using the language “G-d stipulated” they meant the same thing as the midrash on “the sixth day”.Our master Maharal offers “wondrous counsel and great wisdom” (cf. Isaiah 28:29) in <i>Derech Chaim</i> to negate this question altogether. He says that “knowledge” and “ability” and such are all actions of G-d, just as “and G-d knew” (Exodus 2:25) was an action of G-d. Just as the other actions attributed to Him do not necessitate a change or plurality within Him, neither do these, and in these matters we rely on the Kabbalah. See there.
  WERE CREATED AT THE DUSK OF THE SABBATH, AND THEY ARE: THE MOUTH OF THE EARTH, ETC. Even according to Rambam above, these things were singled out as having happened specifically at this time. Many ideas have been put forth to explain why this is; you can find them in Midrash Shmuel. I haven’t seen fit to reproduce a single one of them, as I don’t see that any of them have succeded.I see that on the previous mishna of the ten miracles that were done for our ancestors in the Temple Maharal writes in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that the mishna starts with a woman, “no woman miscarried”, and ends with “no man ever said that there was not enough room” because these things correspond to the ten <i>sefirot</i> of <i>blimah</i>211<i class="footnote">The ten <i>sefirot</i>, lit. “countings”, often popularly translated as “emanations”, are one of the central elements of the Kabbalah. They are called “the <i>sefirot</i> of <i>blimah</i>” in <i>Sefer Yetzirah</i>, one of the earliest Kabbalistic works.</i>; he explains them one by one, see there. I felt it would be just as appropriate and even more so to expound that way here. For the world, certainly including these ten things, was created through the ten <i>sefirot</i> of <i>blimah</i>. And the mishna starts from the mouth of the earth the same way that the previous one starts with the miracles that happened to women. But I will not speak of what is beyond me.I will rather speak in terms of the exoteric, and say that these ten things correspond to the ten utterances through which the world was created. In the first utterance, the verses spoke of the earth, which was formlessness and void. The mouth of the well corresponds to the utterance “let there be light”, for that light was hidden away (Chagigah 12a) and the well was also hidden away in the sea of Tiberias (Shabbat 35a). The mouth of the donkey corresponds to the utterance “let there be a firmament… and let it separate”, in which the waters supernaturally became the Upper Waters; in the case of the mouth of the donkey, a higher force was also supernaturally placed in a coarse material being. The rainbow corresponds to the utterance “let the waters be gathered... and let the dry land be seen”, for the rainbow comes about from the humidity of moist earth that the rains have made wet. The manna corresponds to the utterance “let the earth bring forth vegetation… fruit trees…”, for these are man’s bread and his fruit that grows in its season, and corresponding to them G-d rained down the heavenly produce of manna. The staff corresponds to the utterance “let there be lights” of which it is said that “they will be signs”, and G-d sent Moses His servant with the staff that he was to use for giving signs. The verse “do not fear the signs of the heavens” (Jeremiah 10:2) is related to this. The <i>shamir</i> is a worm-like creature that comes from the utterance “let the waters swarm, etc.” The script and the inscription correspond to the two utterances “let the earth bring forth living things of every kind” and “let Us make man”, for both have to do with life and spirit, as do the script and the inscription. The inscription has more of a spiritual dimension, for it could be read from all four directions, as Rav writes. Similarly, man became a superior living creature that speaks and rules over the four corners of the earth. The tablets correspond to the utterance “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” with the seed of man, which are created in the image of G-d. The tablets are likewise the “work of G-d” (Exodus 32:16).Behold, this is what I consider the straight path. “Give to a wise man, and he will grow wiser” (Proverbs 9:9) and think of more satisfying explanations. This approach also explains why our tanna did not keep to any chronological order in his list.
  [*THE MOUTH OF THE EARTH. Rav explains that this was to swallow Korach and his followers; so also Rambam. This is difficult, for the verse there says “if G-d will create a creation” (Numbers 16:30), and according to the tradition of the Sages here, which is from scholar to scholar all the way back to Moses, it had already been created.The Talmud in Sanhedrin 110a explains the verse as follows: <i>Rava expounded: what is the meaning of the verse “if G-d will create a creation [Heb. </i>im beriah yivra<i>], and the earth open up its mouth”? Moses said to G-d, “if [Heb. </i>im<i>]” Gehinnom “has been created [Heb.</i> beriah<i>]”, very well. If not, “let G-d create [it] [Heb. </i>yivra<i>]”. In what sense? If this actually means “create”, why, “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Rather, the request was to bring the opening of Gehinnom closer</i>. But according to this, the word <i>im</i> is used for a rhetorical question,212<i class="footnote">According to the Talmud’s final reading, the verse says, “Is Gehinnom close? [No.] Then G-d will bring the opening here.” </i> which is also a forced reading. I therefore propose an alternative, for which purpose I will first raise three points.The first is that Moses’ request uses the word <i>ufatz'tah</i>,“the earth shall open [Heb. <i>ufatz'tah</i>] its mouth” (Numbers 16:30), but in describing the execution of that request the verse says <i>vatiftach</i>, “and [the earth] opened” (Numbers 16:32). And even if the verses had not used this word in describing the execution, one wonders why Moses wouldn’t use the verb <i>patach</i>, which is a more common word than the verb <i>patzah</i>. The second is that the verse says “they descended alive to Sheol [Heb. <i>sheolah</i>]” (Numbers 16:33), using <i>sheolah</i>213<i class="footnote">The word is in the accusative case with locative sense. In other words, the suffix <i>-ah</i> means “to”: “to Sheol”. The Torah does not always attach the <i>-ah</i> suffix even when speaking of motion towards.</i> instead of <i>sheol</i>. Rashi, writing on the verse “the wicked shall return to She’ol [Heb. <i>lisheolah</i>]” in Psalms 9:18, says: <i>R. Abba bar Zavdi says: to the lowest level of Sheol.</i> Although we cannot deny the testimony of the verses, when the verse relates that it became known that they descended to the lowest level of <i>sheol</i>, wouldn’t it have been proper to relate how exactly that became known? We must therefore investigate where the verse tells us this. The third is that the verse says that the entire nation “fled at the sound [of their voices] [Heb. <i>lekolam</i>]” (Numbers 16:34). People who hear others cry out “<i>oy</i> and <i>avoy!</i>”214<i class="footnote">The equivalent of English “Oh, no!”</i> do not usualy flee, they come nearer to the sound of the voices to determine the reason for their screaming. Rashi writes that <i>lekolam </i>means “at the sound that came from their being swallowed,” and Mizrachi explains that this is the sound of the splitting itself, which was like the sound of thunder, which throws people into a panic and causes them to flee. But this was not the sound of their cries at the moment they were swallowed up, for that sound is not the kind of sound that causes people to flee. On the contrary, it would cause people to gather round and come to hear their cries at that moment and see the great wonder, the like of which had not occurred from the six days of creation until then—these are his words.I now say that although Mizrachi says that the sound of the splitting was like thunder, I can claim that the sound was the sound of words, words which made known that they had descended alive to Sheol, i.e. to the lowest level of Sheol. The earth emitting the sound of clear words saying that they had descended alive to the lowest level of Sheol, i.e. that they had suffered that much, would have been a great sign. And this is what Moses requested when he said “let it open” using <i>ufatz'tah</i>. For had he simply requested that it open in order to swallow them he should have said <i>ufat'chah</i>, which is the word used in the description of the event itself. He used <i>ufatz'tah</i>, which is the word Jephthah uses when he says <i>patziti pi lashem</i>, “I have opened my mouth to G-d”, in Judges 11:35, and the word used in <i>patzu sefatai</i>, “my lips opened” in Psalms 66:14, both of which refer to speech.This, then, is how to parse Moses’ request. <i>Im beriah yivra Hashem ufatz'tah ha'adamah—</i>the word <i>beriah</i> appears without an implied prepositional <i>bet</i>,215<i class="footnote">We should read the word <i>beriah</i>, “creation”, as if it were <i>baberiah</i>, “through the creation”.</i> as in the verse <i>ki sheshet yamim asah Hashem</i>, “in six days G-d made” (Exodus 20:10), where the word <i>sheshet</i> is understood as if it were <i>b'sheshet</i>216<i class="footnote">Reading the verse as is gives “for six days G-d made”; the verse should be read as if the word <i>sheshet</i>, “six”, were <i>besheshet</i>, “in six”, giving “for in six days G-d made”.</i>, and the verse <i>un'shalmah parim sefateinu</i>, “and we shall make up for bulls with our lips” (Hosea 14:3), where the word <i>sefateinu</i> is understood as if it were <i>bisfateinu</i>217<i class="footnote">Reading the verse as is gives “we shall make up for bulls our lips”; the verse should be read as if the word <i>sefateinu</i>, “our lips”, were <i>bisfateinu</i>, “with our lips”, giving “we shall make up for bulls with our lips”.</i>. We can now read the verse: <i>im baberiah</i>, “if in the created thing”, i.e. Gehinnom, which was created during the six days of creation, <i>yivra</i>, “he shall create”, i.e. bring its opening here as the Sages say, and through bringing the opening here <i>ufatz'tah ha'adamah et piha</i>, “the earth shall open its mouth” to bring forth the sound of a voice speaking words made by lips relating what happens within all the way down to the lowest level of Sheol, [“then shall you know that these people have provoked G-d”218<i class="footnote">Tosafot Yom Tov does not supply the end of the verse.</i>].Afterwards, during the execution, the verse says <i>vatiftach ha’aretz et piha</i>, “the earth opened its mouth”, i.e. merely an opening of the mouth but no speech, for the opening was only in order to swallow them. In addition, however, it happened that everybody “fled at their sound”, which is the sound that emerged upon their being swallowed, a voice speaking words relating that they had descended alive to the lowest level of Sheol.I have somewhat of a proof to my approach, for the tanna in speaking of the donkey says “the mouth of the donkey” and not that the donkey itself was created at dusk. Now all mouths, in and of themselves, are equivalent; there is no need for that mouth to have been created at dusk unless “mouth” in the context of the donkey means “speech”, which indeed was created at dusk. If so, “the mouth of the earth” also refers to speech, [not]219<i class="footnote">The Hebrew text is missing the obvious negative.</i> simply an opening of the mouth. Also, the “mouth of the well”, according to the other opinion that Rav mentions in his commentary, means that the well sang. This is what seems best to me, and in my eyes it is truly well said.]
  THE MOUTH OF THE WELL. Rav: <i>the well of Miriam which traveled with the Jews in the desert</i>. Maharal writes in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that wherever they went the well would come up and bring forth water, and it had a mouth through which the water would come out wherever they went. But the rock most likely did not go from place to place with them, as would seem from Rashi’s words in his commentary to Pesachim 54a, for if so, why would the mishna not mention the miracle that the rock gave forth water although it was not connected to the ground? And he writes that Rashi’s words must then be understood as agreeing with his explanation.Rav: <i>and some say that it opened its mouth and sang, as the verse says </i>ali be'er enu lah<i> (Numbers 21:17)—</i>i.e., they answered the words of the well.220<i class="footnote">The verse is usually understood to mean “they said it about the well”. Tosafot Yom Tov explains that according to Rav, the verse must be read “about the well, they answered it”—i.e., the song of the well was a call and response between the well and the people.</i> [*See above. This approach explains why the mishna does not say “the mouth of the rock”, for according to the first approach it was the rock which brought forth the water. And it is of any given rock’s mouth, which brought fourth the water, that the mishna should say that it was created at dusk. Now that the mishna says “the mouth of the well” we must offer the forced reading that this refers to the mouth through which the well could come out. According to the second approach, however, the tanna actually means “the mouth of the well”, which sang.]
  AND THE MOUTH OF THE DONKEY. Rav: <i>it was decreed at dusk that she speak to Balaam.</i>221<i class="footnote">I.e., the donkey itself was not created then, but the created world included the decree that the donkey Balaam rode would speak to him.</i> For it is impossible that she would have lived that long, from the six days of creation until the time of Balaam. Maharal writes as much in <i>Derech Chaim</i>, where he says that all these ten things were not actually created at dusk; it was the decree that G-d decreed which was created at dusk. For it is unlikely that the ram of Isaac lived from the six days of creation until the days of Abraham. And Rav says the same of the ram: <i>it was decreed at dusk that it be caught in the brush by its horns at the moment of the Akeidah</i>. [I have alread explained the meaning of “mouth” at the end of my comment on “the mouth of the earth”.]
  THE INSCRIPTION. Rav: <i>the inscription could be read from all four directions</i>. What seems most likely to me is that this was some kind of miraculous thing, “the work of G-d” (Exodus 32:16). Many of the commentators on the relevant passage in the Jerusalem Talmud strugled with this. See Ein Yaakov and Yefeh Mar'eh. I prefer the words of the most recent of the comentators, R. Menachem Azariah of Fano in his work <i>Asarah Ma'amarot</i>, in the treatise <i>Chakor Din</i>, 2:20, commenting on the passage in the Jerusalem Talmud. There he says that they were the “work of G-d” that our minds cannot imagine, “not like the work of some commoner that others have drawn for us in the study hall, which a boy could come up with”.
  AND THE TABLETS. Rav: <i>they were made of sapphire… and they could be rolled, and they were hewn from the sphere of the sun.</i> I.e., they could be rolled, unlike our sapphire which is hard and cannot be rolled, because they were crystalline in appearance and pure like the stuff of the heavens.Rashi writes that “the tablets” refers to the first tablets, for the second ones were made by Moses.
  SOME SAY, EVEN THE <i>MAZIKIN</i>… SOME SAY, EVEN THE TONGS… Maharal concludes in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that these other opinions do not argue on the previous ones, each adding, rather, to the ones that preceded. For dusk has several parts, as the Talmud says in Shabbat 34b: <i>what is dusk? Starting at sunset, as long as the eastern sky is red—the words of R. Yehudah. R. Nechemiah says: the time, starting at sunset, that it takes a man to walk half a </i>mil<i>. R. Yossi says that dusk is like the blink of an eye—day ends and night begins, and it is imperceptible.</i> He writes that the number of times our mishna says “some say” varies by version. He establishes the correct version as: “[some say] the ram of Isaac and the grave of Moses”—for these are both necessary for two great righteous men—“and some say, even the <i>mazikin</i>, and some say, even the tongs.” These three “some say”s divide dusk—whatever dusk is being discussed, other than the dusk of R. Yossi, which does not last any amount of time at all—into three periods, for every measurable thing has a beginning, middle, and end. These are his words.According to the Talmud, which says that our mishna should not include the tongs, there are only two additions. One corresponds to the dusk of R. Nechemiah, and the other to the dusk of R. Yehudah. And the same could be said for our version, which only has two “some say”s.According to all opinions the first ten things were created simultaneously at the dusk of R. Yossi, so they remain constant.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  SEVEN THINGS IN A <i>GOLEM</i>. Rav: <i>as in the phrase “</i>golem<i>s of vessels”, vessels that were not finished</i> [Kelim 12:6], which are lacking completion and final touches. Such as when a blacksmith makes the <i>golem</i> of a knife or sword and they acquire their form, before he sharpens, polishes, cleans, and engraves them with his usual engravings and puts the final touches on them. The mishna similarly uses <i>golem</i> to describe a person who has a certain degree of intellect and good character, but they are not perfected and have not been acquired in the proper order—they are mixed up and confused, and have and admixture of imperfections. The <i>golem</i> is not the same as the <i>am ha`aretz</i>, who has <i>derech eretz</i> [*which is only good character], and certainly not the same as the <i>bur</i> of 2:2 —Rambam. [*See Rav’s commentary on mishna 10, s.v. “what’s mine is yours and what’s yours is mine”.]
  AND SEVEN IN A WISE PERSON. A WISE PERSON DOES NOT SPEAK ETC. The mishna first mentions the seven things in a <i>golem</i> because he comes first chronologically.222<i class="footnote">A person is a <i>golem</i> before he becomes wise.</i> But the mishna proceeds to actually discuss the seven traits of a wise person, because it is fitting to speak of the traits of the wise, and the others will become known in either case by virtue of being opposites, for which reason the mishna says “and their opposites in a <i>golem.</i>”
  HE DOES NOT SPEAK IN THE PRESENCE OF ONE WHO IS GREATER THAN HE, ETC. Rav: <i>for this is what we find in the case of Elazar and Itamar, etc.</i> This is a case of answering a question. But when it comes to asking one, the mishna says in 5:2 that the bashful do not learn.
  IN NUMBER. Rashi: <i>in years. And he is “greater” in terms of students</i>. See what I wrote on the mishna in Eduyot 1:5 [s.v. <i>uvminyan</i>]. Some editions do not have “and in number”. And even those that do see it as an either or.223<i class="footnote">I.e., one should not speak before someone who is greater either in wisdom or in number.</i> So also Midrash Shmuel.
  HE DOES NOT RUSH TO ANSWER. Rav: <i>in order that he answer correctly. </i>I.e. not only does he not interrupt a colleague, he waits until he can give a correct answer.
  HIS QUESTIONS ARE ON TOPIC. Rav: <i>and we find that the people who were impure … saw Moses studying the laws of Passover and asked him about that topic</i>. From a plain reading of the verses we do not see anything other than that all of Israel were slaughtering their Paschal lambs and they could not slaughter the Paschal lamb on that day, so they approached Moses, as the verses relate. See my comments to the mishna in Pesachim 6:2 [s.v. <i>haza’ah</i>]. Midrash Shmuel quotes Rav’s commentary on some of the sections of this mishna, but leaves out the end of his comments here.
  WHEN HE HASN’T HEARD SOMETHING, HE SAYS “I HAVEN’T HEARD”. Rav: <i>if he issues a ruling based on his own reasoning he will not say “this is what I heard from my teachers.”</i> I find this explanation puzzling, for this is a trait common to every person—not to lie! It is all the more so in the matter of a ruling, where one should not “hang from a high tree”224<i class="footnote">A rabbinic expression for presenting one’s opinion as that of an earlier, greater authority.</i> for perhaps those listening will rely on the ruling because they heard him say he has it as a tradition. He will end up causing the public to sin, for perhaps the law actually does not follow his ruling. And the proof that Rav brings from the people of Haran has nothing to do with our case.Rambam writes: <i>he should not boast of knowing what he does not know, which is what the mishna means by “when he hasn’t heard something, he says ‘I haven’t heard’”</i>. In that case the proof from the people of Haran is valid, for if this is true of cultured behavior it is certainly true in matters of Torah and wisdom.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  BODIES OF SIN. Different sins. The Sages use this word to speak of various sins as distinct bodies, as you will see from Rav’s comments to the mishna in Keritot 3:10. Because the mishna, in speaking of punishments, says “types” and does not simply say that there are seven punishments, it speaks also of “bodies” of sin and does not simply say there are seven sins.
  SOME TITHE [Heb. <i>me`asrin</i>] ETC. I wrote on the mishna in 1:16 that in many places the word <i>ma`aser</i> is a general name referring to all of the priestly gifts taken from the produce of the earth. Maharal writes in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that our mishna refers specifically to <i>ma`aser</i> and not <i>terumah</i>, because even one kernel of wheat taken as <i>terumah</i> exempts an entire heap. And in the case of <i>challah</i>, the verse uses the language of “giving”, implying that one should remove an amount that is enough for a proper gift, see there. But the Talmud in Shabbat 32b does not seem to support this approach.
  A FAMINE CAUSED BY DROUGHT COMES. The Talmud in Shabbat 32b: <i>as per the verse “as drought and heat [Heb. </i>chom<i>] steal the snow-waters, so have they sinned [all the way] unto Sheol” (Job 24:19)—on account of your not doing what I commanded you </i>[i.e. <i>terumah</i> and <i>ma`aser</i>] <i>to do in the summer [Heb. </i>bi(ye)mot hachamah<i>], the snow-waters will be stolen from you in winter</i>.
  AND NOT TO SEPARATE <i>CHALLAH</i>. I.e., not even to separate <i>challah</i>. Midrash Shmuel writes that the mishna might mean specifically <i>challah</i>, which is considered more serious because he could have kneaded less than the amount that would require separating <i>challah</i> and yet chose not to, so it is as if he deliberately decided to not perform the commandment out of spite. But there is nothing one can do about <i>terumah</i> and <i>ma`aser</i> to exempt oneself from the law.This is only true, however, on a rabbinic level, as by Torah law he may bring the produce home by lowering it through the roof or bringing it in via the enclosed areas behind the houses. For the Torah only requires that <i>terumah</i> and <i>ma`aser</i> be taken from produce that was brought into the house as per the verse “I have cleared the holy gifts out of the house” (Deuteronomy 26:13), and which was brought through the main gate as per the verse “and they shall eat it in your gates” (Deuteronomy 26:12), as Rambam rules in Hilchot Ma`aser 4:1.
  [*PLAGUE COMES TO THE WORLD FOR CAPITAL CASES ETC. See the next mishna, on “plague increases at four times”.]
  THAT WERE NOT GIVEN OVER TO THE COURT. Rav: <i>that the court did not try</i>. Since the court and the leaders of the people sinned and did not uphold the law, plague comes to the world and does not distinguish between [good and evil people] and the righteous and wicked are treated in the same way.But the language “not given over” does not mean this. As the commentators explain, it refers to sins that carry the penalty of death by the heavenly court or excision, or sins that were done without receiving sufficient warning, or cases in which the one who sinned fled.
  AND THE FRUITS OF THE <i>SHEVI`IT</i> YEAR. For the law is that one must relinquish ownership of them or clear them out of the house entirely; I record all the opinions on this matter in my commentary on the mishna in Shevi`it 9:2. It is measure for measure, therefore, that plague comes to the world, which is like relinquishing ownershp of people, for the angel of desruction does not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked. With the sword, it is possible that one will speak fairly and the enemy will heed his plea—so Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.Since these sins bring forth the same punishment, they are counted together as one of the seven, as are the ones in the next group.
  THE SWORD COMES TO THE WORLD ON ACCOUNT OF PROTRACTED RULINGS. As per the verse “and I will bring upon you the sword which extracts vengeance for the covenant” (Leviticus 26:25), in which “covenant” refers to the Torah. And the verse at the end of that same section says, “because they have made My laws revolting”225<i class="footnote">The simple reading is “because they have found My laws revolting.” The midrashic reading interprets <i>ma'asu</i> as a transitive verb, giving “because they have made My laws revolting.” The Talmud explains that the courts have made the laws revolting by protracting the rulings and perverting justice.</i> (Leviticus 26:43)—Talmud, Shabbat 33a.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  WILD BEASTS COME TO THE WORLD ON ACCOUNT OF POINTLESS OATHS AND THE DESECRATION OF G-D’S NAME. Talmud, Shabbat 33a: <i>as the verse says “and if through these you are not disciplined unto Me” (Leviticus 26:23)—read not </i>be'eleh<i>, “through these”, but </i>be'alah<i>, “in the matter of oaths”. And the verse says “and I will send forth the beasts of the field against you” (Leviticus 26:22). And concerning false oaths the verse says “and do not swear falsely in My name and desecrate the name of your G-d” (Leviticus 19:12), and concerning the desecration of G-d’s name the verse says, “and do not deserate My holy name” (Leviticus 22:32)</i>.
  EXILE COMES TO THE WORLD ON ACOUNT OF IDOLATERS ETC. Murder, as per the verse, “do not bring guilt upon the land… and do not contaminate the land in which you dwell, in whose midst I dwell” (Numbers 35:33-34). Illicit relations, as per the verse “for the people of this land did all of these abominations” (Leviticus 18:27), and the verse “and the land was contaminated, and I visited its iniquity upon it” (Leviticus 18:25), and the verse “and the land will not vomit you out on account of your contaminating it” (Leviticus 18:28). Concerning idolatry, the verse says there “and I will cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idols” (Leviticus 26:30), and the verse says “and I will lay waste your holy places and disperse you among the nations” (Leviticus 26:31). The <i>shemitah</i> and <i>yovel</i> years, as per the verse “then shall the land be appeased of its Sabbaths, all the days of its lying desolate with you in the land of your enemies” (Leviticus 26:34), and the verse “all the days of its lying desolate it shall rest” (Leviticus 26:35)”—Talmud, Shabat 33a.
  PLAGUE INCREASES AT FOUR TIMES. That is, if there happens to be plague at one of these times, it will be a more severe plague on account of these sins, for during these times some people always commit these sins. This punishment comes measure for measure, as he has taken away the sustenance of the poor and imagined that, should he give the poor, he himself will lack bread for the duration of his long life. His life is therefore shortened and his produce remains for others. According to this, there is no difficulty to be raised from the previous mishna—Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Moshe Almosnino.
  THE YEAR FOLLOWING THE <i>SHEVI`IT</i> YEAR. Because the <i>shevi`it</i> year itself is when the sins occur that bring this punishment, the plague increases immediately at the end of the <i>shevi`it</i> year, for which reason the mishna says “the year following the <i>shevi`it</i> year” and not “the eighth year because of the fruits of the <i>shevi`it</i> year”—Midrash Shmuel.I do not see the mishna’s choice of words making this point, for the mishna in Sotah 7:8 the mishna says “the eighth year” and is forced to explain further “which is the year following the <i>shevi`it</i> year”.226<i class="footnote">Clearly, then, saying simply “the eighth year” was never an option due to a lack of clarity; hence the mishna, in saying “the year following the <i>shevi`it</i> year” is not deliberately choosing this wording over “the eighth year” to make a point. The objection might be raised against Tosafot Yom Tov that the mishna in Sotah says “the eighth year, which is the year following the <i>shevi`it</i> year” precisely because there, the event in question also occurred immediately at the beginning of the eighth year—the king read from the Torah on the 16th of Tishrei. As such, we do not see that “the eighth year” is not a viable choice for things that occur during the eighth year; in fact, this mishna would support Midrash Shmuel’s contention that “the year following the <i>shevi`it</i> year” indicates that the plague starts immediately at the completion of the <i>shevi`it</i> year. Presumably, Tosafot Yom Tov would answer that the 16th of Tishrei, while close to the beginning of the year, is not immediately upon its beginning, and so the use of “the year following the <i>shevi`it</i> year” for this purpsoe would not be justified.</i>
  AND FOLLOWING <i>SUKKOT</i>. Rambam: <i>for by Sukkot everyone has finished dealing with the produce of the earth, so whoever has given these portions has given them, and whoever has not has stolen them.</i>
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  FOUR TYPES OF PEOPLE: HE WHO SAYS, WHAT’S MINE IS MINE, ETC. The mishna is not discussing giving <i>tzedakah</i>, for the types of people who give <i>tzedakah</i> are discussed in mishna 13. It is speaking simply of benefitting from people’s possessions.
  AND WHAT’S YOURS IS MINE—THIS IS AN <i>AM HA`ARETZ</i>. Rav: <i>this is how to settle the land</i>. Specifically when one wishes to benefit from others’ possessions with their consent. For if done without their consent, even if he wishes to benefit them as well he is a regular thief and the ultimate evildoer, and the Sages here were speaking about proper behavior and weren’t dealing with thieves, who are wicked—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Ramah.
  WHAT’S MINE IS YOURS AND WHAT’S YOURS IS YOURS—THIS IS A PIOUS PERSON. Not that he gives away all he owns, for the Sages say (Ketubot 50a) that even one who gives freely should not give more than a fifth of what he has in order that he not give too much and be forced to depend on others. Rather, the mishna is discussing one who gives the proper amount—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  HARD TO ANGER AND EASY TO APPEASE—THIS IS A PIOUS PERSON. But there is nobody with such a temperament that he never angers. For who was greater in humility than Moses, of whom the verse says “Moses became angry with the commanders of the army” (Numbers 31:14)—Midrash Shmuel. Greater than this is the verse “listen here, you rebels!” (Numbers 20:10), but it does not say explicitly that he was angry.
  EASY TO ANGER ETC.—HE IS WICKED. For the Talmud says (Berachot 29b), “be not angry and you will not sin”—Rashi. Maharal explains this in <i>Derech Chaim</i> according to the Talmud in Nedarim 22b, where Rav Nachman says that it is clear that anyone who gets angry has done many sins per the verse, “a man of anger incites strife, and a wrathful person has much sin” (Proverbs 29:22).
  
  Mishnah 12
  
  THIS IS A BAD PORTION. Rav: <i>the mishna could not call these “pious” and “wicked” because these things are not up to a person to choose.</i> Although it is possible to remember one’s learning with Heavenly assistance when one’s fear of Heaven precedes his wisdom, as I wrote on the mishna in 3:9, one who has not reached this level cannot be called “wicked”, since a natural flaw has brought him to this state.227<i class="footnote">Of having difficulty learning and easily forgetting. Although it is optimal to for one’s fear of Heaven to precedes his wisdom, not reaching this level does not make him wicked. And he is not called wicked for failing to change his abilities, for this is his natural state.</i>
  
  Mishnah 13
  
  FOUR TYPES OF PEOPLE WHO GIVE <i>TZEDAKAH</i>. This mishna is taught here because the previous mishna was also discussing stipends for students, as Rav writes there—Midrash Shmuel. Maharal writes in <i>Derech Chaim</i> that this mishna should have come after mishna 10, “what’s mine is mine, etc.”, but the mishna of “quick to learn, etc.” is more similar to mishna 10 because they both say “his gain is offset by his loss, etc.”228<i class="footnote">This does not explain why that mishna is mishna 12, and a different mishna is mishna 11; presumably, our mishna should have been mishna 11, mishna 12 should be mishna 12, and mishna 11 should be mishna 13. See <i>Derech Chaim</i> on mishna 11 for a full treatment of the issue.</i>
  HE HAS AN EVIL EYE FOR OTHERS’ THINGS. Rav: <i>because he knows that giving </i>tzedakah<i> brings wealth to those who do so and he does not wish for them to become wealthy.</i> So also Rashi, who adds: <i>and “he has an evil eye for his own things” means that he has a toughness of heart; the term does not mean the same thing as it does in the phrase “he has an evil eye for others’ things.”</i> That is, in the second case it means the same thing as the “evil eye” of mishna 19, because he is not content with what he has and covets what should go to the poor. The difficulty with this explanation is that if so, he transgresses the prohibition of “do not harden your heart” (Deuteronomy 15:7).But perhaps our mishna is discussing a poor person who really is not lacking, and so one who does not give to him is not “heardening his heart” and not giving the poor person what he needs. If there were nobody to provide him with his needs he would give, and his desire is to give to a poor person that has nobody else giving to him. Even so, this is a toughness of heart.According to this, we can understand why one who desires that he and others give is called a “pious person”. For there are those who object that this is the way of all people, to give and to desire that others give. But in our case the poor person would have what he needs whether others give but not he himself or he himself but not others. And yet, he both wishes to give himself and wishes for others to give, in order to provide the poor person with what he needs in abundance. Such a person is properly called pious.
  
  Mishnah 14
  
  AND DOES NOT DO. Rav: <i>and does not review(,) and learn(s) and does not understand.</i> We can explain his language thus: “he hears and does not review, or he learns but does not understand.” Alternatively, we can explain his comment as “he hears and does not review, nor does he learn, nor does he understand.” This seems to be the case, based on his comment on the end of the mishna,229<i class="footnote">There, Rav puts “learn” and “review” together in the definition of “do”.</i> where this all seems to be one thing. And because he does not learn, he does not understand. Midrash Shmuel, in reproducing the Rav’s comment, writes “for he does not learn and does not understand.”
  ONE WHO GOES AND DOES IS PIOUS. For he lowers himself and makes it look as though he needs the other people sitting in the study all—Midrash Shmuel. He also writes in the name of Ramah that anyone who veers from the middle path toward the end of good and away from evil is called “pious”, not because through this one trait he becomes pious but because this is an act of piousness, for anyone who acts in such a way lays the groundwork for piousness. So also Rambam.
  
  Mishnah 15
  
  AMONG THOSE WHO SIT BEFORE THE SAGES. Rav writes that our mishna is discusssing good reasoning.230<i class="footnote">As opposed to mishna 12, which is dicussing the ability to remember.</i> This is why our mishna says “who sit before the Sages.”
  A SPONGE. Rambam: <i>sea sponge</i>.
  A SIEVE. Rav: <i>after the bran is extracted… this is what they did with the flour offerings.</i> As the mishna explicitly says in Menachot 6:6.
  
  Mishnah 16
  
  DEPENDS ON SOMETHING. Rav’s text has “on something fleeting. When the thing passes, etc.”
  THE LOVE OF AMNON AND TAMAR. This is merely an example. Therefore, the beginning of the mishna does not contradict the end.231<i class="footnote">Besides for being love based on beauty, the love of Amnon and Tamar was a forbidden one. This would seem to imply that any legitimate love, even if based on beauty, would not be called dependent on something. The end of the mishna, however, makes it clear that only the love of the righteous for one another is the kind that is not based on something. Tosafot Yom Tov clarifies that the love of Amnon and Tamar was not chosen specifically because it was a forbidden one—it is merely an example of love based on beauty in general.</i>
  
  Mishnah 17
  
  THE DISPUTE OF HILLEL AND SHAMMAI. Their students did not fully absorb their ways and teachings, and from that point on disputes became more common among the Torah scholars. This is why the mishna chooses their dispute as an example. Accordingly, the beginning of the mishna does not contradict the end.232<i class="footnote">Just as in the previous mishna, it would seem that any dispute that is not on the same level as a dispute between Hillel and Shammai is not “for the sake of Heaven”. The end of the mishna, however, makes it clear that only a dispute like that of Korach and his followers is considered “not for the sake of Heaven.” Tosafot Yom Tov clarifies that the dispute of Hillel and Shammai is merely an example, and other disputes that are for the sake of truth and not for personal gain would likewise be called “for the sake of Heaven.”</i>
  THE DISPUTE OF KORACH AND HIS FOLLOWERS. The mishna does not mention the other party in the dispute—Moses and Aaron—as it does in the first section because in this case the two parties are not comparable, for Moses and Aaron acted for the sake of Heaven and had no other motives at all—Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yehuda Lerma.
  
  Mishnah 18
  
  WHOEVER BRINGS THE PEOPLE TO DO GOOD, NO SIN WILL COME ABOUT THROUGH HIM. Rav: <i>in order that he shouldn’t end up in Gehinnom while his students are in the Garden of Eden</i>. This is from the Talmud in Yoma 87a, which derives this from the verse “for you will not leave my soul to Sheol, and will not allow your devoted one to see destruction” (Psalms 16:10). The reading seems to be as follows: “you will not leave my soul” to come to sin, such that I will go “to Sheol”, because “you will not allow your devoted one to see destruction.” Now “your devoted one” is written as a plural, “your devoted ones”,233<i class="footnote">The <i>ketiv</i> or written text is <i>chasidecha</i>, while the <i>keri</i> or reading tradition is <i>chasidcha</i>.</i> which means the students who did good through my instructions, so the end of the verse reads “you will not allow your devoted ones to see” me in “destruction” while they are in the Garden of Eden. And the word “to see” means specifically “to see” and not “to come”.234<i class="footnote">Indicating that the students in question are observing from a different point—the Garden of Eden—and have not themselves come to Gehinnom.</i>If so, we see that this is specifically when there are many students, as the verse says “your devoted ones”.
  AND WHOEVER BRINGS THE PEOPLE TO SIN WILL NOT BE GIVEN THE MEANS TO REPENT. Rav: <i>in order that he shouldn’t end up in the Garden of Eden while his students are in Gehinnom</i>. This is from that same passage in the Talmud, where it is derived from the verse “let a man crushed [by guilt] over the bloodshed [lit. blood of a soul] flee to a pit and let none support him” (Proverbs 28:17). Although the verse says “blood of a soul”, even one soul, the mishna says “whoever brings the people to sin” because G-d has a greater tendency to reward than to punish, and even so only one who brings “the people” to do good is saved from sin by his deed—it is all the more true, then, that G-d would only punish one who brings the people to sin.
  WILL NOT BE GIVEN THE MEANS TO REPENT. I.e., G-d will not aid hm, as the verse says, “let none support him”. This is unlike all other sinners who decide to repent, as they certainly are included in the rule “G-d aids whoever wishes to purify himself” (Yoma 39a).Rambam, however, explains that G-d will prevent him from repenting, just as it is said of Pharaoh that “G-d hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (Exodus 9:12). In the eighth of the Eight Chapters he appends as an introduction to this tractate he explains that there are sins for which one absolutely must be punished, to the point that G-d will prevent the sinner from repenting in order that he receive the punishment he deserves. He writes as much in Mishne Torah, Hilchot Teshuva 6:6-7, where he furnishes scriptural proofs.
  
  Mishnah 19
  
  EXPANSIVE SOUL. Rav: <i>were he not possessed by desire, he would not have advised Balak to have the daughters of Moab prostitute themselves.</i> Rambam: <i>for a person only orders done that which is in accordance with his thoughts. Good people do not order wicked things done, they warn others against doing them. And the Torah says, “they were the ones who, upon Balaam’s advice, induced the Israelites to betray G-d” (Numbers 31:16)</i>.
  BENEFIT IN THIS WORLD. In the sense of “if you benefit from the labor of your hands, you are praiseworthy and it goes well with you” (Psalms 128:2)—“praiseworthy” in this world, as Rashi explains on the mishna in 4:1. For there are many students of Abraham who suffer hunger and thirst in this world. But since they are content and do not need help from others, they are called those who “benefit in this world”.Alternatively, this is what properly would take place. But G-d is “the G-d [who knows] all thoughts” (1 Samuel 2:3), and he has calculated a person’s deeds and given him a greater inheritance in the World to Come.
  I HAVE WHAT TO ENDOW THOSE WHO LOVE ME. Rav: <i>in the World to Come</i>. See the mishna in Uktzin 3:12.
  INHERIT GEHINNOM. In this world, as the Talmud says (Yoma 72b), “do not inherit Gehinnom twice!”235<i class="footnote">There, Rava speaks to Torah scholars who do not keep the laws carefully enough, and warns them that they will inherit Gehinnom twice: once, in that they suffer in this world in studying Torah, and again when they are punished for their sins in the next.</i>—Midrash Shmuel.
  MEN OF BLOOD. Rav: <i>Balaam, for through his advice he caused the deaths of 24,000 of Israel.</i> Rambam: <i>he is also called the “man of deceit” for employing trickery for evil deeds.</i>
  
  Mishnah 20
  
  THE BRAZEN [lit. “strong of face”] END IN GEHINNOM. For he brazenly violates the will of his Father in Heaven. Rav writes that brazen people are called “strong of face” based on the verse in Proverbs 21:29, “an evil man’s brazenness is on his face.” And the verse says, “the wicked will return to Sheol” (Psalms 9:18).
  BASHFUL PEOPLE [lit. having shame in the face] END IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN. As the Sages say in the Talmud, Nedarim 20a, “one who is bashful will not easily sin, as per the verse ‘in order that fear of Him be upon your faces, that you not sin’ (Exodus 20:17)”—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rabbenu Ephraim.
  MAY IT BE YOUR WILL ETC. Rav: <i>that is, just as you have graced us with this trait—for one of the characteristics of the seed of Abraham is that they are bashful, etc.</i> As Rashi writes in his commentary on 2 Samuel 21:2 on the story with the Gibeonites.
  
  Mishnah 21
  
  HE USED TO SAY: AT FIVE YEARS OLD, ETC. Other versions do not have this mishna. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Yehuda bar Shlomo that these are not the words of R. Yehuda ben Teima and are not part of this tractate. They are the words of Shmuel HaKatan that the Sages have appended here, and some versions have written here the mishna in 4:19, “Shmuel HaKatan says, do not rejoice at the fall of your enemy, etc.”At the beginning of the following mishna, he writes that some editions have this as the last mishna in the tractate. But this does not seem reasonable, for the tractate would not end with talk of dying and ceasing from the world; we find that the tannaim are very particular about this, as they said (Kelim 30:4), “praiseworthy are you, Kelim, for you started with purity and ended with purity”, and did likewise at the end of tractate Yadayim,236<i class="footnote">Which quotes Pharaoh refusing to send the Israelites out of Egypt, and then mentions Pharaoh saying that G-d is righteous to end on a good note.</i> all because of “do not stop at a bad thing” (Ecclesiastes 8:3).
  AT TEN YEARS OLD, THE MISHNA. Rav: <i>the Talmud says, a student that hasn't seen any success in five years of learning will not succeed, per the verse, “and this is for the Levites: from twenty-five years and up he shall join the legion of the service” (Numbers 8:24).</i> Rashi: <i>and a different verse (Numbers 4:3) says “from the age of thirty and up”—how should this be reconciled? At twenty-five he would come to study until thirty.</i>237<i class="footnote">All this is per the Talmud, Chullin 24a.</i>
  AT THIRTEEN, THE COMMANDMENTS. Rav: <i>for the verse says, “should a man or woman commit one of the sins of man” (Numbers 5:6), and in the story of Shechem the verse says “and the two sons of Jacob, Simon and Levi, the brothers of Dina, each [Heb. </i>ish<i>] took their swords” (Genesis 34:25), and Levi was thirteen at the time, and is called </i>ish<i>, a man</i>. Rashi: <i>consider that Jacob spent another thirteen yars with Laban after marrying Leah. If one allows seven months for each of her pregnancies, then since Levi was the third pregnancy, he was born about two years in. He would then have been eleven years old when they left. Add to that the six months they spent on the road and the eighteen months—a summer, a winter, and another summer—that they spent in Sukkot, which makes two years altogether, and it turns out that Levi was thirteen years old when they arrived at Shechem, and was called </i>ish<i>, a man</i>. In his commentary on the Torah, in parashat Vayeshev, on the verse “and he mourned his son many days” (Genesis 37:34), Rashi is not being precise when he writes that six months of that two-year period were spent in Beit El, as that happened after the incident in Shechem. [*See Zavim, 2:1.]
  AT EIGHTEEN, THE CHUPPAH. Rav: <i>the word </i>adam<i> appears nineteen times in parashat Bereshit, from “G-d said, let us make man” (Genesis 1:26) to “and G-d, the Lord, built the side” (Geneis 2:22)</i>. I counted them and even included the two written in the verse “and G-d, the Lord, built the side” and could only find sixteen. Rashi writes that <i>adam</i> appears eighteen times from the beginning of Bereshit until the verse “for this one was taken from man [Heb. <i>ish</i>]” (Genesis 2:23). We must say that he included the word <i>ish</i> in the count.
  AT TWENTY, CHASING. The Rav’s second explanation is that the heavenly court only begins to punish a person at 20. This is taken from Bemidbar Rabbah 18:4. It seems this was based on the fact that only those who were twenty years old at the incident of the spies died in the desert (Numbers 14:29).
  AT FORTY, UNDERSTANDING. Rav: <i>for after the Israelites had been in the desert for forty years, Moses said to them, “for G-d has not given you a heart to know, eyes to see, and ears to hear until this very day” (Deuteronomy 29:3).</i> This is from the Talmud, Avodah Zarah 5b. But it is difficult to see how this is a proof, because the people who were in the desert for forty years after the giving of the Torah were much more than forty years old. Perhaps the proof is from the fact that Moses was addressing all of them, even the ones that were children at the giving of the Torah. So the verse reads “for G-d has not given all of you.” For some of them, who were older at the giving of the Torah, had already been granted this by G-d when they reached the age of forty.One can also answer that at the giving of the Torah the Israelites all converted to Judaism, for the Talmud extracts the law that a convert must immerse from the story of the giving of the Torah, as I wrote on the mishna in Pesachim 8:8, and “a convert is like a newborn child” (Yevamot 22a).
  AT SIXTY, OLD AGE. Rav: <i>for the verse says, “you will go to the grave in old age [Heb. </i>bechelach<i>]” (Job 5:26), and the alphanumeric value of </i>bechelach<i> is sixty.</i> Although the <i>bet</i> of <i>bechelach</i> is a preposition, it is counted for the alphanumeric value of the word, as is clear from the Talmud in Moed Kattan 28a where this verse is expounded. Although that passage quotes our verse in connection with the punishment of death by the heavenly court and here Rav understands it to refer to old age, this is because he is using the simple meaning of the verse, which is discussing good things as is clear from the end of it: “as a sheaf is brought in, in its season.” And just before that, “and you will know that there is peace in your tent” (Job 5:24).Midrash Shmuel writes that some versions have “at sixty, wisdom”. Ritva agrees, and adduces the verse “wisdom is among the old [Heb. <i>bi(ye)shishim</i>]” (Job 12:12). <i>Bi(ye)shishim</i> is read as an abbreviation for <i>ben shishim</i>, sixty years old.It is possible that even according to our version, the “old age” in the mishna refers to wisdom, for the Talmud (Kiddushin 32b) says that an old person [Heb. <i>zaken</i>] means a wise one, for <i>zaken</i> is an abbreviation for <i>ze shekanah chochma</i>, one who acquired wisdom. See below.
  AT NINETY, BENDING [Heb. <i>lashuach</i>]. Rav: <i>some say this word comes from “a deep pit [Heb. </i>shuchah<i>]” (Proverbs 22:14)</i>. Midrash Shmuel objects in the name of Chasid Ya’avetz that if so, the mishna should have said <i>leshuchah</i>, to the pit. Also, we never find the grave being called <i>shuchah</i>. Also, if one is already buried at ninety, how does he die at a hundred?The last objection is not a strong one, for the mishna simply means that at that age one is fit to be in the grave. One must say the same of Rav’s commentary to “at sixty, old age”, where the verse in Job must mean not that he will die at sixty, but that he will die in old age, and that if he dies at sixty that is considered having reached old age.
  
  Mishnah 22
  
  BEN BAG BAG. Perhaps he and Ben Hey Hey did not live long, as Rav writes on the mishna in 4:1-2 concerning the names Ben Zoma and Ben Azai. Midrash Shmuel, however, writes that Rashbam writes that he heard from his uncle, R. Yehudah the son of Rosh, that they were converts and were called this to protect them from informers.238<i class="footnote">Who would have revealed their location to the government. This explanation presumes that conversion to Judaism was a crime under the Romans. Although Constantine made this the official rule of the empire only in 329 C.E., individual adverse reactions to conversion are attested (Dio Cassius reports that in 19 C.E. the Jews were expelled from Rome for “converting many of the natives to their ways”).</i> They were thus the children of Abraham and Sarah, to whose names a <i>hey</i> was added and who were the first converts, for which reason all converts are considered their children. The alphanumeric value of Bag is five, as is that of the letter <i>hey</i>, and the two names are thus the same kind of name, with Ben Bag Bag being more cryptic and hidden; they gave them two different names to differentiate between the two.
  TURN IT OVER AND OVER, ETC. Rav: <i>the Torah</i>.Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rabbenu Ephraim that because Torah is something that people greatly need, Ben Bag Bag said his dictum in Aramaic, which everyone knew upon their return from Babylon. Hillel did so as well, in the mishna of “and he who does not learn” (1:13).Maharal writes in <i>Derech Chaim </i>that they were converts and they thus spoke Aramaic. He also writes that because the Torah was not given to the angels and they cannot receive reward for performing commandments, Ben Bag Bag said his dictum in Aramaic, which the angels do not understand.
  TURN IT OVER AND OVER. The repetition is to strengthen the point and to teach the need for constant and great exertion. “Turning over” refers to reviewing what one has learnt.
  AND IN IT YOU WILL SEE [Aram. <i>techeze</i>]. I.e., the truth. The meaning is that you will see the truth with the eyes of the mind, as the Targum translates “and G-d saw” by <i>vechaza—</i>Rambam.Rashi has “and in it you should be”—that is, regularly.
  AND DO NOT MOVE [Heb. <i>lo tazua</i>] FROM IT. Rav: <i>you should not say, I have learnt the wisdom of Israel, now let me go learn </i>chochmat yevanit<i>.</i>239<i class="footnote">Commonly translated as “the wisdom of the Greeks”. Rashi and Rambam, however, do not explain it this way whenever it comes up in the Talmud, writing rather that it is a kind of Greek cleverness of speech. Tosafot Yom Tov, in referring to Rav's commentary to the mishna in Sanhedrin, seems to see Rav as indeed understanding the phrase to mean “the wisdom of the Greeks”.</i> See Rav’s comments on “outside books” in the mishna in Sanhedrin 10:1.Some texts have <i>lo tazuz.</i>240<i class="footnote">A more standard verb meaning “to move”.</i>
  FOR THERE IS NO BETTER TRAIT [Heb. <i>middah</i>]241<i class="footnote">Tosafot Yom Tov understands the word as “trait” or “characteristic”, the way it is indeed used in other contexts. The simple understanding of the word here, however, would be something like “way” or “lot”.</i> THAN THIS. You should not think that through learning the wisdom of the Greeks you will certainly learn proper behavior and good character. The mishna says “there is no better trait than this”, for all good character traits are arranged and included in it. Alternatively, our tanna is addressing all of the ethical teachings of the Sages and saying that, from among all of the good character traits that the Sages have advised you to acquire and perfect yourself in, none is like this trait about which I have advised you, for it is the greatest of them all—Midrash Shmuel.
  
  Mishnah 23
  
  THE REWARD IS COMMENSURATE WITH THE SUFFERING. Rav: <i>as much as one suffers in the learning of Torah and doing of commandments, so much will his reward be greater.</i> This is the reward for the suffering and labor, for if one suffers and labors much the reward will be proportionally greater. But nobody knows the reward for the commandment itself, as the mishna says in 2:1—Maharal in <i>Derech Chaim</i>. See my comments there.