Kommentar zu Pirkei Avot 2:6

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): 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. 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 af—“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.

He also saw a skull that was floating on top of the water: Because you killed and caused the skull of the killed man to float, they killed you and made your skull float. But it was not like the law and it is as if they spilled innocent blood. And that is the [case], because it is not (like the law) [in your hand] to kill the murderer, but rather [it is for] the court, according to the [laws of the] Torah. And anyone [else] who kills him is obligated the death penalty, since his blood is not delivered into the hand of the killer to kill him. And because of this, in the end, those that drowned you will be drowned [by] others. They will do to them as they did to others. As this thing will be like this since they are all guilty, and [an act engendering] 'guilt is given over to the guilty.'

He means to say that you were killed because you killed someone else. And the one who killed you will be be killed in the future. The intent of this statement is that bad actions will return upon the head of their doers, as he stated (Proverbs 5:22), "The wicked man will be trapped in his iniquities." And he stated (Psalms 7:16), "He has dug a pit and deepened it, [etc.]." And the sages said (Sanhedrin 90a), "With the measure that a person measures, [so] is he measured." And it is something that is apparent to the eye at every moment and every time and every place that anyone who does evil and creates types of violence and vice is himself injured by those same evils that he created - since he taught the craft that would cause damage to him and to others. And so [too regarding] anyone who teaches a virtue [in] that he creates a good action from the good, a benefit of that action will reach him - since he taught a thing that will do good to him and to others. And the words about this in the verse are very good - he stated (Job 34:11), "For He pays a man his action."

"Since, etc.": He did not say it as a matter of fact, that it is [this way] and that this is how it will be - as behold, it is possible that this [one] that drowned did not drown [others], and so [too] that the drowner will not be drowned. But rather between him and himself did he say it as an assumption, as it is so according to the intellect. And since its contradiction is famous, he accustomed his mouth to make the masses hear, "The more flesh, etc.;" to say, "so [too] all of the [occurrences] that happen in the world follow in [proper] order - and 'in the measure that a man measures, etc.' And from those which are revealed, you can judge about the concealed ones; that they also occur with justice and straightness, only that we do not have the power to understand them and to master their content." And from this he proved his previous statement, "A boor cannot, etc." To make us understand that even the many that killed an individual, all of them will be killed; And he said, "they will be drowned" in plural to make us understand that even the many that killed an individual, all of them will be killed.

"Since you drowned [others, others] drowned you": You were an evildoer and you robbed the creatures and drowned them in the river. And with that same measure (treatment), you were measured (treated).

Introduction This saying of Hillel’s is in Aramaic, as was his saying in chapter one, mishnah thirteen. Note that what in English requires 18 words, requires in Aramaic only six.

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.

Since behold, from his own choice did he do this and not to accomplish His task, may He be blessed. And, 'there are many messengers to the Omnipresent' [who will effect] that this one will be killed. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"And in the end, those that drowned you will be drowned": As the matter was not given to their hands to kill you, but rather to the court. And the Holy One, blessed be He, give you over to their hands, 'as guilt is passed on to the guilty,' and [so] He will afterwards require [the punishment for] your death from them.

Moreover he saw a skull floating on the face of the water. He said to it: because you drowned others, they drowned you. And in the end, they that drowned you will be drowned. This mishnah expresses Hillel’s deep faith in the ultimate justice of the world. In the end everyone receives not only a punishment for their crimes, but the exact punishment that fits their crimes. The person who drowned others is not only punished by being killed as a murderer, but he receives the same type of death that he meted out to others. Although this may seem to be a statement purely of faith, one not empirically observable, Maimonides points out that it is borne out by experience all of the time and in all places. People who do evil and introduce violence and corruption into society, fall eventually as victims to the very violence that they perpetuated.

DROWN. Rav: 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.⁷⁰The 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. 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,⁷¹The 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.” the evil thing was brought about⁷²The 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. 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.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Do you think that there is any specific symbolism to the skull and water? If so, what?