Kommentar zu Pirkei Avot 3:7

AS THE IT SAYS OF DAVID, “FOR ALL IS FROM YOU, ETC.” Rashi: David said this verse upon gathering silver and gold for the Temple. 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).⁹⁷The verse in question speaks only of destroying Amalek and makes no mention of building the Temple. Rabbi S. Mannes in Tosafot Yom Tov HaMevu’ar 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. Or one might claim that public funds are different. Therefore, the tanna does not use the words “as it is said,”⁹⁸Heb. shene'emar, the standard way of introducing a prooftext in the Mishna. for it is not an airtight proof—Maharal in Derech Chaim.

Rabbi Elazar, man of Bartuta, says: Give Him from what is His: This is speaking whether about the matter of a person's body, whether about the matter of a person's money - and it is to say that a person should not withhold himself nor his money from the objects (objectives) of Heaven. And this is what he said:

"And thus with David": About that event, when he gathered silver and gold for the Temple, did David say this verse - Rashi. And since it is possible to push this off, as maybe David is different; as he was donating to the Temple, about which God had specifically commanded, "And it will be when [the Lord, your God] allows you to rest, etc." And also (another explanation is) it is different [with] a group. Hence, he did not say, "As it is stated, 'For all comes from You, etc.;'" as it is not a complete proof - Derekh Chaim.

"Give Him from what is His": Do not prevent yourself from being involved in matters of Heaven, whether with your body or whether with your money (as you are not giving from yours, not from your body and not form your money), as you and your money are His.

Introduction The first statement in our mishnah is from Rabbi Elazar of Bartotha, a colleague of Rabbi Akiva’s. The second statement in this mishnah is attributed to Rabbi Shimon, but this is probably a mistake in the printed edition of the mishnah. The real author of the statement is Rabbi Jacob, who was one of Rabbi Judah Hanasi’s teachers.

R. YAAKOV⁹⁹In most printed editions, Rabbi Shimon. 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 kav, but pure.”¹⁰⁰Few in quantity, great in quality. 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.]

for you and yours are His: As you are not giving from yourself and not from your money, but rather from the Omnipresent, may He blessed, as everything is His. As a person's money is a deposit in his hand from the Holy One, blessed be He - except that there is an advantage with it over other deposits in that he can take from it according to his needs. And he should give the rest in accordance with the will of the Depositor - the King, King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He - who commanded him. And there is much to rejoice in that he can benefit from the deposit (in speech) [the editor says, it appears to me that it should be corrected to, enough for his needs] and that he will do the will of its Owner with the rest. There is a parable [relevant to this] of a king that gave his servant a thousand zuz and said to him, "Take one hundred for your yourself and give the [remaining] nine hundred to nine people." Would he not rejoice?

"on the way": which is a dangerous place. And some explain that it not only [on the way], but the same is true in a house. However since it is common [to find] trees and plowed fields on the way, it is [more] possible that he will interrupt.

"'How lovely is this tree! And how lovely is this newly plowed field'": This is true of all idle talk, but it is speaking according to what is common; as it is the way of wayfarers to speak about what they see with their eyes. And some say that it comes to make us understand a novelty: that even though through this, he will make the blessing, 'Blessed is He, Who it is like this in His world;' nonetheless, Scripture considers it as if he was liable for his life, because he interrupted his study.

Rabbi Elazar of Bartotha said: give to Him of that which is His, for you and that which is yours is His; and thus it says with regards to David: “for everything comes from You, and from Your own hand have we given you” (I Chronicles 29:14). Rabbi Elazar preaches that one should not be stingy in giving any form of charity (tzedakah), be it charity to the poor or any of the potential donations to the Temple (or nowadays Jewish organizations) for in the end everything comes from God. According to a story in the Talmud, Rabbi Elazar did not only preach this, but fulfilled it himself. Whenever the charity collectors saw him they would run away because he would always give them everything that he owned.

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.

and thus with David it says, "For all comes from You, and from Your hand we have given to You" (I Chronicles 29:14): In another place there it is written (I Chronicles 29:16), "it is from Your hand, and it is all Yours." And that is stated about the body, 'that He prepared it to build His holy House.' And that which is written, "and from Your hand we have given to You," is stated about the matter of money; as he states at the beginning of the verse, "that we should have the means to make such a freewill offering; for all comes from You, and from Your hand we have given to You."

"'plowed field'": So that you not say, it is only [with] a tree that he [can] see from faraway and he says, "How lovely" which is certainly an interruption; but rather even a plowed field which is found alongside of him as he is walking, nonetheless, that [too] is [considered] an interruption - Derekh Chaim.

"'nir (newly plowed field)'": The furrow of a plow, as in (Jeremiah 4:3), "plow for yourselves a furrow."

Rabbi Jacob said: if one is studying while walking on the road and interrupts his study and says, “how fine is this tree!” [or] “how fine is this newly ploughed field!” scripture accounts it to him as if he was mortally guilty. Rabbi Jacob’s statement is one of the more memorable statements (at least in my mind) in all of Avoth. What seems to be an innocuous appreciation of nature or human agricultural work, is turned by Rabbi Jacob into a mortal sin. Studying Torah is so important in the eyes of the rabbis that one must allow no distractions, even something as innocent as a tree or field. Note that the term “mortally guilty” was also used above in mishnah four. However, there, where the person woke at night or walked alone on the road and didn’t learn Torah, he was actually “mortally guilty”. Here in our mishnah it is only “as if he was mortally guilty”. For at least this person mixed the studying of Torah with other things, as opposed to the one mentioned in mishnah four who neglected Torah study altogether.

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 Derech Chaim.

Rabbi Yaakov says: He who is walking on the way and repeating his studies, and interrupts his studies, etc.: As when a person is still studying, he should not [be involved in] mundane conversation, since he needs to stand in fear and awe in front of the Torah. [It is] like the matter that they said (Shabbat 30b), "Any student who is learning and his lips do not drip with myrrh, let him be burnt." Since he is using the crown of Torah which is the crown of the Holy One, blessed be He, he needs to not speak idly. And if he becomes light-headed to interrupt his studies, behold "he is liable for [forfeiture of] his life." And this is in line with justice.

"Scripture considers him:" [The teacher of the mishnah] supported this with the verse, "They reap salt-wort (maluach) from the leaves of the bush," which they expounded [to be] about those that interrupt words of Torah. And so is it translated [into Aramaic], "since they remove words of Torah from [the] tablet (min luach) of their heart, in order to take mundane words." And since it is translated like this, it is an obvious matter and there is no need to mention [the verse] explicitly and he relies upon the one who understands, etc. - Midrash Shmuel. And that which it said, "as if, etc.," we must say that [it is] because here it is only a chance interruption and he immediately goes back to his study; but above [in] Mihsnah 4 it is speaking about when "he turns his heart to idleness." And according to the second explanation of Rabbi Bartenura, that here it is about one who is blessing, etc., it is not an objection to begin with. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

SCRIPTURE CONSIDERS HIM. Maharal explains in Derech Chaim 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 siach as “tree,” as in the verse vechol siach hasadeh (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: the text should not read “Scripture considers him,” for no verse is adduced. Rav is likewise careful with his language and writes “they consider him as if.”¹⁰¹“They” meaning the Sages, not a verse. 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.