Commentary for Pirkei Avot 3:3
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁלשָׁה שֶׁאָכְלוּ עַל שֻׁלְחָן אֶחָד וְלֹא אָמְרוּ עָלָיו דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, כְּאִלּוּ אָכְלוּ מִזִּבְחֵי מֵתִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה כח) כִּי כָּל שֻׁלְחָנוֹת מָלְאוּ קִיא צֹאָה בְּלִי מָקוֹם. אֲבָל שְׁלשָׁה שֶׁאָכְלוּ עַל שֻׁלְחָן אֶחָד וְאָמְרוּ עָלָיו דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, כְּאִלּוּ אָכְלוּ מִשֻּׁלְחָנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יחזקאל מא) וַיְדַבֵּר אֵלַי זֶה הַשֻּׁלְחָן אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי ה':
R. Shimon says: If three ate at one table and did not speak words of Torah at it, it is as if they ate of the offerings of the dead [i.e., offerings to idolatry, viz. (Psalms 106:28): "They cleaved to Baal Peor and they ate the offerings of the dead"], as it is written (Isaiah 28:8): "For all the tables are full of vomit, excrement, [and idolatry is called excrement (tzoah), viz. (Isaiah 30:22): "You will tell it (idolatry) Be gone! (Tze)] without makom" [i.e., (homiletically:) because they did not mention the name of Makom (the L rd) at the table. But by the grace at the table the obligation is fulfilled and it is as if they spoke words of Torah at it (Thus have I heard).] But if three ate at one table and spoke words of Torah at it, it is as if they ate from the table of the Makom, blessed is He, as it is written (Ezekiel 41:22): "And He said to me: 'This is the table that is before the L rd.'" (Some say that this is derived from the beginning of the verse, viz.: "And the altar was of wood, three amoth" — do not read it "amoth," but "eimoth," as in "Yesh em lemikrah" ("There is support in the reading"). "Three" (supports) — Torah, Prophets, and Writings; others say: Scripture, Mishnah and Talmud, in which a man must converse at the table, whereupon it is called "the table that is before the L rd." (Thus, Rashi).]
Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot
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 zimun.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rabbeinu Yonah on Pirkei Avot
Rabbi Shimon says: Three who ate at one table and did not say upon it words of Torah - it is as if they ate from the offerings of the dead: He means to say that since they did not say words of Torah, behold all of the tables are as if they were full of offering to idolatry which is considered to be like feces. Since the gathering of three people is called a group, as [indicated by the fact that] they would have an invitation (mezamnin) for the Grace after the meals. And one should not join them if there are no words of Torah among them, as that is removing the yoke of Torah. They are eating and drinking and enjoying, [but] the mention of Torah does not arise upon their hearts - woe to them and woe to their enjoyment.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rambam on Pirkei Avot
Idolatrous sacrifices are called the offerings of the dead, as the verse (Psalms 106:28) called it, as we explained in the third chapter of Idol Worship (Rambam Mishnah Avodah Zarah 3:8). And Yishayahu also called it "vomit and feces" to disgrace it, [just] like idolatry itself is called dung and abominations. And before this verse is a verse that indicates occupation with food and drink and ignoring Torah and its study, and because of this the tables are all as if they ate upon them dirty things and feces - meaning to say, idolatry. And that [verse] is his saying before this verse, "But these are also muddled by wine and misled by ale" (Isaiah 28:7).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ikar Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot
"Three who ate": [The teacher of the mishnah] took [the number] three, as there in the verse that he brought as a proof it also speaks about three - and they are the wise man, the priest and the prophet - Lev Avot.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Pirkei Avot
"And did not say upon it words of Torah": And with the Grace after Meals that we bless upon the table, we fulfill our obligation. And it is considered as if we said words of Torah upon it. So have I heard.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Pirkei Avot
Introduction
This mishnah contains the teaching of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, a student of Rabbi Akiva’s. It is brought here due to its topical connection to the previous mishnah.
Note how important small gatherings are to the rabbis of this and the previous mishnah. These were one of the ways that Torah was studied in the time of the Mishnah. People would gather around in small circles, perhaps around a table, and learn Torah together.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot
AND DID NOT SPEAK WORDS OF TORAH THERE. Rav: they can fulfill their obligation through saying the Blessing after Meals, which is considered speaking words of Torah. 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.92See Rav’s commentary ad loc., s.v. shene’emar. 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: “let us go early to the vineyards”—this refers to the synagogues and halls of study. “Let us see whether the vine has flowered [Heb. parcha]”—this refers to those fluent in Scripture. “Whether the blossoms [Heb. s’madar] have opened”—this refers to those fluent in Mishna. “Whether the pomegranates have bloomed”—this refers to those fluent in Talmud. Rashi there: just as “blossoms” [s’madar] are bigger than “flowers” [perach], so the Mishna goes into greater detail than Scripture. “The pomegranates have bloomed”—they are fully grown, etc. 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 piousness93And not merely the minimal requirements of the law., 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: and people are in the habit of exempting themselves94Implying 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. through saying the Blessing After Meals.
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: “let us go early to the vineyards”—this refers to the synagogues and halls of study. “Let us see whether the vine has flowered [Heb. parcha]”—this refers to those fluent in Scripture. “Whether the blossoms [Heb. s’madar] have opened”—this refers to those fluent in Mishna. “Whether the pomegranates have bloomed”—this refers to those fluent in Talmud. Rashi there: just as “blossoms” [s’madar] are bigger than “flowers” [perach], so the Mishna goes into greater detail than Scripture. “The pomegranates have bloomed”—they are fully grown, etc. 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 piousness93And not merely the minimal requirements of the law., 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: and people are in the habit of exempting themselves94Implying 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. through saying the Blessing After Meals.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rabbeinu Yonah on Pirkei Avot
However, three who ate at one table and said upon it words of Torah - it is as if they ate from the table of the Omnipresent, blessed be He, as it is said (Ezekiel 41:22): "And he said to me, this is the table that is before the Lord": And the expression, "And he said," is [referring to an] individual, as you see [with] "And the Lord said to Moshe," which is individual, as He was speaking to Moshe alone. And when the verse wants to make the thing communal - for Moshe to say it to Israel - it is written, "saying"; which is a communal language. The explanation of "he said" by itself without "saying" is that He explained it to Moshe only and not that others should hear it. Also this [in] which it is stated, "And he said to me, this is the table," is an expression of "and he said" that specifies that this table is from below. Such that you should not think that it specifies that the table is from Above (the sacrificial table of the Temple offerings). And even though this is not a proof for the matter, it is a hint to the matter - as is the custom of our rabbis to [use as support] in several places.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ikar Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot
And the blessings are three - as [the fourth blessing of] "the Good and the One who does good" was established [by the rabbis] in Yavneh - and it comes out that it corresponds to the three amot (the measurement, understood by some as indicating a tripartite study at the table, in the verse cited) later on. And see Tosafot Yom Tov who explained at length that these three blessings hint to a correspondence with Torah, Prophets and Writings; and also to Scripture, Mishnah and Talmud. And he concludes - and this is his language: And even though I have marked signs to compare the Grace after Meals to the Torah, Prophets and Writings - or also, etc., as it is found in the end of Chapter 7 in Sotah - nonetheless, my mind is not settled with this decision to fulfill one's obligation with this. As certainly Rabbi Shimon is not speaking about these, since are we dealing with evildoers that do not bless the Grace after Meals, which is a positive commandment? And the words of Avot are words (teachings) of piety. And the language of Rashi [about this is] "And people are accustomed to dispensing [of this obligation] with the Grace after Meals."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Pirkei Avot
"from the offerings of the dead": [This means] the sacrifices of idol worship, as it is written (Psalms 106:28), "And they became attached to Baal Peor and they ate from the offerings of the dead."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Pirkei Avot
Rabbi Shimon said: if three have eaten at one table and have not spoken there words of Torah, [it is] as if they had eaten sacrifices [offered] to the dead, as it is said, “for all tables are full of filthy vomit, when the All-Present is absent” (Isaiah 28:8). Rabbi Shimon’s first statement is based on a pun on the verse in Isaiah. The literal translation of the verse according to JPS is, “Yea, all the tables are covered with vomit and filth so that no space is lift.” The words “so that no space is lift” can also be interpreted to mean, “when the All-Present is absent” for the word for “All-Present” and “space” are one and the same. Sacrifices to the dead are how Rabbi Shimon interprets the word “filthy vomit”. The reason that he assumes that this is three is that a communal meal must have three. This is also the minimum number that must be gathered in order to do a communal grace after meals “birkat hamazon”.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot
AS IF THEY HAVE EATEN FROM G-D’S [Heb. makom] 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 makom as a name for G-d has been discussed in my commentary to 2:9.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ikar Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot
"it is as if, etc.": As it ascribes [it] to them as if they offered sacrifices in the way that the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said, "The Priests merited [to eat] from the High table" - Midrash Shmuel.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Pirkei Avot
"'full of vomit and feces'": And idol worship is called feces, as is stated (Isaiah 30:22), "feces shall you say to him."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Pirkei Avot
But, if three have eaten at one table, and have spoken there words of Torah, [it is] as if they had eaten at the table of the All-Present, blessed be He, as it is said, “And He said unto me, ‘this is the table before the Lord’” (Ezekiel 41:2. The verse in Ezekiel is discussing the altar, yet it refers to it as a “table”. This fact is “midrashically” interpreted by Rabbi Shimon to mean that sometimes a normal table can become an altar. This is so when the meal has been accompanied by the study of Torah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Pirkei Avot
"'without the Omnipresent'": Because they did not mention the name of the Omnipresent, may he be blessed, upon the table.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Pirkei Avot
"as it is said (Ezekiel 41:22), 'And he said to me, this is the table that is before the Lord'": Immediately when he speaks words of Torah, it is called a "table that is before the Lord." And some say that it comes out from the beginning of the verse, as it is written, "The altar is three amot" - do not read [it as] amot, but rather eemot (mothers or foundations), as in, there is a foundation (priority) to how a verse is written. Three corresponds to Torah, Prophets and Writings; and some say to Sripture, Mishnah and Talmud - [meaning] that a person must speak about them over the table, and then it is called "a table that is before the Lord." So explained Rashi.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy