Comentario sobre Jaguigá 2:1
אֵין דּוֹרְשִׁין בַּעֲרָיוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית בִּשְׁנַיִם. וְלֹא בַמֶּרְכָּבָה בְּיָחִיד, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה חָכָם וּמֵבִין מִדַּעְתּוֹ. כָּל הַמִּסְתַּכֵּל בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים, רָאוּי לוֹ כְּאִלּוּ לֹא בָּא לָעוֹלָם, מַה לְּמַעְלָה, מַה לְּמַטָּה, מַה לְּפָנִים, וּמַה לְּאָחוֹר. וְכָל שֶׁלֹּא חָס עַל כְּבוֹד קוֹנוֹ, רָאוּי לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם:
Las relaciones ilícitas no se exponen a tres [hombres al mismo tiempo. No se les exponen asuntos reiteros de la Torá, por ejemplo, la prohibición de vivir con la hija de una mujer que había violado, lo cual no se declara explícitamente en las Escrituras, sino que se deriva exegéticamente. Mientras el maestro se dirige a uno de ellos, los otros dos pueden estar conversando y no animarse a que el maestro exponga el interdicto, de modo que puedan llegar a ser negligentes en el área de las relaciones ilícitas. Porque estas cosas son más codiciadas y deseadas que las otras cosas prohibidas por la Torá.] Y los [seis días de] creación (no se exponen) [incluso] a dos [y, por supuesto, a tres o más, está escrito (Deuteronomio 4:32): "Por preguntar (singular), ahora, de los primeros días" (de la creación)—Uno puede preguntar, pero no dos.] Y el episodio del Carro Divino [contemplado por Ezequiel y por Isaías] (no se puede exponer) [incluso] a uno, a menos que sea un sabio, "entendiendo por sí mismo" [es decir, a menos que el maestro reconozca que es un sabio, que, si se le dan los "contornos" de las cosas, comprenderá el resto por sí mismo. [Rambam explica "la creación" como sabiduría natural, y "el episodio del Carro Divino" como la existencia de Di-s, Sus atributos, los ángeles, el alma, el intelecto y lo que sucede después de la muerte. No me parece que todo esto esté subsumido en el "episodio del Carro Divino". La "sabiduría del carro divino" sería más adecuada. Se llama, más bien, el "episodio del Carro Divino" porque al invocar ciertos nombres sagrados uno recurre a la Corona, por cuya agencia contempla las vigilias angelicales en sus estaciones y "santuario dentro del santuario", como aquellos que ven ( tales cosas) a través de la agencia del espíritu santo.] Todos los que reflexionan sobre cuatro cosas [las que siguen]—hubiera sido mejor si no hubieran nacido: lo que está arriba [las cabezas de las criaturas celestiales], lo que está abajo, lo que está antes y lo que está detrás [al oeste. Otra interpretación: "lo que está antes" de la creación; "lo que está detrás" de la creación, al final de los días.] Y todos los que no solicitan el honor de su Creador [como los que transgreden en secreto, diciendo: "La Shejiná no se encuentra aquí. ¿Quién me ve? ¿Quién me conoce? "]— hubiera sido mejor si no hubieran nacido.
Bartenura on Mishnah Chagigah
English Explanation of Mishnah Chagigah
Nor the work of creation in the presence of two.
Nor [the work of] the chariot in the presence of one, unless he is a sage and understands of his own knowledge.
Whoever speculates upon four things, it would have been better had he not come into the world: (1) what is above, (2) what is beneath, (3) what came before, and ( what came after.
And whoever takes no thought for the honor of his creator, it would have been better had he not come into the world.
This mishnah is brought here because like yesterday’s mishnah it may refer to certain reasons why sages abandoned the world of Torah. There are some subjects which are, according to our mishnah, dangerous to speculate upon or to discuss in front of the masses. Pondering upon the unknowable may have contributed towards apostasy.
Section one: The danger of expounding upon the verses about forbidden relations in the Torah is either that people will be confused and make irreparable mistakes (i.e. create mamzerim) or that they will be titillated by the attention paid to these verses and they will not be able to control their urges and they will come to sin. Therefore, these verses are not expounded before even a group as small as three.
Section two: How the world was created and whether it was created from already existing material was a much debated and sensitive issue in the ancient world. That there might have been material which pre-existed God would have been seen by the rabbis to be heretical. Due to the speculative nature of this subject, it was forbidden to talk about it in front of even two people.
Section three: The study of the chariot, Ezekiel’s heavenly vision (Ezekiel 1) is the mystical study of God, God’s physical attributes and God’s unknowable mysteries. The sages seem to have believed that God had a physical existence, perhaps even a body in a certain sense, but that God’s body was hidden from human beings. It was forbidden for one sage to teach this subject to another sage unless the learning sage could understand things without really being explained to them. What this seems to mean is that one sage could begin to discuss this topic with another sage but he shouldn’t reveal to him the secrets of God unless he sees that the sage understands and can proceed on his own. However, we interpret this, what is clear is that the sages were extremely hesitant to engage publicly in mysticism.
Section four: There were some things that humans couldn’t know and therefore should not try to know. They are: 1) what is above the sky; 2) what is below the earth; 3) what came before the earth was created; 4) what will come after it is destroyed. Again, these four subjects are (or at least were) completely speculative. A person should spend their time in this world studying subjects that are knowable, such as the interpretation of Torah and halakhah. Metaphysical speculation was ruled out by this mishnah. The final line of the mishnah seems to be a continuation of the previous line. Those who try to uncover God’s secrets and reveal them to the public are not acting with respect to God’s honor. It is almost as if they are undressing God in public. Had God wanted these secrets to be revealed they would have been revealed.
I should note that there do seem to have been rabbis in this period who did engage in such speculative study and even composed works dedicated to the topic. There are two ways to justify this mishnah with those other works. First of all, there were different groups of rabbis, some of which focused on halakhah/midrash and others who focused on mysticism. The second possibility, which I believe to be more likely, is that the rabbis thought that mysticism was not an appropriate focus for most people’s study. Mysticism, which they considered dangerous, should be reserved for the elite and not spread to the masses.