Comentario sobre Pirkei Avot 1:17

SHIMON, HIS SON. He was one of those martyred by Rome. The Talmud says in Keritot 8a: Once, the price of a pair of birds brought as sacrifices went up to a gold dinar 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 dinars!” 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 nesi’im in the first chapter of Shabbat⁴⁷See the beginning of the commentary to mishna 16. ends at the second Shimon⁴⁸The 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 nesi’im 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 nasi 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. . He must therefore be the Shimon of our mishna.⁴⁹Tosafot 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? Perhaps he promulgated this dictum before he rose to such prominence as to be called Rabban,⁵⁰“Our master,” reserved for the greatest scholars. as in the case of “ben Zakkai” in the mishna in Sanhedrin 5:2.⁵¹The 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.” Although I saw a different explanation in the book Asarah Ma`amarot, I have written what seems best to me.

Shimon, his son, says, "All my days I grew up among the Sages": And I have observed and considered all of the important traits.

The wise one has already stated (Proverbs 10:19), With many words, there is no lack of transgression." And the reason for this is that most words add superfluity and sin, as I will elucidate now. As when a man increases his words, he will certainly transgress, since it is impossible that there will not be in his words one word that is not fit to say. And one of the signs of the wise is minimization of words, and one of the signs of the foolish is the multitude of words. And the sages have already said that the minimization of words is proof of the high virtue of the forefathers. And when a man was pedigreed they would say, "The pedigreed one of Babylonia is the quiet one." And it is said in the Book of Characteristics that one of the sages was seen to be silent, since he did not say speech that was not fitting to speak and he only spoke very little. And they said to him, "What is the reason for your great silence?" And he said, "I have examined all speech and I have found it divided into four divisions.

Shimon, his son: And he was from the matyrs of the [Roman] government (harugei hamalkhut). And he is not the one mentioned later at the end of our chapter. And maybe when he spoke out this statement, he had not yet risen to the greatness of [the title] Rabban - similar to Ben Zakkai in Mishnah Sanhedrin 5:2.

"And I did not find anything good for the body except silence": One who hears his disgrace and is silent.

Introduction Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel the elder, who is referred to in this mishnah as “Shimon, his (Rabban Gamaliel the elder’s) son” was the head of the Sanhedrin at the time of the destruction of the Temple. Perhaps the reason that he is referred to here as “his son” and not with the title “Rabban” is that he made these statement while he was younger. There are very few statements in the Mishnah that were made by this sage. (This is not the same sage that will appear in the next mishnah). Note that this is the first case in Avoth where a son’s statements follow his fathers. Most rabbis did not inherit their positions from their fathers. The notable exceptions are the patriarchs who did bequeath their titles to their sons.

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 Derech Chaim.

"and I did not find anything better for the body than silence": Rambam, may his memory be blessed, already explained about the matter of silence that if it was about speech that brings damage to a person in every way or that brings gain from one side but damage from the other, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would not have needed to warn us about it - as every person who guards himself from anguish would be careful about it. But rather, even with speech that brings no damage to a person at all and is all gain, like one who speaks about his business affairs and the needs of his body and the needs of his livelihood - one must minimize speech and not be long-winded in it, but rather [just speak] according to his need. And it is not necessary to say about a vain matter that does not [change a thing] that one should not mention it at all. And so [too] did they say in Talmud Yerushalmi Berakhot 1:2, "Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, 'If I had been at Mount Sinai, I would have needed two mouths.' Afterwards he said, 'Now that we only have one, I am not able to save our souls from evil speech, all the more so if we had two.'" He means to say [he wanted two mouths] so that he should not speak from his [one] mouth words of Torah and words that are completely vain things of the world; in the same [way] that our holy sages would make themselves like vessels of [the sacrificial] service, which are not to be used for profane matters. And this is that which we say in the Talmud of the Westerners (Talmud Yerushalmi Berakhot 9:5), "All chatter (patatia) is bad except for Torah chatter which is good." And some have the version, "All karavia is bad except for Torah karavia which is good." And the meaning of karavia is plowing. [This is] to say that all of the words and thoughts with which a person makes efforts in this world, 'it is all vain and bad spirit, besides thoughts about Torah and 'the acts of God, as [they are] awesome.'

The first division is completely injurious, without benefit, like the cursing of people or vulgarity and similar to them; such that to speak with them is complete idiocy.

Since if ["and exposition, etc."] did not come as a proof about the above, it would have been fitting that this would have been preceded by "and whoever increases, etc.," as that would [otherwise] be more fitting to put next to "and I did not find, etc."

"and it is not the study which is the main thing but rather the deed": And you should know that silence is better for him, since even interpretation, homily and discussion of Torah – of which there is nothing greater – the main attainment of reward is for the action. And someone who teaches but does not practice [what he teaches], it would have been better if he had been silent and had not taught.

Shimon, his son, used to say: all my days I grew up among the sages, and I have found nothing better for a person than silence. Study is not the most important thing, but actions; whoever indulges in too many words brings about sin. Shimon makes three statements, all of which clearly have a common element. A person should say little and do much, which is basically the same lesson taught by Shammai in mishnah fifteen above. [Perhaps Shimon’s praise of silence might explain why so few of his statements were preserved. Maybe he didn’t say all that much!] There are different ways of understanding Shimon’s praise of silence. One understanding is that when others verbally abuse you, the best defense is to remain silent. I realize that this is controversial advice, and certainly sometimes it is not best to just be quiet. But certainly there are times when it is best to “hold one’s peace” and not respond to the other person with more verbal abuse. Everyone knows that in a shouting match neither side wins. Often the best strategy at defusing a difficutl situation is to gather one’s inner strength and remain quiet. Another understanding of Shimon’s first statement is that a silent person might be considered intelligent, even if he is not. Whereas the more an intelligent person talks, the more foolish he will often be considered. There were many debates amongst the rabbis about what was greater, study or action. Shimon clearly sides with action, for a person who learns but does not fulfill the commandments of which he is learning, might as well not have learned. According to Shimon the purpose of study is action. [Note that he does not discount the value of study, but rather the value of study without action]. On the last statement of Shimon, Rabbenu Jonah, a medieval Spanish commentator makes an interesting note. People have two ears and only one tongue. This is to teach that a person should hear twice as much as what he says.

NOT STUDY. Rav: 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. 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.

"And the exposition [of Torah] is not what is essential, but the action": [This is] saying that one should not expostulate on a commandment to others while he does not do it [himself]. Rather, he should do them first and [then] teach them to others - as the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Tosefta Yevamot 8:5), "Pleasant are words that come out of the mouth of one who practices them."

And the second division is injurious on one side but beneficial on the other side, like the praise of a man to gain benefit from him. But in that praise will be that which will anger his enemy and so [the speech] will injure the one being praised. And one should refrain from this speech because of this reason, [such] that they not speak things from this division as well.

"and anyone who increases words, brings sin": As such have we found with Chava, who increased words and said, “God said, 'Do not eat from it and do not touch it,'” and added touching, about which she was not forbidden. And the snake pushed her until she touched it and said to her, “In the same way as there is no death from touching, so [too] is there no death from eating.” And from this, she came to sin, as she ate from the fruit. This is what Shlomo said (Proverbs 30:6), “Do not add to His words, lest He reprove you and you be found a liar."

"And whoever increases words brings sin." This matter is speaking about words of Torah, as a person should not increase [words] of law, but rather wait and think out what he will say, [such that] his words be measured and they not be hasty. As 'when there are many words, transgression will not be avoided,' as he will think the matter is like this and he will bring sin with his [mistaken] ruling. And hence they said, "And the exposition [of Torah] is not what is essential, but the action," to make known that [that statement] is speaking abut words of Torah. And this [statement] as well should not be explained to be about vanities of the world - as if [had been] so, they should have made it adjacent (to) "and I did not find anything better for the body than silence," as that is about mundane words. And then immediately it [should] say, "And whoever increases words brings sin." But rather they said it about words of Torah, as we have explained.

And the third division is words that have no benefit and no injury like most of the speech of the masses: how was wall x built?; how was hall y built; or the telling of the beauty of house x or the multitude of delicacies of country y; and similar to these. These are extraneous words - one who says such words is excessive and there is no benefit in them.

And the fourth division are words that are completely beneficial, like the speech about the wisdoms and about the virtues and the speech of a person about what is specific to him, in that his life depends upon them and through them will his existence continue. And he must speak this." He said, "Any time I hear words, I examine them. And if I find that they are from this fourth division, I speak them. But if they are from the other divisions, I am silent about them." And the [author] of the [Book of] Characteristics examined this man and his wisdom which is to avoid three-fourths of speech, and [found] that this wisdom is the one that needs to be taught. And I say that speech is divided into five parts according to the Torah's obligation: 1) We are commanded about it; 2) We are warned against it; 3) The disgusting; 4) The beloved; 5) The permissible.

The first division is that which one is commanded about - and it is reading the Torah and studying it and reading its analysis. And this is an obligatory positive commandment, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 6:7), "and you shall speak in them." And it is as weighty as all of the other commandments [put together]. And it has already been said about the imperative of study that which not even a part of would fit in this [entire] composition.

The second division is the speech that is forbidden and that we are warned against, such as false testimony, talebearing and cursing. And the words of the Torah teach about this division. And also [included] are foul speech and evil speech.

And the third division is the disgusting that has no benefit to a man for himself, but is not a sin and not rebellious - like the speech of the masses about what happened and what was and what are the customs of King x in his chamber and how was the cause of y's death or how did z become rich. And the sages call these idle talk; and the pious ones made efforts for themselves to refrain from this division of speech. And it was said about Rav, the student of Rabbi Hiya, that he did not speak idle talk all of his days. And from this division is also when a person disgraces a virtue or praises a vice - whether they be intellectual or dispositional.

And the fourth division is the beloved, and that is speech in praise of intellectual virtues or dispositional virtues and in disgrace of both types of vice - to awaken the soul to the virtues with stories and songs, and to prevent the vices in these same ways. And also to praise the distinguished and to acknowledge their virtues, so that their practices be valued in the eyes of people and that they walk in their ways; and to disgrace the bad about their vices, so that their action and their memory be disgraced in the eyes of people and that they distance themselves from them and not act according to their practices. And this division - meaning to say, study of the virtuous traits and distancing from traits of vice - is called derekh erets (the way of the world).

The fifth division is the permissible and is the speech about what is specific to a person about his business, his livelihood, his food, his drink, his clothing and the rest of what he needs for himself. And it is permissible - it is not beloved or disgusting. Rather, if he wants, he can speak what he wants of it, and if he wants, he will not speak [it]. And with this division, a person is praiseworthy when he minimizes his speaking of it. And the men of ethics have warned about increasing words in it. But the forbidden and the disgusting does not require a warning nor a commandment, as it is fitting to be completely silent from it. However the commanded and the beloved [speech], if a person could speak in it all of his days, it would be good. However one must be careful about two things: The one is that his deeds match his words, as they said, "Pleasant are the words that come out of the mouth of one who does them." And about this matter did he intend in his saying, "And the exposition [of Torah] is not what is essential, but the action." And the sages say to a righteous one that [specifically] he teach the virtues, in their saying, "Expound, and for you it is fit to expound." And the prophet stated (Psalms 33a), "Rejoice, righteous ones in the Lord; for the straight is praise beautiful." And the other matter is terseness and that he make efforts to maximize content with few words and not that the matter be the opposite. And this is what they said (Pesachim 3a), "A man should teach his students in the brief way." And know that songs, that are composed in any language that it be, must be examined for their contents - if they are following the way of speech that we have divided. And indeed, I have clarified this even though it is clear [already], because I have seen elders and and pious men from the people of our Torah when they are at a wine party like a wedding or something else and a person wants to sing an Arabic song - even if the subject of that song is praise of courage or generosity and that is from the division of the beloved, [as well as] when it is in praise of wine - they push it off with every angle of distancing, and it is not permissible according to them to hear it. And when the lyricist sings one of the Hebrew canticles it is not bad in their eyes if it is from the things that we are warned against or which are disgusting. And this is complete foolishness, as speech is not forbidden or extraneous or beloved or disgusting or commanded in its saying because of the language that it is in, but rather because of its content. As if the content of that song is virtue, he is obligated to say it - in any language that it my be. But if the intention of that song is vice in any language that it should be, it is forbidden to say it [- in any language that it should be]. I also have what to add to this: When there are two canticles and they express the same content of arousing the power of desire and praise for it and to rejoice the soul with it - and it is vice and it is from the division of disgusting speech since it enthuses and arouses a trait of vice, as is clarified in our words in the fourth chapter - but one of the two canticles is in Hebrew and one is in Arabic or vernacular; listening to the Hebrew and speaking it is more disgusting to the Torah due to the level of the language, as it is only right to use it for virtues. All the more so if they require to put into it a verse from the Torah or from the Song of Songs about that matter - as then, it goes from the division of the disgusting to the division of the forbidden and what is warned against. As the Torah forbade to make the words of prophecy types of song for vice and disgusting things. And since we have mentioned evil speech in the division of forbidden speech, I saw [fit] to elucidate it and to mention a little of what is mentioned about it. As people are in great blindness about it and it is the great sin that is always in people - and all the more so about what the sages said (Bava Batra 164b) that a person does not escape from tangential evil speech on any day. And who would give that we escape from evil speech itself! And evil speech is the recounting of the evils of a man and his blemishes and the disgracing of a man of Israel in whatever side of disgrace that it be - and even if the disgraced was lacking as was spoken. As evil speech is not that he lie about a man and attribute to him that which he does not do, as that is called putting out a bad name on his fellow. However evil speech is that when he disgraces the disgraces of a person, even about his actions that he truly does, [such] that the speaker sins and the one who hears him sins. They said (Arakhin 15b), "There are three that evil speech kills: the one who speaks it, the one who listens to it and the one they are speaking about." And they said, "The one who listens to it more than the one who speaks it." And tangential evil speech is the mention of the blemishes of a man without clarification. Shlomo said about this matter that sometimes one who mentions the blemishes of a person without clarification shows that he does not have knowledge of that which is understood from his words and that he did not intend this, but rather intended another matter - as he said (Proverbs 26:18-19), "Like a madman scattering deadly firebrands, arrows, is one who cheats his fellow and says, 'I was only joking.'" And one of the sages from among the wise ones already praised in a large group the writing of a scribe that he showed him; and the rabbi condemned the act of the praiser and said (Mishnah Arakhin 3:5), "Go and stop your evil speech." [He meant] to say that you are causing his disgrace with your praise of him in the large group. As from them is one who loves him and one who hates him, and his enemy will be forced to mention his blemishes and his evils when he hears his praises. And that is an extreme distancing from evil speech. And the language of the Mishnah (Mishnah Arakhin 3:5) is "the judgment against our ancestors in the wilderness was sealed only because of their evil speech" - meaning to say the matter of the scouts about which it was stated (Numbers 13:32), "And they put out slander of the land." And they, peace be upon them, said (Arakhin 15a), "And if these that only put out a bad name on trees and stones become liable for what they became liable, how much more is it so for someone who speaks about the disgrace of his fellow!" And this is the language of the Tosefta (Talmud Yerushalmi Peah 1:1): For three sins is there retribution to a person in this world and he does not have a share in the world to come - idolatry, sexual immorality and murder; and evil speech corresponds to all of them [together]. And they said in the Gemara (Arakhin 15b) [that] with idolatry comes the expression, 'the big' - and that is its stating (Exodus 32:31), "Alas, this people is guilty of a big sin." And with the sin of sexual immorality also comes the expression, 'the big' - and that is its stating (Genesis 39:9), "and how can I do the big evil, this one." And with the sin of murder also comes the expression, 'the big' - and that is its stating (Genesis 4:13), "Is my sin too big to carry?" But with evil speech comes the expression 'the big ones' (plural)." [It] means to say that it corresponds to the three of them [together] - and that is its stating (Psalms 12:4) "tongue speaking big things.'" And they spoke about this unsettling sin very much. And the end of that which is said is that "Anyone who speaks evil speech denies the fundamental [faith], as it is stated (Psalms 12:5), 'They say, "By our tongues we shall prevail; with lips such as ours, who can be our master?"'" Indeed, I have said a little of what they said about this sin; even though I have written at length, in order that a man distance himself from it with all of his ability and make his intention to be quiet - meaning to say from this division of speech.