Comentario sobre Pirkei Avot 3:20

AKAVIA SON OF MAHALAL’EL. He lived during the Second Temple period, per the mishna in Eduyot, 5:6: the throngs of the inner courtyard of the Temple, when its gate was closed, did not contain a man equal to Akavia son of Mahalal`el in wisdom and fear of Heaven. Even so, the compiler of the mishna did not wish to interrupt the line of Hillel until he got all the way to Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi and his son. He then returned to the chronological sequence of the tradition, starting again with the dicta of Hillel and then proceeding to R. Yochanan ben Zakkai who received the tradition from him, and then to R. Yochanan ben Zakkai’s students. He then taught the dictum of R. Tarfon because it is similar to the dictum of R. Elazar, the last of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai’s students.

Akavia ben Mahalalel says: Keep your eye on three things, and you will not come to sin: Know from where you came: And when you are keeping your eye on where you came from, the thought will cause you to be of a lowly spirit and you will be saved from the trait of arrogance - as it is stated about it (Proverbs 16:5), "Every haughty person is an abomination to the Lord."

This perusal brings a person to humility - in remembering from where he came. And his perusal of his end will bring him to disparage matters of the world. And his perusal of the greatness of the Commander will bring him to be quick to listen to His commandments. And when these three come into his hand, he will not sin at all.

Akavia: He [lived] during the time of the Temple. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

Akavia: "From a putrid (spoiled) drop": A drop of semen. And even though at the time of conception, it is not spoiled - as it does not become spoiled in the womb of a woman until after three days, and when it is spoiled it is no longer fit to fertilize - nonetheless, he called it a spoiled drop because it is close to spoiling immediately when it is outside of the innards of the woman. And one who keeps his eye on that which he came from a putrid drop will be saved from pride. And one who keeps his eye on that which he is destined to go "to a place of dust, worms, and maggots," will be saved from desire, and from lust for money. And one who keeps his eye on that which he is destined to "give an account and a reckoning," will separate [himself] from sin, and will not stumble in iniquity.

Introduction Akabyah ben Mahalalel lived in the time of Hillel, before the destruction of the Temple. We learned about the conflicts that this sage had with the other sages in Eduyoth 5:6-7.

KNOW. The tanna inserts the word “know”⁸⁷Which would seem unnecessary, as the opening words of the mishna are “look at three things...”, and we would expect those things to be listed now, with no need for an another verb inbetween. because “before whom you will eventually give a reckoning” is not something that can be known through sensory looking and examination, as it is a belief that can only be acquired through knowledge—Midrash Shmuel.

And to where are you going? To a place of dust, worms, and maggots: And if you think in your heart to where you are going, you will not desire any of the pleasures - as you are toiling for worms. You will also find vain all wealth and honor - 'as it is all vanity and bad spirit.' And about this matter King Shlomo created the Book of Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) and began (Ecclesiastes 1:2), "Vanity of vanities" - to show the vanity of all goods and of all honor. And after he showed the vanity of everything, he stated (Ecclesiastes 12:13), "The sum of the matter, when all is heard; revere God and observe His commandments; as this is all of man."

"Know": He went back and said the word, "know," because "before Whom are you destined, etc.," is not with a physical keeping of one's eye and vision, but rather that he should believe it intellectually - Midarsh Shmuel.

Akabyah ben Mahalalel said: mark well three things and you will not come into the power of sin: Know from where you come, and where you are going, and before whom you are destined to give an account and reckoning. From where do you come? From a putrid drop. Where are you going? To a place of dust, of worm and of maggot. Before whom you are destined to give an account and reckoning? Before the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be he. Akabyah ben Mahalalel teaches a strategy whereby a person can avoid the clutches of sin. A person should first of all remember his humble origins, a drop of semen. In Avoth de-Rabbi Nathan, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar teaches a parable: to what may this be likened? To a king who built a large palace and decorated it, but a tannery pipe led through it and emptied at its doorway. Says every passerby: “How handsome and magnificent this palace would be if it were not for the tannery pipe coming through it!” So too is man. If then, with a foul stream issuing from his bowels, he exalts himself over other creatures, how much the more so would he exalt himself over other creatures if a stream of precious oil, balsam or ointment issued from him!. Where are you going? To a place of dust, of worm and of maggot: remembering that the end of all human beings is the same, and that in the end we will all go to our graves, keeps a person humble and prevents him from greedily seeking material gain. About this mishnah Maimonides comments, “Reflection on his origin will lead a man to humility. When he contemplates his ultimate end, he will get to despise mundane matters. And when he contemplates the majesty of the Commander, he will come to obey His commandments speedily. And when a person succeeds in keeping his mind on these three things, he will sin no more.”

WHENCE YOU COME AND WHITHER YOU ARE GOING. The interrogative governing the place of origin is 'ayin, as in me’ayin ba’u ha’anashim, “whence came the men?” (cf. Joshua 2:4). The interrogative governing the place of arrival is 'anah, as in 'anah elech meruchacha ve’anah mipanecha evrach, “whither shall I go to escape Your spirit, and whither shall I flee from You?” (Psalms 139:7). Both appear in the same verse in the story of the concubine of Giv`ah: 'anah telech ume’ayin tavo, “whither go you, and whence came you?” (Judges 19:17)—Maharal in Derech Chaim.
The word le’an has a kamatz under the alef.

And before Whom are you destined to give an account and a reckoning: As the creations were only created to fear God. As how will a person sin if he thinks in front of Whom he is "destined to give an account and a reckoning" - and more than for the punishment and the challenge - as he will suffer great embarrassment. There is a parable [relevant to this] about a king in front of which a man enters: If [the king] finds him cheating in his deeds or lying in his words, he will suffer great embarrassment. All the more so before the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He. Also because the embarrassment of the soul is greater after it separates from the body than the embarrassment when it is still there. As it is the nature of the body to forget, and when a person does an ugly thing and is embarrassed from other people about it for a year or two, he will forget the thing and the embarrassment will leave on its own. Even if it is not forgotten from his heart, the thing will be faded and some of the embarrassment will be removed. As the nature of the body's forgetting mixes with the nature of the soul. And even though it does not overcome it to completely forget the thing, nonetheless it overcomes it [enough] for the thing to fade; such that some forgetting removes most of the embarrassment. But when the soul is alone, there is no forgetting before it - as it is completely whole and pure and there is no physical nature within it. And when it is embarrassed before "the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He," it is for ever and ever that it will stand with the embarrassment like now when it is [actually] standing in front of Him. And like that time, it will stand embarrassed forever. And this is what the rabbis, may there memory be blessed, said (Bava Batra 75a), "Woe for this embarrassment, woe for this disgrace." Hence in all cases, the one that raises these things to his heart will not come to sin.

"from where (me'ayin), etc.": The question of the place from which you come [uses the] term, ayin, as in "me'ayin (from where) did the people come." And the question of the place to which he will go uses the term, anah, as in "Anah (To where) will I go from Your spirit and anah (to where) will I run away from in front of You?"

YOU ARE GOING. A person is always walking along the way to his eternal dwelling place and drawing near to death, for the day of death approaches from the very day of birth. This is why the mishna chooses the present particple and not the future tense—Midrash Shmuel.

"you going": As man is going to his [grave] and is approaching death, as 'the day of death is from the day of his birth.' Since from the day that he is born, he approaches and goes towards death - and therefore he uses present tense and not future tense - Midrash Shmuel.

TO A PLACE OF DUST AND WORMS. The mishna does not say that one becomes dust, as per the language of the verse, “for you are⁸⁸Presently. The mishna does not say that one becomes dust in adherence to the language of the verse, which characterizes a person as alreading being dust. dust, and to dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:19)—Maharal in Derech Chaim.

"To a place, etc.": And he did not say, "he will be dust, worms, and maggots." As so did the verse (Genesis 3:19) say, "as you are dirt and you will return to the dirt" - Derekh Chaim.

GIVE A RECKONING [Heb. din vecheshbon]. While the word din can refer to the judgment or verdict at the end of a case, here it refers to the opening of the case, which is why din, the opening of the case, precedes cheshbon, the accounting. This explains the wording latet din of the mishna, “to cause a din”—since a case must be opened whenever one sins, one can be said to cause the case. One who has illicit relations, for example, causes a din. The mishna therefore says “he will eventually cause a din.” The passage in Bava Batra 73b on the two geese concerning which Israel “will eventually cause a din” is to be understood similarly—Maharal in Derech Chaim.

"an account and a reckoning": It is speaking about the beginning of the accounting (judgement) and therefore it had account precede reckoning. And he said, "to give an account," to say that if he sins, he is obligated an accounting as a result of it - hence, it is relevant to say that he gives an accounting, etc. - Derekh Chaim.

FOR THE WELFARE OF THE GOVERNMENT [Heb. malchut]. Malchut refers to the king and the ministers and advisors running his kingdom and executing law in the land. Hence, the mishna chose the word malchut, “kingdom,” instead of melech, “king.” So the commentaries.

Rabbi Chanina, the Deputy High Priest, says: Pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear of it: As it is harsh upon us.

His proof that any session wherein they did not speak words of Torah is called a session of scorners is from the end of the verse (the verse after the one he cites), wherein he states (Psalms 1:2), "But rather the Torah of the Lord, etc." [It is] as if he said that because his desire was in the Torah of the Lord, he [axiomatically] did not sit in the session of scorners within which there is no Torah of the Lord.

"Government:" That [means] the king and his ministers and his advisors who run his kingdom and administer law in the land[. And that is why it did not say, "for the welfare] of the king." So did the commentators explain.

"For the welfare of the government:" and even [that] of the nations of the world.

Introduction The first section of this mishnah contains a teaching of Rabbi Hanina who was the vice-high priest, (he would fill in for the high priest when he couldn’t serve). Rabbi Hanina lived through the destruction of the Second Temple. Perhaps there is a connection between his statement and the great political turmoil he witnessed during his lifetime. The second section contains the teaching of Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradion, who was a contemporary of Rabbi Akiva’s. He was martyred by the Romans during the Bar-Kochva revolt. Legend has it that he was wrapped with a Torah scroll and then burned alive. This legend is part of the Yom Kippur liturgy, contained in a section called the martyrology.

THIS IS A GATHERING OF SCOFFERS. For there can be no greater scoffer than one who is told that as many gold coins as he can count out of a pile in an hour will be his and sits idly. He certainly scoffs at the gold coins and disdains them. So is one who idles instead of studying Torah. For since he knows the great reward for its study, he must simply be a scoffer.
This is the meaning of the tanna’s saying (Avot 6:2) “woe unto the people on account of the insult to Torah”—the tanna calls abandoning Torah study “insulting” the Torah. So Midrash Shmuel in the name of Chasid Ya’avetz.
He also focuses on the phrase “and there is no Torah among them.” He explains that even though each of them individually is studying Torah, there is no Torah “among them,” i.e. they do not study together. This is solely because each one thinks nothing of the learning of the other and feels there would be nothing to gain from joint study. Such people are certainly scoffers, even if no words of mockery come out of their mouths.
Rambam: the tanna’s proof that any gathering that does not involve words of Torah is a gathering of scoffers comes from the verse immediately following the one quoted, which says “for his desire is only for G-d’s Torah, etc.” (Psalms 1:2). The inference is that because his desire is only for G-d’s Torah he would not join a gathering of scoffers, which must therefore have none of G-d’s Torah.

man would swallow his fellow alive: This matter is wanting to say that a person should pray for the peace of the whole world and be in pain about the pain of others. And this is the way of the righteous ones, as David, peace be upon him, stated (Psalms 35:13), "As for me, when they were ill, my dress was sackcloth, I afflicted myself in fasting." As a person should not make his supplications and his requests for his needs alone, but rather to pray for all people, that they be at peace. As with the welfare of the government, there is peace in the world.

From where [is there proof that] that even [when there is only] one [person] sitting, etc.: In the first chapter of Berakhot 6a, it states in this language, "And from where is it derived that one who sits and engages in Torah [study], the Divine Presence is with him? As it is stated: 'In every place where I cause My Name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you' (Exodus 20:21); Since even one, was it necessary [to say] two? [With] two, their words are written in the book of remembrance; with one, his words are not written in a book of remembrance. And since even two, was it necessary [to say] three? Lest you say that judgment is merely peace, and the Divine Presence does not come. [Instead,] we understand that sitting in judgment is also Torah. And since even three, was it necessary [to say] ten? [With] ten, the Divine Presence precedes [them] and comes; [with] three, not until they sit." And the explanation of "he is silent (vayidom)" as being from the hidden speech is from "a still (demamah) small voice" (I Kings 19:12). And from this [idea] did the [Onkelos' Aramaic] translation explain, "And Aharon was silent" (Leviticus 10:3) [as] "And Ahaon praised." And his proof that he is like one that observed the entire Torah completely is from his saying, "since he takes it on himself" (Lamentations 3:28) - it is as if the giving of the entire Torah was only for his sake.

"this is a session of scorners:" As there is no greater scorn than one to whom they say, "Count gold coins for an hour, and every thing that you count will be yours;" and he is idle [from doing this. Such a one] certainly scorns the gold coins and disgraces them. So [too] is one who is idle from words of Torah - since he knows [its] great reward, he is nothing but a scorner. And he said "there are no [words] between them," [by which] he means to say that even though they are involved in Torah [study] each one by himself, there is however [nothing] "between them," since each one is foolish and is scornful in his heart about the knowledge and learning of his fellow and thinks that he has nothing to gain from his company with him, etc. Certainly they are called scorners, even though no one opens his mouth [and calls them on it]. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"would swallow alive:" As it is written (Habakkuk 1:14) "And you make man like the fish of the sea" - just like the fish of the sea, each one that is bigger than his fellow swallows his fellow; so too people, were it not for the fear of the government, each one who is bigger than his fellow would swallow his fellow (Avodah Zarah 4a).

Rabbi Hanina, the vice-high priest said: pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear it inspires, every man would swallow his neighbor alive. One should pray for the welfare of the government, even a non-Jewish government. For without government anarchy reins, and people could not peacefully pursue their course of life. Rabbi Hanina is aware that governments are not perfect, as he certainly was witness to the tyranny of being ruled by a foreign government. Nevertheless, in this statement he recognizes that even the sometimes oppressive rule of the Roman is preferable to anarchy.

THE SHECHINA DWELLS AMONG THEM. As opposed to the scoffers, who are called “the group that does not see the face of the shechina” [as in Sotah, 42a]. For even after their death, the shechina remains distant from the scoffers, all the more so while they are alive. And the shechina dwells among these even when they are living, all the more so after their death—Midrash Shmuel.

Rabbi Chananya ben Teradyon says: Two who are sitting together and there are no words of Torah [spoken] between them, this is a session of scorners, as it is said (Psalms 1:1): “[Happy is the man who has]... not sat in the session of the scorners”: Two things are called scorning (leitsanut). One is evil speech: one who speaks badly about his fellow, to disgrace him and to debase him among people - that he be considered scornful in their eyes. And this is from the great sins 'that a man commits and is guilty.' And this trait is only [found] among those that act wickedly. And about it Shlomo, peace be upon him, stated in his wisdom (Proverbs 21:24), "The malevolent, conceited man - scorner is his name - acts in a frenzy of malevolence." He meant to say that these two evil traits - malevolence and conceit - both them or are included in the scorner. And a malevolent man is one who speaks about his fellow and debases him in the eyes of the world; [whereas] conceit is in thought, such that [another] person is not thought of as anything in front of him. And one 'crowned' with these two things - his name is scorner. And lest you say, he [may] not watch his tongue, but his hands are tied, he does not sin with them; about this he said, "he acts in a frenzy of malevolence" - when this man that "scorner is his name" comes to action, it will be with anger and cruelty. This is because scorning indicates about him the sin of being one who commits evil deeds. And Shlomo, peace be upon him, would console those that hear the insult of the scorners but do not respond and stated (Proverbs 3:34), "At scorners He scorns, but to the lowly He shows grace." He meant to say [that] God scorns those that scorn you and they will lose more with their scorn than you - the listener. "But to the lowly" that are silent and endure them and don't respond, the Holy One, blessed be He, "shows grace." But the verse that he [cited in the mishnah], "not sat in the session of the scorners," is not speaking about the scorners that we discussed - as that is [already] either in the category of sinners or in the category of evildoers that are stated in the beginning of the verse. Rather, it called "the session of the scorners" the opposite of what is written after it: "Rather, in the Torah of the Lord is his desire, and he meditates upon His Torah day and night.' [That is] those that purposely establish sessions to speak about empty words, and forsake words of Torah. As they remove the yoke of Torah from upon [them], since during the time that they don't have work [and] they also don't have to speak about their affairs, they establish a session for their idle words - hence it is called a session of scorners. And this thing is spoken concerning the refraining from Torah [study], since this chapter is speaking about the topic of refraining from Torah [study].

"the Divine Presence rests with them": [This is] the opposite of the scoffers, as [the latter] are the group that do not see the face of the Divine Presence. However these are the opposite: as the scoffers - even in their death - the Divine Presence distances Itself from them; all the more so during their lives. And these - even during their lives - the Divine Presence dwells with them; all the more so in their death - Midrash Shmuel.

“'those who feared the Lord one with another'": Behold, there are two here [that this verse is speaking about].

R. Hananiah ben Teradion said: if two sit together and there are no words of Torah [spoken] between them, then this is a session of scorners, as it is said: “nor sat he in the seat of the scornful…[rather, the teaching of the Lord is his delight]” (Psalms 1:1); but if two sit together and there are words of Torah [spoken] between them, then the Shekhinah abides among them, as it is said: “then they that feared the Lord spoke one with another; and the Lord hearkened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that feared the Lord and that thought upon His name” (Malachi 3:16). Now I have no [scriptural proof for the presence of the Shekhinah] except [among] two, how [do we know] that even one who sits and studies Torah the Holy One, blessed be He, fixes his reward? As it is said: “though he sit alone and [meditate] in stillness, yet he takes [a reward] unto himself” (Lamentations 3:28). From the verse in Psalms used as a prooftext we can see that the opposite of a gathering of scorners (synonymous with sinners) is a gathering for the study of Torah. Therefore any gathering in which Torah study is completely absent is considered a gathering of scorners. Furthermore, the statement is that there must be between them words of Torah. It is not sufficient that each studies or meditates upon Torah on his own. The words of Torah should be shared with others. However, even two people who gather to study Torah cause the Shekhinah, the Divine Presence, to abide amongst them. This is learned from the verse in Malachi, which implies that when the group of God-fearers gathered, God hearkened to their words, for He dwelled amongst them. Finally, even one who studies on his own, receives a reward for such study.

STUDIES TORAH. A person sitting by himself doesn’t usually say words of Torah out loud. The mishna therefore cannot say “words of Torah” the way it does in the case of two people, who speak to one another.

But two who are sitting together and there are words of Torah [spoken] between them, the Divine Presence rests with them, as it is said (Malachi 3:16): “Then those who feared the Lord spoke one with another, and the Lord hearkened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for those who feared the Lord and for those who thought upon His Name”: And the simple understanding of the verse is about the righteous in the future to come: when people will see their lofty status and say, "For what did this thing come to them," they will answer, "Because earlier 'they spoke one with another' in words of Torah and it was written 'in the book of remembrance' and He is now giving them the reward for their activity."

"[studying Torah,] etc.": Since an individual [who is alone] is not accustomed to putting out words of Torah from his mouth, therefore it is not relevant to say with him, "[studying] words of Torah (divrei Torah);" as it is with two, who are speaking one with the other.

“'and is silent (vayidom'": It is a term [related to the usage], kol demamah dakah (a still-small voice). As the way of one who learns alone is to learn while whispering.

...THAT G-D SETS ASIDE REWARD FOR HIM? FROM THE VERSE “LET HIM SIT ALONE AND BE SILENT, FOR HE HAS TAKEN IT [Heb. natal] UPON HIMSELF.” Rav: it is as if the giving of the Torah was entirely for his sake. So also Rambam. But they had the version quoted by Maharal in Derech Chaim and by Midrash Shmuel in the name of Ramah: whence do we see that scripture considers even one person who sits and studies as if he has upheld the entire Torah? From the verse “let him sit alone and be silent, for he has taken it upon himself.”
As for the text printed in our editions, we prefer the explanation of Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rambam, that “he has taken it upon himself” means that he has been paid his reward in full, or that he has already taken his reward, for it had been prepared for him. Cf. the commentary of Rashi that I will quote shortly for a different take.
I see Midrash Shmuel quotes Rav the way we have it and explains that natal here has the meaning of “covering, shielding,” because Onkelos translates the word “you shall cover [Heb. vesakota]” (Exodus 40:3) as vetatel. He renders natal as “He has covered,” meaning that the shechina covers him to save him from all manner of evil, to be a protective shade over his head. In our editions Rav writes this as an explanation of mishna 6.
I also see that Midrash Shmuel, in quoting Rashi’s commentary to our mishna, writes that he found written in Rashi’s commentary to mishna 6 the following: “...and be silent, etc.” For he has taken for himself reward for that deed. And some say that it is a term of covering or protection, as in the verse vesakota etc.⁸⁹ Midrash Shmuel seems to suggest that this commentary, while printed on mishna 6, properly belongs here. Tosafot Yom Tov will dispute this. The commentary of Rashi as printed in Maharal’s Derech Chaim also includes this explanation. If I were not afraid to say so, I would say that this explanation properly belongs there on mishna 6 and not here, and that Rashi had the text from the verse, “let him sit alone and be silent, for he has taken upon himself” and not “wherever I cause my name to be mentioned, I shall come to you and I will bless you”. For it is there, in that mishna, that we say that the shechina dwells even with one person. I further claim that Rashi had the text “wherever etc.” in our mishna, for which reason he wrote no commentary on this part of the mishna, because none is necessary. For the verse explicitly says “and I will bless you,” and there can be no greater setting aside of reward than this. So it seems to me. Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that in our editions the text reads and whence do we know that G-d sets aside reward even a single person studying Torah, and that the shechina is with him? From the verse, let him sit alone, etc. If we accept this version, we may say that Rashi here is explaining that the Hebrew natal is like vesakota.⁹⁰In which case, Tosafot Yom Tov agrees with Midrash Shmuel that the commentary belongs here.
The Talmud in Berakhot 6a: since this is true even of a single person, what need is there to say it of two people? [The answer is:] The words of two people studying are “written in the book of rememberance,” while the words of one are not.⁹¹The Talmud evidently saw in our mishna that the shechina dwelt even with one person, supporting the version adduced in Derech Chaim above. And our mishna adds to the case of a single person that “G-d sets aside reward for him” not beause two don’t get reward, but because in the case of one the verse says so explicitly, as it says, “for he has taken for himself.” Both ideas—that of reward, and that of the shechina dwelling—are derived from the word natal, which is explained using vesakota as above and according to the meaning “to take,” i.e. to take reward. The reason the verse says this of a single person is because it will then be understood to be true all the more so in the case of two people.

I have no [Scriptural support for this] except [in a case of] two. From where [is there proof that] that even [when there is only] one [person studying Torah], the Holy One, blessed be He, determines a reward for him?: He means to say one who sits and thinks about Torah. Since reward is given for thought as it is for one involved in speech.

And [like Rabbi Bartenura] did Rambam explain. However his textual variant was "From where [is there proof that] that even [when there is only] one [person studying Torah], the verse considers it as he kept the Torah? As it is said, 'He sits alone. etc.'” And according to the textual variant that we have, [the correct understanding] appears to be that which is written in Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rashbam, who explains that "since he takes [a reward]" [means] that a full reward is sent to him; or that behold, he is like one who has already taken his reward, as it is [already] prepared. He also wrote here like the words of Rabbi Bartenura at the end of Mishnah 6. And it appears to me that Rashi has a textual variant that has "'In every place, etc.'" here, and later in Mishnah 6 he has a variant [that reads], "'since he takes, etc.'" And in the gemara [it is written], "And since even one, do I need [to say] two? [With] two, their words are written in the Book of Remembrance; [with] one, his words are not written." And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"'since he takes [a reward] for it'”: As if the giving of the entire Torah was for his sake alone.

As it is said (Lamentations 3:28): “He sits alone and is silent, since he takes [a reward] for it”: As one who is silent and thinks about Torah is as if he takes on the yoke of Torah in oral meditation. But Rabbi Meir HaLevi follows the textual variant, "From where [is there proof that] that even [when there is only] one [person studying Torah], the verse equates it for him as if he fulfilled the whole entire Torah, as it is said (Lamentations 3:28): 'He sits alone and is silent, since he takes [a reward] for it.'" And how is it implied that the expression "and he is silent" is [about] speech? [From] "since he takes" [which refers] to the yoke of speech - as he preaches in front of [the people].

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.

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.

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).

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

"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."

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”.

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.

"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.

"'full of vomit and feces'": And idol worship is called feces, as is stated (Isaiah 30:22), "feces shall you say to him."

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.

"'without the Omnipresent'": Because they did not mention the name of the Omnipresent, may he be blessed, upon the table.

"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.

AND ONE WHO TURNS HIS MIND TO IDLE THINGS. Other versions have “and turns his mind,” which is what Rav had, as he writes: One who is up at night… and turns his mind… Midrash Shmuel, too, notes in discussing Rav’s commentary that he had “and turns his mind” as opposed to “and one who turns his mind.” He also writes in the name of Chasid Ya’avetz that the version “and one who turns his mind” is a typographical error that has crept into various editions. For “one who is up” must either be turning his mind to idle things or not. If he is, that is nothing more than the case of “one who turns his mind to idle things.” If he is not, then what is his sin? He concludes that there is no way to read this version of the mishna.
He writes in the name of Rashbam that “one who is up at night” could mean even in his home, and “one who is walking along the road” could be even during the day. In both cases he is alone, and the text does not read “one who is up at night alone.” And the danger is because mazikin might attack him. Based on Rashbam, we can properly read the version “and one who turns,” as we also can based on the words of R. Menachem Meiri quoted in Midrash Shmuel, but I am not going to go into this at length.
Maharal in Derech Chaim writes that this version is the main version, and explains that “one who stays up at night” will be damaged because “night was created only for sleeping or Torah study,” as the Talmud says in Eruvin 65a. The case of “one who turns his mind to idle things” refers even to one who does so during the day, meaning that he is drawn to idleness and seeks to remain idle. But “one who stays up at night,” even if he does not seek to remain idle, he “forfeits his life” unless he is sleeping, studying, or plying his trade—because any Torah that is not accompanied by a trade eventually turns to naught. Whereas if we have the version “and turns his mind,” we must resort to the forced explanation that the reason the mishna doesn’t simply say “and one who turns his mind to idle things at night” is that this would seem to include even someone who turns his mind to idle things in order to fall asleep.
Cf. my comments on mishna 8.

Rabbi Chananya ben Chakhinai says, etc. such a one is liable for [forfeiture of] his life: Since they are desirable times, he should only think during them about things that are desirable before the Omnipresent, may He be blessed. And those [things] are words of Torah. As how grand and desirable are these times for thinking about Torah, since he has no work to do and does not hear the voices of [other] people.

"And turns": And that is the textual variant of Rabbi Bartenura. And the version, "and the one that turns," is a mistake; as if so, "The one who stays awake" does not turn [to idleness], so why is he is liable [for his life]? And Rashbam, explained "One who stays awake" - and even at home; "and one who wanders on a road" - and even during the day; and about both of them, we are dealing [with him being] "alone." And according to his words, one can maintain the textual variant, "and one who turns." And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"He who stays awake at night, and who wanders on a road alone": and thinks about idle things in his heart.

Introduction Rabbi Hananiah ben Hakinai was one of Rabbi Akiva’s students. According to legend he was also martyred.

and one who turns his heart to idleness, such a one is liable for [forfeiture of] his life: As he wastes a time in which he can have clear and correct thought, and diverts it from thoughts of Torah.

"this one is liable for [forfeiture of] his life": As night is the time of demons, and one who wanders on a road alone is in danger because of the brigands and several [other] bad occurrences; and if he had been thinking about words of Torah, it would have guarded him.

Rabbi Hananiah ben Hakinai said: one who wakes up at night, or walks on the way alone and turns his heart to idle matters, behold, this man is mortally guilty. One explanation for this statement is that nighttime is when demons are most active. So too, demons are especially present on the road. The person who wakes up at night or who walks alone on the road is vulnerable to these demons (demons are less likely to attack two). Therefore, if he is not engaged in the study of Torah, but rather in idle matters, he is liable to die. In other words, this is a physically dangerous act. [Many of us probably do not believe in demons. Nevertheless there may be some deep psychological truth to this statement. Waking up at night when no one else is around, or walking alone on a deserted path are times when a person is most likely to feel lonely and afraid. The antidote for such fears is Torah. Idle thoughts will only lead to more fear]. An alternative explanation for this statement is that these are golden opportunities to think about Torah. One who wastes his time thinking about idle matters when he could be learning Torah is, at least metaphorically speaking, mortally guilty. Maimonides actually teaches that the best time to learn, the time when a person is most likely to remember his studies, is at night. We should note that Maimonides followed his own advice and is known to have barely slept.

THE YOKE OF TORAH. Constant study—Rambam.

Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah says: Anyone who accepts the yoke of Torah upon himself, they lift from him the yoke of government: The Holy One, blessed be He, guards form every bad thing the one who makes his Torah [study] primary and his work flexible, so that he not have to refrain from Torah study. And [so] He does not put it into the heart of the king - that takes people to do his work - to take this one. And he is saved from the work of the kings to fulfill his will to be involved [in Torah].

The yoke of Torah: Constancy of reading [it].

"The yoke of Torah": Constancy of reading [it] - Rambam.

"The yoke of government": [meaning] the burden [placed upon him by] a king and ministers.

Introduction Rabbi Nehunia ben Hakkanah lived at the same time as Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai, that is around the time of the destruction of the Second Temple.

ARE REMOVED FROM HIM. Rambam: and they said, “engraved [Heb. charut] upon the tablets, freedom [Heb. cherut] on the tablets.” Meaning freedom from the vicissitudes of time and the doings of kings for one who takes upon himself to do what is written on the tablets. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Matityahu HaYitzhari that Rambam’s text of the mishna ended with “as per the verse, ‘engraved upon the tablets’—read ‘freedom.’” This midrashic exposition is found in 6:2.

and the yoke of the way of the world (derekh erets): He is not required to do much work for the needs of his livelihood, and he is able to suffice with little for his vital needs - since the work of the righteous is blessed and his soul is glad with his portion.

the yoke of government: The exertion [imposed by] the king and his troops.

And it is not that the one that "is liable for his life" above (in the previous mishnah) regarding the "one who turns" is more severe than the "one who casts" here; as it is certainly not. Rather, the one who "is liable" that we said, is [so, only] if brigands or demons should encounter him - [then] he "is liable for his life" and his blood is required of him. But it is possible that nothing bad will occur. Here, however, "they will place, etc.," 'and he cannot escape.' [So does it] appear to me.

"the way of the world (derekh erets)": [meaning] the toil and strain of a livelihood. [He is released from this,] because his work becomes blessed.

Rabbi Nehunia ben Hakkanah said: whoever takes upon himself the yoke of the Torah, they remove from him the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly concerns, and whoever breaks off from himself the yoke of the Torah, they place upon him the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly concerns. One interpretation of this statement is that one who takes upon himself the yoke of Torah, meaning he spends all of his time studying Torah, is not liable to pay taxes to the government, nor must he worry about earning a living for the Jewish community will make sure that he and his family are provided for. Since Torah is such a high value to the Jewish community, the Jewish people are willing to relieve of their economic burdens if they wish to study Torah full time. If, however, a person does not engage in Torah he must pay taxes and earn his living. Another possibility is that one who studies Torah will nevertheless need to work for a living as well, but his living will come to him so easily that he will have no trouble paying taxes or supporting those dependent on him. In other words he will not feel that the government or his other worldly concerns are a “yoke” around his neck. The difference between this explanation and the previous one is that in this explanation God rewards the Torah scholar, whereas in the previous one the community rewarded the Torah scholar by supporting him.

WHOEVER THROWS OFF THE YOKE OF TORAH. Rav: one who says that it is too hard for him to bear the yoke of Torah.
It isn’t that “forfeiting one’s life” in the case of one who turns his mind to idle things in the preceding mishna is more serious than “the yoke of kings and daily needs” being placed upon the one who throws off the yoke of Torah in our mishna—this is certainly not true. For when the preceding mishna says that the “forfeits his life,” it means simply that should bandits or mazikin attack him, he himself has forfeited his life, and will be held accountable or his death, as in the verse, “But for your own life-blood I will require a reckoning” (Genesis 9:5), per Rashi’s explanation there. But it is possible that no evil will befall him. In our case, on the other hand, the yoke “will be placed upon him,” and he will be unable to avoid bearing the burden of these yokes. So it seems to me.

And anyone who casts from himself the yoke of Torah, they place upon him the yoke of government: Since he thinks that if he leaves the work of Torah he will do a lot of his work, God, may He be blessed, annuls his thought and puts into the heart of the king to take him to do work for him - since (Proverbs 21:1), "Like channeled water is the heart of the king in the Lord’s hand; He directs it to whatever He wishes."

and the yoke of the way of the world (derekh erets): The exertion [imposed by] time. He said that as a reward for his taking the yoke of Torah, God, may He be blessed, will save him and lighten the exertion of time from upon him. And his saying, "casts from himself the yoke of Torah," [is] that he said, "The Torah is not from Heaven and I will not bear it." And they said (Eruvin 54a), "'Engraved (charut) on the tablets' (Exodus 32:16) [...] freedom (cheirut) on the tablets" - meaning to say, freedom from the events of time and the matters of kings [comes] to the one who accepts and does what is written upon the tablets.

"And one who casts from himself the yoke of Torah": One who says, "The yolk of Torah is too hard and I cannot endure it.

and the yoke of the way of the world (derekh erets): As he wanders and strains for his livelihood and he cannot find it. Even when he finds it, he is not glad with his portion; and all of his days, he exerts himself in vain to get rich and to add wealth to his wealth. And [it is] like the matter that is stated (Ecclesiastes 5:9), "A lover of money never has his fill of money." And it comes out that all of his days are spent in toil and exertion, and he will never have rest for ever and ever.

TEN WHO SIT AND STUDY TORAH. Rav: the mishna should read, “ten who sit in judgment.” We find courts comprised of ten members in cases of erech judgments, as in the first mishna in Sanhedrin, and a court can be comprised of two or even one member if the litigants agree to abide by their ruling. Alternately, “one” could refer to an outstanding expert,⁹⁵Who is legally able to judge cases by himself, even without special acceptance from the litigants. see Rav on Sanhedrin 1:1. [*See also below.]

Rabbi Chalafta [ben Dosa] of Kfar Chananiah says: Ten who are sitting together and engaging in Torah, the Divine Presence rests among them, as it is said (Psalms 82:1): “God stands in the congregation of God”: And there is no congregation that is less than ten.

"In the congregation of God": Behold, we have explained in the beginning of Sanhedrin (Rambam on Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:6), that a congregation does not apply to less than ten. And there we also explained that a court is no less than three and they are called elohim (powers) with regard to judgement. And the explanation of "band" (bundle) is that which a man bands [together] in his one hand. And the hand has five fingers in it. And the group of five fingers is also called a band.

And so have we found [that] ten judge in the laws of appraisals; or two plus one if the [litigants] have accepted them upon themselves; or also an individual expert.

"Ten who are sitting in judgement": is the textual variant we [follow].

Introduction Rabbi Halafta was a student of Rabbi Meir (who himself was a student of Rabbi Akiva). Kefar Hanania was a village on the border between the Lower and Upper Galillee.

AND WHENCE THAT EVEN FIVE. Midrash Shmuel: Rashbam reads “whence,” and not “and whence,” in this and the other instances in our mishna. The explanation seems to be that one can only use the conjunctive “and whence” to find a source for a previously established idea which needs only a Scriptural allusion. But in our case, there is no previously established idea and the mishna seeks an actual derivation of the law. In that case, it is better to use the phrase “whence” without an “and,” as there is nothing preceding to tie it to and it is an independent idea.

And from where [is there proof that this is true] even [when there are only] five? As it is said (Amos 9:6): “And He has founded His band upon the earth:” A hand which hs five fingers is called a band (aguda).

Even though [Rabbi Bartenura's] textual variant was "in judgement;" [judgement] is, all the more so, involvement with Torah

:"'in the congregation of God'”: And there is no 'congregation' (edah) that is less than ten. As it is stated with the [twelve] scouts (Numbers 14:27), "Until when will this evil congregation": subtracting Yehoshua and Calev, behold, ten.

The most important aspect of this mishnah to note is its highly-crafted structure. The mishnah begins by saying that God (the Shechinah) resides only when ten are gathered together to study Torah. If the mishnah were to have stopped here one would think that any lesser number of people studying Torah do not merit the Shechinah’s presence. However, the mishnah continues to lower the number until at the end it reaches the climax: even one who studies Torah merits the presence of the Shechinah. Since the idea of this mishnah is not difficult, and has been presented in previous mishnayoth, we will only explain now the use of the Biblical prooftexts.

FIVE, FOR THE VERSE SAYS, “AND ESTABLISHED HIS GROUP UPON THE EARTH.” Tosafot in Sukkah 13a (s.v. beshalosh) uphold this version. See also below. [*Although Rav reads “who sit in judgment on a court” earlier in the mishna, there is no difficulty in the fact that he explains this “group” as a group of people studying Torah, because the mishna applies to them all the more so. Cf. my comments below.]

And from where even three? As it is said (Psalms 82:1): “In the midst of judges He judges:” And there is no court that is less than three.

"even two?”: And since even two, do I need [to say] three? What would you say [otherwise]? Judgement is just making peace and [so] the Divine Presence does not come. [Hence] the verse comes to make us understand that judgement is also Torah [study]. And since even three, do I need [to say] ten? [With] ten, the Divine Presence comes to precede [them; with] three, [It waits] until they are seated. And [this explanation from the Talmud] is speaking about what was stated there, and there 'five' was not stated. And in Midrash Shmuel, he wrote that with ten, He is upright - he means to say, He is standing - as if it were possible - and they are sitting; which is not the case with five, as [there,] "upright" is not written. And see what I wrote above, note 11 (Ikar Tosafot Yom Tov on Avot 3:2:5)

"And from where [is there proof that this is true] even [when there are only] five? As it is said (Psalms 82:1), 'In the midst of judges He judges'”: Three judges and two litigants.

Rabbi Halafta of Kefar Hanania said: when ten sit together and occupy themselves with Torah, the Shechinah abides among them, as it is said: “God stands in the congregation of God” (Psalm 82:. The word “congregation” is understood to refer to a minimum of ten. See Sanhedrin 1:6 which makes reference to Numbers 14:27.

EVEN TWO. Talmud, Berakhot 6a: since this is true even of two, what need is there to say it of three? You might say that a judgment is mere peacemaking, and the shechina would not come. This tells us that a judgment is also considered Torah. Since this is true even of three, what need is there to say it of ten? For ten, the shechina appears first, but for three, it does not come until they sit in judgment. The Talmud is commenting on the passage that was quoted there, which does not speak separately of the case of five.
Midrash Shmuel writes that for ten, the shechina stands, i.e. it “stands” while they sit, while for five the verses does not mention the shechina standing.

And from where even two? As it is said (Malachi 3:16): “Then those who feared the Lord spoke one with another.” And from where even one? As it is said (Exodus 20:20 (20:21 in NJPS)): “In every place where I cause My Name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you.:” And if even one gets much reward, is it not obvious that from to ten to two, they would [also] get reward. Rather, he wants to say that to each [number], the reward is according to [the quantity].

"And from where even three? As it is said, 'And He has founded His band upon the earth'”: Fire and air and water - which are three - "He has founded upon the earth;" [as they] surround the fundamental element of earth. Behold to you, three are called a "band." And also (another explanation is) we have found that three are called a band [with] a "band of hyssop," which are three stalks. And some books have written in them, "From where [is there proof that this is true] even [when there are only] five? As it is said (Amos 9:6), 'and He has founded His band upon the earth'”; as a man bands together [things] into his one hand, which has five fingers; and [so] the group of fingers in the hand is called a band. And in the beginning of the verse it states, "He Who builds His upper chambers in the heavens," which is to say [that] the Divine Presence - which is in the heavens - comes down to the earth when there is a band there, that is involved with Torah. [And the continuation of this textual variant is:] "From where even three? As it is said (Psalms 82:1), 'In the midst of judges He judges.'”

How do we know that the same is true even of five? As it is said: “This band of His He has established on earth” (Amos 9:6). The word “band” is understood to mean five, for a “band” is what is gathered in a person’s hand which has five fingers.

AND WHENCE THAT EVEN ONE. See what I wrote on mishna 2, where I quoted the Talmud in Berakhot 6a: since this is true even of one, what need is there to say it of two, etc.

"'since he takes (natal) for it'”: [It is] an expression of covering: the [Aramaic] translation of (Exodus 40:3) "and you will cover" is 'vetatel;' which is to say the Divine Presence hovers upon him.

How do we know that the same is true even of three? As it is said: “In the midst of the judges He judges” (Psalm 82:1) The minimum number of judges for a court is three.

FOR THE VERSE SAYS “EVERYWHERE, ETC.” I’ve already written that in my opinion the text here should have the verse “let him sit alone, etc.” This is why Rav’s commentary here has the words “for he has taken upon himself—because natal here means ‘shading’ or ‘protecting’”, as does Rashi’s commentary, per the testimony of Midrash Shmuel but not per his conclusion, which is that those words should appear in Rashi’s commentary earlier.
Tosafot uphold the version that quotes the verse “and his group etc.” in the case of five, as I wrote above, and their proof is that the Talmud in Berakhot 6a quotes “He Judges in the midst of judges” for the case of three. Now although that same passage in Berakhot 6a also quotes the verse “everywhere I cause my name to be mentioned” for the case of one, that is no proof that we should read this in the text of our mishna,⁹⁶The argument goes as follows. Since Tosafot is willing to establish the text of our mishna for the case of five based on the passage in Berakhot 6a and Tosafot Yom Tov has accepted their argument for the case of five, consistency should force him to then accept the verse adduced in Berakhot 6a for the case of one as the verse to appear in our mishna as well. Tosafot Yom Tov now counters this argument. because the Talmud might be discussing mishna 2. This is an especially strong argument if we take into consideration that Rav reads “ten that sit in judgment” in our mishna, making the case of one likewise one that sits in judgment, as I explained earlier. Therefore, when the Talmud in Berakhot 6a speaks of one who sits and studies Torah it is quoting the earlier mishna. That passage does present some difficulty, because since the material is taught in a mishna, it is unclear what the amora who says it independently is teaching us.
One might object that if we emend the text to quote the verse “let him sit alone” for the case of one, how will this verse relate to someone sitting in judgment? But this is no objection, for when the judge has heard the claims and is thinking through the case he indeed “sits alone and is quiet,” since there is nobody with whom to discuss the case. In fact, a lone judge is more likely to sit quietly and think than one who is studying Torah, for although he is alone it is quite likely that he will study aloud to fulfill the verse “for they [the words] are life to those who find them” (Proverbs 4:22), which the Talmud in Eruvin 54a reads midrashically: read not “those who find them” [Heb. motz’eihem] but “those who bring them forth from their mouths” [Heb. motzi’eihem]. But to judge one must think and ponder the case.

How do we know that the same is true even of two? As it is said: “Then they that fear the Lord spoke one with another, and the Lord hearkened, and heard” (Malachi 3:16). This verse, which uses the plural, must refer to at least two people. Note that the same verse was used in a similar manner above in mishnah two of this chapter.

How do we know that the same is true even of one? As it is said: “In every place where I cause my name to be mentioned I will come unto you and bless you” (Exodus 20:21). Although this is not apparent from the English, the Hebrew uses the second person singular form of you. Therefore it must mean that God will cause his presence to be with even a singular person who “mentions” His name by studying Torah.

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.

ANYONE WHO FORGETS. “Anyone” means to include even one who forgets out of laziness, as I will explain below. Midrash Shmuel writes that even one who forgets because he is busy providing for his family is as if he has forfeited his life, for the verse clearly says, “cast your burden upon G-d” (Psalms 55:23), and only he who forgets due to the difficulty of the material is exempt.

Rabbi Dostai beRebbe Yannai in the name of Rabbi Meir says: Anyone who forgets one thing from his studies - Scripture considers him as if he is liable for [forfeiture of] his life, as it is said (Deuteronomy 4:9): "Only guard yourself, etc.: As he did not put it into his heart to say that forgetting is common with people. He should have reviewed the law many times and be thinking about it the whole day and the whole night, until it could not leave his heart. And [as] he did not, he is liable for [forfeiture of] his life; since he will come to give rulings according to his memory and say, "So said Rabbi." And [so] he will forbid the permissible and permit the forbidden and a mishap will come from his hand; and he will be called a sinner, 'for an error in study is considered an intentional transgression.'

"Anyone": [is coming] to include even because of laziness. And Midrash Shmuel wrote, even if it as a result of his being preoccupied in search of [sustenance] for his family, nonetheless he is liable for his life. As it is an explicit verse [that informs us of this], "Cast your burden unto the Lord, etc." And the only one who is exempt is the "one [whose studies] have overpowered," etc.

"Anyone who forgets one matter from his studies": Since he did not review it, it is considered "as if he is liable for his life;" as from his forgetting, he will come to permit the forbidden. And it will come out that a calamity will come through him and his mistake will be counted as a willful transgression. And also (another explanation is), it is "as if he is liable for his life" - since that teaching was guarding him and now he forgot it, it no [longer] guards him.

Introduction Rabbi Dostai’s teaching is a continuation of the previous mishnah. Whereas there the topic was one who interrupts his learning, here the topic is one who forgets that which he has already learned.

ONE THING. For every one thing, there are many things that depend on it, so forgetting one thing can properly be included in “lest you forget the things”—Midrash Shmuel. I say that it is the double injunction “only take care, and be exceedingly wary” which implies that one should take care not to forget a single thing.

One could [suppose this statement applies to] even one whose studies have overpowered him; therefore, the verse says, "and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life" - he is not liable for [forfeiture of] his life until he sits down and [intentionally] removes them from his heart: If he forgot it due to old age or due to another [matter out of his control], the Merciful One exempts him.

"one thing": As there is no such thing as "one thing" upon which many other things are not dependent. And therefore with the "one thing" that he forgot, "lest you forget the things" is fulfilled - Midrash Shmuel. And it appears to me that it is written, "guard yourself, and guard" [with the word, "guard] doubled; which is to give a guarding upon each word.

"whose studies have overpowered him": As it was difficult for him, and on account of the difficulty in it, he forgot it.

Rabbi Dostai ben Rabbi Yannai said in the name of Rabbi Meir: whoever forgets one word of his study, scripture accounts it to him as if he were mortally guilty, as it is said, “But take utmost care and watch yourselves scrupulously, so that you do not forget the things that you saw with your own eyes” (Deuteronomy 4:9). One could [have inferred that this is the case] even when his study proved [too] hard for him, therefore scripture says, “that they do not fade from your mind as long as you live” (ibid.). Thus, he is not mortally guilty unless he deliberately removes them from his heart. The problem of forgetting that which one has already learned is one of the most serious problems that the rabbis encountered. Although we have the Mishnah in front of us in a book, for the rabbis who lived during this period the Mishnah and the Talmud and all of their works were oral. Therefore one had to repeat his learning frequently in order to commit it to memory. Indeed the meaning of the word “mishnah” is to teach through repetition. One who forgets his learning is in some ways worse than one who has never learned, because the one who forgets had knowledge at one point but was careless in its preservation. The second half of Rabbi Dostai’s statement is an essential reservation on the first half. One who has trouble learning, but genuinely tries his best, is not to be faulted for his forgetfulness. Rabbi Dostai recognizes that remembering the complicated oral Torah is not easy, and that not all people are built for such types of intellectual activity. Therefore he clarifies that only one who forgets out of negligence or on purpose neglects his study is mortally guilty. Perhaps I should emphasize here to those who have been learning Mishnah Yomit for some time that review of the material is as important, if not more important, than continuing to learn new material. By reviewing that which you have already learned your background in Jewish learning will increase. By analogy, think how much better you remember a movie after you have seen it two or three times. Reading through mishnayoth which you learned in the past is essential.

UNLESS HE SITS AND REMOVES THEM FROM HIS HEART. I.e., that he sits and turns his mind to idle things, and through this they depart from his heart. Now this is true even if he does not intend thereby to forget, for the verse does not say “lest you remove them” but “lest they depart,” which implies that they depart on their own. The language of our mishna also indicates as much, as the mishna does not say “one might think that this is true even of one who hasn’t removed them,”¹⁰²But they have departed on their own, due to idleness. The mishna says only “one might think that this is true even of one for whom the material was too difficult,” meaning that only that case is excluded. The middle case—someone who, on the one hand, does not intentionally forget, but on the other hand, forgets not due to difficulty but because of idleness—is included in the verse. for the only exemption is for difficulty, whereas allowing them to depart on their own is included in “lest they depart.” So Maharal in Derech Chaim.
Now if we read “and one who turns” in mishna 4 above, making it a separate case in that mishna,¹⁰³See the Tosafot Yom Tov there. we must somehow distinguish between that mishna, which is a case of one who turns his mind to idle things and who “forfeits his life,” and our mishna, which is a case of one who sits idly and is only “considered as if.” I say, therefore, that there are three categories here. The first is one who intends to remove the Torah from his heart, which is the case neither of our mishna nor the one discussed by R. Chanina ben Chachinai, but is R. Nechunya ben HaKana’s case of one who “throws off the yoke of Torah” in mishna 5. The second is one who does not intend for the Torah to depart from his heart and would be happy not forgetting it, but who prefers idleness over Torah study and is constantly seeking out idle pleasures; this is the case discussed by R. Chanina ben Chachinai, and that one forfeits his life. The third is one who does not prefer idleness over Torah study, but when some idle thing presents itself he idles and thereby gets lazy and does not review his learning, which is the case of our misha where he “sits and removes them from his heart,” i.e. through remaining idle they depart from his heart. This is what seems correct.

"and [intentionally] removes them": which is to say that he sits and turns his heart to idleness and, through this, removes them form his heart - and even though it is not volitional that, in this way, they be removed from his heart; since it is not written, "lest you remove them," but rather "lest they are removed," and it is [thus] implied, [even if they are removed] on their own. And so [too] was the language of the mishnah precise; as it did not teach, "One could [suppose this statement applies to] even one who did not remove them;" as it only excluded [the one whose learning] overpowered him. But if it automatically got removed, it is also within the prohibition of "lest they are removed" - Derekh Chaim. And all of this is when he does not want idleness more than words of Torah, but when a matter of idleness comes to his hand, he sits idly [with it] and is negligent from going back to his study because of it. And therefore it only taught it "considers, etc. as if." But our Mishnah (4) that "he is liable for his life" is [about] the "one who turns, etc." who wants idleness more than involvement in Torah and [so] seeks and searches out idleness. But, nonetheless, if he would not forget them, it would be preferable to him. And Rabbi Nechunia ben Hakanah in our Mishnah 5, "one who casts [from himself] the yoke," is speaking about one who intends to remove words of Torah from his heart. So does it appear to me.

ANYONE WHOSE FEAR OF HEAVEN PRECEDES HIS LEARNING, ETC. Rav: I heard this explained as follows: one who thinks primarily of fear of Heaven over learning, in that he wants to study so that he come to fear of Heaven. If so, we can avoid a potential contradiction between this mishna and the mishna of Hillel who said in 2:5 that an unlearned person cannot be fearful of sin. For our mishna is discussing his intent, not his actual deeds, and while an unlearned person cannot know what is and isn’t a sin that he should fear it, he can determine his intent and generally fear whatever it is that might be a sin. Cf. mishna 17 [s.v. im ein chochma].
Midrash Shmuel points out the difficulty stemming from the two halves of this statement. For the first half implies that if they are at the same level his learning will not endure, whereas the second half implies that if they are at the same level his learning will endure. He answers by quoting the Talmud in Niddah 16b, that Heaven decrees whether a person will be a chacham¹⁰⁴The word can mean either a generally intelligent and clever person or a person who is learned in addition. The latter meaning will be discussed first, but the former will come into play in Tosafot Yom Tov’s bracketed comment. or a tipesh.¹⁰⁵A stupid or silly person. When our mishna says of one whose fear of heaven precedes his learning that his learning will endure it means that even if it was decreed that he be a fool, if his fear of heaven precedes his learning he can overcome that decree and G-d will cause his learning to endure, as per the Talmud in Megillah 6b: “to retain one’s learning requires the aid of heaven.” And if his learning precedes his fear of heaven, since he did not learn in order to do, even if it was decreed that he be a learned person G-d will make him into a fool and his learning will not endure on account of his sin, as he did not study the Torah with the proper intent of observing its laws. [He writes in his commentary to the second half of the mishna that the decree can be fulfilled in other areas in which he can be a chacham outside of Torah study.] If both are at the same level then whatever was decreed will come to pass, whether he was decreed to be a chacham or tipesh.
He also writes that there are versions that read: anyone whose fear of heaven precedes his learning, his learning will endure; anyone whose fear of heaven does not precede his learning, his learning will not endure. In his commentary to the next section of the mishna he rejects this version.

Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa says: Anyone whose fear of sin precedes his wisdom, his wisdom endures: The matter is said regarding effort: One who makes efforts to know wisdom in order to guard his soul from sin - and he becomes wise; his wisdom endures in his hand. And it comes out that when the studies and becomes enlightened, he removes himself from sins and does a commandment.

Behold this thing is agreed upon by the philosophers as well: That habituation of the virtues - when it comes before [acquisition of] wisdom to the point that it is a strong possession, and he studies wisdom afterwards such that it will give him alacrity for those goods - will add joy and love to his wisdom and industriousness to increase upon it; since [wisdom] stimulates him to [do] that to which he is [already] accustomed. But when the acquisition of knowledge comes first, and he studies [the virtues]afterwards, his wisdom will prevent him from that which he desires according to his habit. [And so] wisdom will weigh upon him and he will leave it.

And with this [explanation, Rabbi Bartenura] answers that he is not disagreeing with Hillel, who said in Mishnah 5 of the previous chapter, "A boor cannot fear sin;" as here it is talking about thought and not action. As a boor does not know what is a sin to fear from it; but in thought, one can think and fear from everything that might be a sin. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"Anyone whose fear of sin precedes his wisdom": I heard that [it means that] he makes his fear of sin precede his wisdom in his thought - that he thinks in his heart, "I will study in order that I will be one who fears sin." And this is in the way that they said, 'the beginning of thought is the end of the action.'

Introduction Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, the author of this mishnah, was famous for his righteousness and for his close connection to God, a connection so close that God directly answered his prayers. For instance, the following story is told of him in the Talmud (Berachot 34b): It happened that Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa went to study Torah with Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai. The son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai fell ill. He said to him: Hanina my son, pray for him that he may live. He put his head between his knees and prayed for him and he lived. Said Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai: If Ben Zakkai had stuck his head between his knees for the whole day, no notice would have been taken of him. Said his wife to him: Is Hanina greater than you are? He replied to her: No; but he is like a servant before the king (who has permission to visit the king at any time), and I am like a nobleman before a king (who only visits at appointed times).” For a further reference see Mishnah Berachot 5:5. This mishnah clearly reflects Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa’s righteous qualities and his concern with instilling them in others.

WHOSE FEAR OF SIN [Heb. yir’at chet’o]. Since “there is no man on earth so righteous as to only do good and never sin” (Ecclesiastes 7:20), the mishna uses the words yir’at chet’o, literally “the fear of his sin,” meaning that he fears the sin that he was created to tend towards. And for this reason we needn’t ask why the mishna does not use the phrasing kol sheyir’ato mehachet—Maharal in Derech Chaim. Cf. the beginning of the next chapter, s.v. hakovesh et yitzro [one who overcomes his inclination].

And anyone whose wisdom precedes his fear of sin, his wisdom does not endure: He did not make efforts from the beginning to know wisdom in order to observe it, but rather to understand and be enlightened; and [so] it will not endure in his hand. And this is in line with justice. Another explanation: When a person's fear of sin precedes his wisdom, it comes out that when he studied, it guarded him and strengthened him to go on the path that he is accustomed to from many days; since when he fears sin and his heart adds great love for it and desires to add to it, it strengthens him to do that to which he is accustomed. But when the wisdom of a person precedes his fear of sin, it comes out that his wisdom [tries to] prevent him from sins that he is accustomed to. And in the end, he will rebel against it - as it will appear like a burden to him.

"whose [fear of] sin (literally, his sin)": As "there is no righteous man in the world, who does good and does not sin." And that is why it says "whose fear of his sin" - that he fears from the sin that he is is prepared [to transgress]. And [so], there is no objection that it should have said, "Anyone whose fear of sin precedes, etc." - Derekh Chaim.

"his wisdom endures": as wisdom brings him to what his heart desires, and he derives benefit from it.

Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa said: anyone whose fear of sin precedes his wisdom, his wisdom is enduring, but anyone whose wisdom precedes his fear of sin, his wisdom is not enduring. According to Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa a person who does not fear sin before he begins learning Torah, will not have his learning endure. In other words, his fear of sin must be what leads him to study and not his study lead him to fear of sin. Rabbi Hanina is saying that the purely intellectual study of Torah, a type of study that does not have an impact on one’s character, will not last. Maimonides extrapolated this to mean that proper moral behavior will lead to proper intellectual pursuit. However, one who pursues evil and is a great sinner, but hopes that his study will bring him to better deeds, will not succeed even in his study. Others comment on this mishnah that practice of the commandments is what leads to proper belief. One does not begin practicing Judaism by learning dogma or creed. One begins by the performance of the commandments and only then follows up with learning about them.

ANYONE WHOSE DEEDS ARE GREATER THAN HIS LEARNING. Rav: here the mishna discusses one who dutifully performs positive commandments, whereas the first section of the mishna, kol sheyir’at chet’o kodemet lechochmato, discusses one who takes care not to transgress a negative commandment. Why, then, does the mishna not say “precedes” as it did in the previous section? Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rabbenu Yonah: how is it possible for a person’s deeds to be greater than his learning? How can a person do what he has not learned about? The answer is that when a person accepts upon himself to do whatever the learned tell him and not veer from their words left or right, his “deeds are greater than his learning,” for from this point on he is considered as if he had fulfilled all the laws of the Torah, since he intends to do whatever the learned person tells him. This is also clear from a passage in Avot deRabbi Natan, 22:1: “anyone whose deeds are greater than his learning”—as the verse says “we shall do and we shall hear” (Exodus 24:7), for they put “we shall do” before “we shall hear” and received reward as if they had fulfilled every commandment before they had heard of it; “anyone whose learning is greater than his deeds”—a person should not say that he will first study a law and only then keep it.
Now we understand well why the mishna uses “greater than,” for “greater than” here is just like the “precedes” of the previous section.¹⁰⁶Per Rav’s explanation of the first section, cited in Tosafot Yom Tov above, that “precedes” refers to his intent to observe the laws he learns about. The reason the mishna didn’t simply use “precedes” is because the deeds themselves cannot really precede the learning since he does not know of them, but the resolution to heed those commandments can. When he takes that upon himself he is resolving to do everything, which is more than he can ever learn. The mishna therefore uses the language “greater than” to show that the precedence is in terms of the commitment, and the commitment is greater than the learning.¹⁰⁷I.e., he accepts more laws than he can ever actually learn about and keep.
With this we also remove the grounds for a different objection that people raise, as Maharal mentions in Derech Chaim, which is that there are many gentile scholars whose learning is greater than their deeds and yet it endures. He answers that the mishna is discussing an average person. He also answers that the mishna is discussing specifically Torah learning. But I do not see the problem to begin with. For since “greater than” is in terms of the commitment, it is possible that these scholars had committed to behave in accordance with the results of the discipline that they study, and therefore their learning endures.

He would [also] say: Anyone whose actions are more plentiful than his wisdom, his wisdom endures: When a person's actions are more plentiful than his wisdom, it comes out that his desire for wisdom is greater than his wisdom. And it comes out that his he will add wisdom to his wisdom each and every day.

"Anyone, etc.": This is [saying] that his merit in this or his punishment overcomes the decree that it is decreed upon [a person] whether he will be wise or foolish. (And the decree will be fulfilled in his other matters, but not in his Torah study.) And if [his fear of sin and his wisdom] came together [equally], he is left according to the decree; that if it be that he be wise, [his wisdom] will endure, and if if be that he be foolish, it will not endure. And so did he explain the second section - Midrash Shmuel.

"And anyone whose wisdom precedes his fear of sin": who does not study in order to do, since his heart does not aspire to be afraid of sin.

He [also] used to say: anyone whose deeds exceed his wisdom, his wisdom is enduring, but anyone whose wisdom exceeds his deeds, his wisdom is not enduring. This statement is similar to the previous one, except here Rabbi Hanina talks about works and not the fear of sin. Furthermore, whereas in the previous section he talked about chronological development, here he talks about a quantitative comparison. A person whose works exceed his knowledge, will retain his knowledge. However, a person whose knowledge exceeds his works, meaning he knows what he should do but does not carry it out, will in the end not retain his learning. Note that the worst consequence in these mishnayoth is forgetfulness. The punishment is not that he will be judged unfavorably by God, but that he will not remember that which he learned. As I mentioned in the previous mishnah, this is one of the great fears that the rabbis often had. In a culture where learning is basically oral, the fear of forgetfulness is omnipresent.

ANYONE WHOSE LEARNING ETC. Some change the text and simply have the negation of the first half appear here: “anyone whose deeds are not etc.” But there is no need for this if we use the same approach we used for “anyone whose fear of sin etc.”, which applies here as well—Midrash Shmuel.

And anyone whose wisdom is more plentiful than his actions, his wisdom does not endure: As it comes out that his desire for wisdom is less than his wisdom, and it will come out that his wisdom will continually lessen. So did the early scholars, may their memory be blessed, explain. However one should ask, how is it possible for his actions to be greater than his wisdom. If he doesn't know the Torah and the commandments; when he needs to do these actions, upon what [basis] will he do them? Rather this mishnah was speaking according to a fit, good and accepted advice for the one who doesn't know - so that he not destroy his soul. [That advice is] that he accept upon himself to do all of the things that the sages tell him to do, and not to veer from them to the right or to the left when he knows them. And he should act according to the Torah that they instruct him and according to the law that they tell him. And immediately when he accepts upon himself this acceptance with a full heart and a desiring soul, he brings [himself] reward, as if he [did] all of the commandments. And according to this approach, they said, "Anyone whose actions are more plentiful than his wisdom," [as] even for the one who does not know and does not do, they are called actions - since he has reward for them as if he did them, on account of [his] acceptance. And so is it explained in The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan 22:1, as we learned there, "Anyone whose actions are more plentiful than his wisdom, his wisdom endures, as it is stated (Exodus 24:7), 'we shall do and we shall understand.'" As Israel had doing precede understanding, [whereas] they should have said, "we will understand and we will do" - as before one can do an action, they need to understand what to do. However they accepted upon themselves first to do all that He would command them and [that] they would understand; and they received reward from it immediately as if they had done them. "And anyone whose wisdom is more plentiful than his actions, etc." - that he should not say, "I will study this law and [then] I will practice it, I will study the whole Talmud and [then] I will practice it." If he says like this, his wisdom will not endure - as one needs to perfect the traits first and then his wisdom will endure.

And if you ask, how is it possible for his actions to be more plentiful than his wisdom, as how will he do that which he does not know; [it is because], that which he accepts upon himself to do all of the things that the sages tell him and 'not to deviate to the right or to the left' - behold, that is [the meaning of] "whose actions are more plentiful than his wisdom" - Midrash Shmuel. And with this, it is well that it did not teach, "precede" [instead of "more plentiful"]. And see Tosafot Yom Tov..

"his wisdom does not endure:" Since [his wisdom] prevents him from following the whims of his heart, he despises it and is fed up with it and leaves it.

"Anyone whose actions are more plentiful than his wisdom": Here it speaks about him being eager [to do] positive commandments; and above, in "anyone whose fear of sin precedes his wisdom," it is speaking about him being careful about negative commandments.

WHOEVER IS FOUND PLEASING BY THE PEOPLE. Rav: whoever is beloved below is certain to be beloved above. So Rashi. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rashbam that this is based on the verse “and you will be found pleasing and wise in the eyes of G-d and man” (Proverbs 3:4), and the verse “and the kindness [Heb. chesed] of G-d is upon those who fear Him forever and ever” (Psalms 103:17)—anybody to whom a “thread of chesed”¹⁰⁸This expression denotes a charming aura through which the affected person wins the love of those around him. Cf. Talmud, Megillah 13a. extends is certain to be G-d-fearing.

He would say: Anyone from whom the spirit of creations find pleasure, from him the spirit of God finds pleasure: He wanted to say, one whose give and take (business dealings) is pleasant for people and they all know that he is [considered] trustworthy by the creatures. And it is like we say in Tractate Yoma 86a, "Any scholar who reads and studies and gives and takes with trustworthiness among the creatures - what do the creatures say about him? Happy is his father, happy is his mother (the editor says, in the gemara in front of us, it is found, 'happy is his rabbi') that taught him Torah, etc." And because of this, "from him the spirit of God finds pleasure," since the Torah is lauded through him.

He said that these things prevent and remove the virtue of of a man until he leaves the world and is lost.

"Anyone from whom the spirit of creations find pleasure": As it is stated (Proverbs 3:4), "And find grace and good intellect in the eyes, etc." and it says, "And the kindness of the Lord is for ever and ever on those that fear Him" - such that anyone who He places upon him His 'string of kindness, it is certain that he is one who fears Heaven.

"Anyone from whom the spirit of creations find pleasure": [About] anyone who is beloved below, it is certain that he is beloved above.

Introduction The first half of the mishnah is another statement of Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, the author of the previous mishnah. The second half of the mishnah is from Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, a contemporary of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai.

[*FOUND PLEASING [Heb. ruach habriyot nocha hemenu, lit. “the spirit/mood of the people is comfortable with him”]. This phrase is used at the end of the last mishna in Shevi’it (10:9): ruach chachamim [the Sages] nocha hemenu. There I quoted Rash and Rashi who explained this as “being appreciative”. In his commentary to the Talmud, Bava Metzia 48a s.v. ein ruach, Rashi writes that “the Sages of Israel are pleased with his actions and they are at ease. Hemenu [lit. “from him”] here means “through him.’” In his commentary to Kiddushin 17b s.v. ein ruach, where the abovementioned mishna in Shevi’it is cited, he mixes the two explanations and writes, “the Sages are not pleased with him, i.e. they do not appreciate what he did, as they did not require it of him,” as I wrote there in Shevi’it.
I was astounded by Rashi’s comments to Bava Kamma 94b s.v. ein ruach chachamim nocha heimenu, where he writes “there is no spirit of wisdom or piousness within him.” But I did see a manuscript of the Mishna which has there in Shevi’it ruach chochma—“the spirit of wisdom.”¹⁰⁹Making it possible that this was the text Rashi had in Bava Kamma as well.]

And anyone from whom the spirit of creations do not find pleasure, from him the spirit of God does not find pleasure: He will not 'be innocent from God and from Israel.'

"And anyone the spirit of creations do not": [Both of these statements] are needed. As if [it had just taught] the beginning, [the end] cannot be inferred, as it is possible that the spirit of the creations do not find pleasure from him because he goes to the last extremity of piety and, nonetheless, the spirit of God finds pleasure from him." That it is why it comes to teach us [otherwise]. And if it had [only] taught the end, the beginning cannot be inferred, as it is possible that the creatures find pleasure from him because he 'shows signs of purity about himself,' 'but he places his ambush within him.'" That it is why it comes to teach us that it is an expert sign in both directions. And its reason is that it is written, "And My spirit, I will place within you" - behold the spirit of the creatures is the spirit of God. And it is not taught, "the spirit of all the creations, etc.," as we do not concern ourselves with a minority; as we find with Mordechai - Midrash Shmuel.

"[Late] morning sleep": As he continues to sleep until the time of the recitation of the Shema passes.

He used to say: one with whom men are pleased, God is pleased. But anyone from whom men are displeased, God is displeased. God’s approval or disapproval with a person is dependent upon the way that person acts with other human beings. If the person helps his fellow neighbor and performs acts of charity and loving kindness, not only are people pleased with him, but God is as well. However, if a person is not kind to others, and does not speak with them in a gentle manner, God is displeased with him even if he is a great scholar. One interesting note that a commentator on the mishnah made is that the mishnah speaks of him “with whom men are pleased” and not “all men are pleased” for there is no person who is pleasing to everyone.

AND WHOEVER IS NOT FOUND PLEASING BY THE PEOPLE, ETC. We need both cases to be made clear. Had the mishna only included the first section, “whoever is found pleasing, etc.”, I would have had grounds to say that there is no clear implication that “whoever is not found pleasing, etc.” For it may be that the people do not find him pleasing because he is at the extreme of piousness but G-d is pleased with him. And had the mishna only included the last section, “whoever is not found pleasing, etc.”, I would have had grounds to say that there is no clear implication that “whoever is found pleasing, etc.” For perhaps the people will find him pleasing because he will make some pretense of goodness, but “he lays his ambush inside of him,” i.e. he sins in secret.
The mishna therefore teaches us that this is a reliable test in both directions, whether positive or negative. And the reason for this is given by the verse, “and I shall place My spirit in your [Heb. plural “you”] midst” (Ezekiel 36:27)—we see that the spirit of the people is a reflection of the spirit of G-d.
Now the mishna does not say “found pleasing by all the people,” for we pay no heed to the minority, as we find that Mordechai was only able to “find favor with most of his brothers” and not all of his brothers—Midrash Shmuel.

Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinus says: [Late] morning sleep: As [it] negates prayer at its time.

"midday wine": Since in the morning, he is lazy because of sleep and in the evening he is already tired [and] wants to rest. But at midday, a person is at his greatest strength to the point that he is completely happy - Derekh Chaim.

"midday wine": [It] draws the heart of a person - as it is written (Ecclesiastes 2:3), "to draw my flesh with wine" - and brings him to drunkenness.

Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: morning sleep, midday wine, children’s talk and sitting in the assemblies of the ignorant put a man out of the world. According to Rabbi Dosa, a person should not sleep late in the morning, for that is a waste of time. Keep in mind that before electric light was invented people went to sleep much earlier than they do now. Sleeping late in the morning was therefore truly oversleeping and a waste of time. Drinking wine during the middle of the day is also a sign of laziness, for it will make one sluggish and less productive during his waking hours. Speaking with children, while it may be fun, diverts one from engaging in higher pursuits (note that this is not directed at those educating the children). Finally, engaging in pointless gatherings of the uneducated is not proper behavior for one who wants to lead a life of Torah. This would include something like sitting and loitering on street corners. All of these things “take a person out of the world”. This is a phrase we saw in chapter two, mishnah eleven. I understand this as meaning that they cause a person to lose the precious time he has on this earth, by wasting it with meaningless activity.

AND NOONTIME WINE. Rav: a person is drawn to it. This is because in the morning a person is still drowsy from his sleep and by evening he is exhausted and wishes to rest. But noontime a person is at the peak of his strength and achieves total happiness¹¹⁰Making it possible that this was the text Rashi had in Bava Kamma as well.—Maharal in Derech Chaim.

midday wine: As it negates Torah study and [so] leads to sin.

"chatter of children": prevents their fathers from being involved in Torah [study].

chatter of children: As this playing draws in the hearts of people because of their love for youngsters, and it comes out that Torah [study] is neglected.

"and sitting in the assembly houses of the Am Ha'arets (unlearned people, who are lax in observing tithes and purity laws)": who come together and speak about idle matters.

and sitting in the assembly houses of the Am Ha'arets (unlearned people, who are lax in observing tithes and purity laws): And many evils [are found in] their assembly houses.

remove a person from the world: Since for what was man created besides to be involved with Torah, and it is 'the length of days and the years of life?' And if he [engages in] such things, 'why does he have life?' And it is fit to drive him from the world, as he is vanity and his days are vanity. And since he has lived some years and has been involved in his affairs and it has not helped - because he has neglected Torah, for what [reason] should his days be increased? There is parable [relevant to this] about a king that gave his servant one hundred silver coins and he threw them into the sea, and [then] returned and requested others from him. And is it not fit that he not give him more? So is it [with] one who does not involve himself with Torah.

ONE WHO PROFANES KODASHIM [lit. “holy things”] ETC. All these cases are included in the category apikores, who has no share in the world to come, according to the mishna in Sanhedrin 10:1—Midrash Shmuel.
Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that they might be in the category of “those who say the Torah is not from heaven” in that mishna (see further below). It is also possible that those listed in the mishna in Sanhedrin have no share in the world to come even if they have learned the entire Torah and kept all its laws. Our mishna, on the other hand, discusses someone who has as many sins as he does merits, and these five are the kinds of sins that “weigh down the pan of the scale” to a bad verdict. This explanation seems best to him.
Cf. my comments on Kiddushin 1:10 and Avot 4:22.

Rabbi Elazar of Modi'in says: One who profanes the Kodeshim (sacred material): This is one who who intends to delay their consumption and [so] renders them impure. It is the same whether it is sacred material for the altar or whether it is sacred material for the upkeep of the House (bedek Habayit) - if he profanes them, he has no share in the world to come.

One who whitens the face of another: That is one who embarrasses his fellow.

"One who profanes, etc. one who whitens (embarrasses)": In the gemara, this is demonstrated from verses. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"One who profanes the Kodeshim (sacred material)": One who brings Kodeshim of the altar to [a state of] pigul (a sacrifice that becomes unfit, due to the intention of the officiating priest, while offering it, to consume it after its permitted time), notar (a sacrifice that becomes unfit, due to being left unconsumed after its time limit) or [of becoming] impure; or he misappropriates and benefits either from Kodeshim of the altar or Kodeshim of the Temple maintenance fund.

Introduction Rabbi Elazar of our mishnah was from Modiin (which is where I live!), the ancestral home of the Hasmoneans (Maccabees). This is his only appearance in the mishnah but he appears many times in aggadic texts in the Talmud. According to legend he was Bar Kochba’s uncle but when Bar Kochba suspected that he wanted to surrender, Bar Kochba assassinated him.

ONE WHO PROFANES KODASHIM. Talmud, Sanhedrin 99a: the Sages taught: “for he has scorned the word of G-d” (Numbers 15:31)... based on this, R. Elazar HaModa`i said, One who profanes kodashim, etc., along with the entire text of our mishna. Rashi ad loc. explains: one who profanes the kodashim and one who dishonors the holidays are both included in the category of one who “has scorned the word of G-d.” Rashi in his commentary here writes that the passage in Sanhedrin does not include “one who embarrases his friend in public,” and he does not know how it is derived from the verse, but our editions of Sanhedrin do have it. Midrash Shmuel writes that he has “scorned the word of G-d” because there is no greater apikoros than one who embarrasses his friend in public.
I would say that such a one has “scorned the word of G-d [Heb. d’var Hashem bazah]” because man is created in the image of G-d and is therefore himself “the word of G-d,” i.e. the idea or matter of G-d and His image. Davar can be said in the sense of “thing, matter, idea” as in the verse “is it not a davar?”¹¹¹Unlike many of the commentaries on Samuel, who understand David’s answer to Eliab to have been a dismissive “isn’t it just talk?”, Tosafot Yom Tov seems to understand that David’s answer was to defend his interest in the war by saying “isn’t it an [important] matter?” (1 Samuel 17:29). Also, the verse “and G-d said, ‘Let us make man in Our image’” is one of the ten “sayings”¹¹²Avot 5:1.—therefore, he has “scorned the word of G-d.” [*Per the Talmud in Rosh HaShanah 32a which Rav quotes in Avot 5:1, which says that “In the beginning” is also one of the “sayings,” for the verse says “the heavens were made by the word of G-d” (Psalms 33:6).]

one who desecrates the holidays: He made these two things adjacent because they are [both] called holy things. With holy material, it is written (Leviticus 6:18), "holy of holies"; and with holidays, it is written (Leviticus 23:2), these are "the holidays of the Lord, which you shall proclaim, holy proclamations." And about this the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Pesachim 118a), "Anyone who profanes the holidays - it is as if he worships idolatry, as it is stated (Exodus 34:17), 'You shall not make molten gods for yourselves.' And it placed it adjacent to, 'You shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread.'" And he said here, "one who desecrates" and he did not say, "one who profanes the holidays," because he is not speaking about the festival day itself - as about this it is not required to speak, since a festival day is like Shabbat. Rather, he is speaking about the intermediate days of the holiday (chol hamoed); about the one doing forbidden work with his hand. And [such a one may] say, "These days do not have so much holiness, like the first [festival] days." And [so] he does every work and disgusting thing on them, 'yet he will not feel shame.'

One who reveals meanings (literally, faces) in the Torah: is one transgresses the laws of the Torah in public and that is the epitome of heresy, as God, may He be blessed, said (Numbers 15:30), "And the soul that does with a high hand (publicly)." And the matter of revealing faces is that he reveals his face and is brazen - and that is an expression of heresy. And so is it explained in the gemara (Talmud Yerushalmi Peah 1:1). They said one who reveals faces in the Torah is one that transgresses the words of the Torah in public, like Yohayakim the son of Yoshayahu.

[That which Rabbi Bartenura mentioned, "worthless interpreations" is] like Menashe (Sanhedrin 99b), who would interpret [and] ask, "What was it to Moshe to write (Genesis 36:12), 'And Timna was the concubine?'" - Rashi.

"one who desecrates the holidays": the intermediate days of the festival. He does work on them or treats them according to what is customary to eat and drink on a common day.

Rabbi Elazar of Modiin said: one who profanes sacred things, and one who despises the festivals, and one who causes his fellow’s face to blush in public, and one who annuls the covenant of our father Abraham, may he rest in peace, and he who is contemptuous towards the Torah, even though he has to his credit [knowledge of the] Torah and good deeds, he has not a share in the world to come. Rabbi Elazar lists five sins that cause a person to lose a share in the world to come (see the tenth chapter of Sanhedrin). One who profanes sacred things: this refers to one who causes sacrificial animals to become impure, uses them for his own benefit, damages them or takes them out of the Temple precints. His disrespect for them is a sign that he does not believe in their validity. In other words he does not believe in the validity of the Temple and its worship service. One who despises the festivals: this refers to one who does work on the intermediate days of the festivals. Although it is permitted to do some types of work on these days, in situations where cessation of work will not cause a financial loss, work is generally forbidden (there are exceptions). One who causes his fellow’s face to blush in public: a well-known aggadah teaches that one who causes his fellow to be embarrassed, it is as if he had killed him. The rush of blood to his face is similar to bloodshed. One who annuls the covenant of our father Abraham: this refers to one who does not circumcise his son or one who uncircumcises himself (this was a surgical procedure known in the ancient world, and mentioned many times in the Talmud, despite how painful it must have been). This person is making a statement that he does not want to be part of the Jewish people, for circumcision is the most basic sign that identifies a person as a Jew (at least it was when most people did not circumcise, and especially in the Greek world where circumcision was abhorred.) He who is contemptuous towards the Torah: this refers to one who ascribes disgraceful or improper meanings to the contents of the Torah. The Meiri notes that Rabbi Elazar does not speak of transgressions that come about as a result of an overpowering evil impulse, such as eating forbidden foods or performing forbidden acts. Many of these are connected somehow to heresy (the possible exception being embarrassing one’s friend in public).

ONE WHO EMBARASSES [Heb. malbin—lit. “cause to turn white”]. Rav: the face of one who gets embarassed first turns red and then turns white. Some commentaries read ma’adim, “cause to turn red” in the mishna, a version which is found in some editions of Rashi’s commentary.

one who nullifies the covenant of Abraham our father: This is one who pulls his foreskin to cover his corona and he appears like an uncircumcised one - it is like one who does it to anger, to disgrace the commandments.

nullifies the covenant: [This is] as its simple understanding. And there it said about all of the things that the sages said that the one who does them has no share in the world to come, "About what are we [speaking]? If when he repented, there is nothing that stands in front of repentance. Rather [it is] when he did not repent but he died with afflictions." It means to say that the weight of the sins - and these are the ones about which they said he has no share in the world to come - is greater than other sins, as for [the former exclusively,] afflictions with death do not atone.

As in the case of other sins, afflictions with death purify.

"one who whitens (embarrasses) the face of another in public": The face of one who is embarrassed turns red first and then white, as the spirit [of a person] has two movements, one outwards and one inwards. And when one embarrasses a person, at first the breath moves outwards, like one who is full of anger and his face turns red. And when he does not find a solution how to get rid of this embarrassment from on his face, he worries inside himself and the breath goes inwards because of the pain, and his face turns yellow and [then] white. And this is what they said (Bava Metzia 58b) about the matter of whitening: "when the red leaves, the white comes."

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why is one who is not scrupulous in his observance of the intermediate days of the festival sanctioned so harshly? In other words, why does Rabbi Elazar mention this transgression as opposed to one who breaks the Sabbath, for instance?

ONE WHO REVEALS WAYS TO READ THE TORAH CONTRARY TO THE HALACHA. Rav: such as one who translates “and do not give of your seed to pass to Molech” as “do not give of your seed to impregnate an Aramean,” which is not the plain meaning of the verse. He explains it this way in Megillah 9:4 as well, and I write about this verse there at length.
The Rav also adds one who offers scornful interpretations of Torah. To this Rashi adds “like Menashe, who used to say, ‘Why should Moses write “and Timna was a concubine” (Genesis 36:12)?’”

one who whitens (embarrasses) the face of another in public: This is a derivative of the things for which he should die and not transgress. And the sources (avot) [of the derivatives] are three: idolatry, [forbidden] sexual relations and the spilling of blood (murder). The derivative of idolatry is the wood [that comes from] a tree-god (ashera); and like we say (Pesachim 25a), "We may heal ourselves with anything, except for the wood of a tree-god." And even though it is not [necessarily] idolatry itself; but rather [even when] it is its auxiliary, he should die and not transgress rather than benefiting from it. And the derivative of sexual relations is one who stares at or converses with a married woman - that he should die and not transgress. [It is] like that case in Sanhedrin 75a about the one whose heart [became sick] with lust about whom they said, "That she stand before him naked - He should [rather] die; she will not stand before him naked! That she should speak with him from behind a fence - he should [rather] die; she will not speak with him from behind a fence.” And the derivative of spilling blood is "one who whitens the face of another in public" - since his blood flees from the embarrassment. [It is] as we say (Bava Metzia 58b), "We see that the red leaves and white comes [in its place]." And because of this, he has no share in the world to come.

"one who nullifies the covenant": who did not circumcise [himself] or who did circumcise but pulled the foreskin to cover the circumcision, in order that it not be visible that he is circumcised.

THOUGH HE HAS STUDIED TORAH AND DONE GOOD DEEDS, HE HAS NO SHARE IN THE WORLD TO COME. Rav: if he did not repent… even if he suffered… Because suffering and death atone for other sins, as in the Talmud in Yoma 86. See what we wrote at the beginning of this mishna in the name of Maharal in Derech Chaim. See also the mishna at 4:22.
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Ephraim and Rashbam that we do not read “studied Torah” in the mishna.

one who reveals meanings in the Torah that run contrary to the law: This is one who makes his face brazen towards the Torah, to do sins in public. And the same is true of one who makes his face brazen towards its learners.

"one who reveals meanings (literally, faces) in the Torah": who shows meanings and explanations that do not conform with the halacha (law). For example, one who translates "And from your seed do not give to pass to Molekh" (Leviticus 18:21) as "And from your seed do not give to impregnate an Aramean woman." (Mishnah Megillah 4:9) And this is not the simple meaning of the text. And included within this is teaching worthless homiletical interpretations. A different explanation: "reveals faces" - he makes his face brazen to transgress words of the Torah publicly 'with a high hand' and he is not shame-faced.

even though he has Torah knowledge and good deeds, he has no share in the world to come: And these words [relate] to when he has not repented, but rather died with afflictions - as death and afflictions do not atone [in this case]. But if he has repented, there is nothing for you that stands in front of (that is resistant to) repentance. And so is it learned in the gemara in Peah (Yerushalmi Peah 1:1)

"even though he has Torah knowledge and good deeds": and he did not repent from one of these sins that he has in his hand - even though afflictions came to him and he died with afflictions - he does not have a share in the world to come. But if he repented before his death, there is nothing that stands in front of repentance.

TISHCHORET. Rav: a young man, whose hair is black [Heb. shachor]. Per the mishna in Nedarim 8:3: one who makes a neder forbidding himself pleasure from the “black-headed ones” etc. But the mishna there says that women and children are not included in this epithet, as only men are called “black-headed ones,” but bald and old men are included. It is possible that the mishna discussing a neder is following popular usage, whereas our mishna is speaking in the register of the Sages, in which the word refers only to a young man. For if he is not a young man, he is included in the other part of the mishna, lerosh, lit. “head”—an elder—and we have only two possible categories here: either he is a rosh, which includes all men of standing, or he is part of tishchoret, which includes all men of no standing.

Rabbi Yishmael says: Be yielding to an elder (literally, a head): He wants to say, that he be yielding to one who is a head and a lord, as it is stated (Proverbs 25:6), "Do not exalt yourself in the king’s presence; do not stand in the place of great ones" - that you should not think of yourself as a great man, but lower yourself in front of him to do his desires and to fulfill his needs. And do not become [too familiar] with him.

Be yielding (literally, light) to an elder: [The meaning of] lightness is known.

"With joy": And this is more than what Shammai said, "with a pleasant countenance" - Rambam.

"Be yielding to an elder (rosh, literally, head)": In front of a great sage who sits at the head of the yeshiva, be yielding (nimble) to do his bidding and to serve in front of him.

Introduction Rabbi Ishmael was a regular disputant with Rabbi Akiva. His teachers were Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua. From Rabbi Nahuniah haKaneh he learned his midrashic methodology, for which he later became famous. His midrashic formula are still recited everyday by those who follow a traditional siddur (prayer book). In our mishnah Rabbi Ishmael discusses how one should act with other people of different social strata.

AND RECEIVE [Heb. mekabel] EVERY MAN GLADLY. Rav: stand with joy. Mekabel here is to be understood like makbil. The medieval translator of Rambam writes on this mishna: it seems he understands the word mekabel here as if it were makbil, as in makbilot halula’ot (Exodus 26:5), based on the use of the cognate root in Aramaic, where the root is used to translate¹¹³In the Targumim. “opposite” or “in the presence of.” The Arabic language uses similar expressions: in speaking of meeting or standing opposite somebody one says “so-and-so met me with joy or anger.” The master¹¹⁴Rambam. explains mekabel this way here.
I do not know why he did not explain this point in the mishna at 1:15 above: hevei mekabel et kol ha’adam besever panim yafot.

pleasant to a tishchoret: Meaning to say to be pleasant with his words to an appointed official (shichvar). Not that he lower himself in front of him, as he is not a lord; and not that he should [try to] overcome him - as [the official] also has power in his hand: since he judges the land and the king appointed him over his people, it is impossible that he will not think about doing bad to his enemies; and he can truly do it to them. But one can benefit from his friendship, as he is [like] the master of the land. And tishchoret is the [same] as shichvar. In the vernacular, it is señorío. And [it is] as we say (Sifrei Devarim 6), "Cling to the shichvar and they will bow down to you." (and greet every person with joy) And Rabbi Meir HaLevi (Ramah), may his memory be blessed, explains tishchoret from the translation (Onkelos Numbers 16:15) [of] "I have not taken the donkey of any one of them” as shecharit (conscripted). He wants to say that you should be pleasant with a great person and a head, and also [be] pleasant with his servant and do his will.

And pleasant: This is calmness and ease. And he said with this command that when you are in front of a man of great standing, make yourself light towards him and serve him and stand in his presence if he wants and do not seek honor for yourself from him. But when you are with black hair - meaning to say one of young years - do not do this; but seek honor for yourself from him and do not be playful and do not be jocular with him. Afterwards he said, "You should not think that that which I have warned you from being jocular with someone of young years obligates that you should greet him with rage and with a choleric face. This is not the intention. Rather you need to greet every person - small or big, freeman or slave, every man of the human species - with joy." And this is more than that which Shammai said (Avot 1:15), "with a pleasant countenance." [The translator said it appears to me from the words of the teacher (Rambam) that he explains the word mekabel (literally, receive) from hakbelat panim (being across from the face) which is as if he is across. This is derived from (Exodus 26:5) "the loops across (makbilot)," which he translated from the Aramaic as across or facing. And also in Arabic one says about this matter an expression of meeting and being opposite - one says x met me happily or angrily. And with this type of expression did the teacher explain mekabel here - and know it.]

"pleasant to a youth (literally, a black one)": To a young man whose hair is black, you do not need to make yourself so nimble, but rather stand in front of him at ease and self-collected.

Rabbi Ishmael said: be suppliant to a superior, submissive under compulsory service, and receive every man happily. Be suppliant to a superior: According to Rabbi Ishmael, when one stands in the presence of a superior, he should consider himself inferior and serve him as he requests. Submissive under compulsory service: If a person is called up by the government for compulsory service he should not resist. Note that I have translated this clause according to the explanation of Albeck. The word for “compulsory service”, tishchoret, is an unusual word and is interpreted differently by others. Some interpret the word to mean the young. The interpretation is that when with young people, although one does not need to be suppliant with them, one should still treat them with respect. Receive every man happily: This is similar to Shammai’s statement above in 1:15.

WITH JOY. Rambam: this is more than what Shammai said, which was to greet every man in a friendly way.

"and greet (mekabel, literally, receive) every person with joy": Across from every person - whether an elder or a youth - stand with joy. "Receive" [here] is like to receive someone. "Across from" is translated [into Aramaic] as kabal. Another explantation: "Be yielding to a head (which also means beginning)" - at your beginning, when you are a young man, be nimble to do the will of your Creator. And in your old age, when your face has blackened because of age, be pleasant to Him.

JEST AND LEVITY ACCUSTOM A MAN TO PROMISCUITY. Rabbenu Yonah writes that the implication is that seriousness and solemnity are a fence around promiscuity, for this entire mishna is discussing fences. Midrash Shmuel explains that the mishna does not explicitly say so, as it does in the other cases, because it tells us much more this way: that jest and levity accustom, i.e. they ingrain the habit. Had the mishna simply said that seriousness and solmenity are a fence around promiscuity, I would only have been able to conclude that jest and levity bring a man to promiscuity, but not that they accustom him to it.

Rabbi Akiva says: Joking and lightheartedness acclimate toward promiscuity: He wants to say that joking and words of idle conversation with lightheartedness acclimates to promiscuity. But seriousness and fear are a safeguarding fence around sexual prohibitions - as this whole mishnah is talking about safeguarding fences.

When a man makes vows and keeps them, the acquisition of keeping away from that which he wants to keep away from comes into his hand, and that acquisition is strengthened for him. And abstinence becomes easier for him, meaning to say guarding from impurities - as they said in Chagigah (Mishnah Chagigah 2:7), "The clothes of an am ha'arets [unlearned person] are midras (considered impure by treading) for the abstinent.

"Joking and lightheartedness, etc.": That is to say, "but seriousness of mind and awe is the safeguarding fence around promiscuity"; as this whole mishnah is speaking about safeguarding fences - the teacher, Rabbenu Yonah. And we did not learn, "the safeguarding fence, [etc." here,] because it would not have made us understand that it acclimates one [to it], but rather that it brings one to promiscuity - Midrash Shumuel. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"Tradition is a safeguarding fence around Torah": The tradition that the sages passed down to us about the missing and extra letters of the Torah is a fence and a strengthening of the written Torah; as through them, we understand how to do several commandments. As with, [the tradition that in the Torah it is written,] "basukkot... basukkat... basukkat" - two [of these words] missing [letters], and one complete - from which we learn [how to] make a fit sukkah (booth) with three partitions. And, for example, "the appointed times of the Lord which you shall declare" - which is written missing [a letter] in three places (rendering the word, "them," into "you," "otam" into "atem") - to teach [that the intercalation of the month is binding, and dependent upon] "you, even if you err without volition; you, even if you err with volition; you, even if you are mistaken."

Rabbi Akiva said:
Merriment and frivolity accustom one to sexual licentiousness;
Tradition is a fence to the Torah;
Tithes a fence to wealth,
Vows a fence to abstinence;
A fence to wisdom is silence.
Rabbi Akiva is arguably the most famous and influential rabbi in Jewish history. He was certainly the most influential rabbi in the mishnaic period. The Mishnah is based largely on his teachings, although most of them are attributed to his students.
There are numerous legends about Rabbi Akiva, perhaps the most famous one of them being that he did not begin to learn Torah until he was 40 years old. He died the death of a martyer when the Romans used a steel comb to flay his skin.
Merriment and frivolity accustom one to sexual licentiousness: one who acts with frivolity and is merry in the company of the opposite sex will eventually have sex with those with whom sex is prohibited (such as adultery).
Tradition is a fence to the Torah: according to most commentators this refers to the comments which were added to the text of Biblical books, and are meant to explain how the words are sometimes read in a manner different from the way that they are spelled. These comments act as a fence in the sense that they prevent misinterpretation of the Bible. The reason that they are called “tradition” is that they were preserved as traditions that were added to the Biblical text itself. [The Hebrew word for tradition is “masoret”. Those who eventually put down in writing all of these marks and fixed the “correct” readings for the Bible were called the Masoretes.]
Another explanation of this statement is that “tradition” refers to the Oral Torah, which was transmitted from generation to generation to teach us the correct interpretation of the Bible.
Tithes a fence to wealth: by properly tithing one’s produce one can ensure that he will grow rich. By extension, according to the rabbis, one who wanted to ensure that he would prosper should give more charity.
Vows a fence to abstinence: by taking vows a person can prevent himself from engaging in forbidden sex. If a person’s desires are strong, and he feels that he cannot overcome them, he may be better able to motivate himself and keep himself from sinning if he takes a vow not to do what is forbidden. In an interesting analogy, I know people who keep kosher who have no problem doing so but have terrible trouble sticking to their weight-loss diets. Sometimes, in order to more motivate themselves not to eat heavy dairy deserts they will eat a small piece of meat, thereby making it forbidden to eat milk afterwards. This is like the person who can only control his sexual desires if he takes a vow not to act upon them.
A fence to wisdom is silence: as we saw above in mishnah 1:17, one who tends to keep quiet will always at least seem wiser than one who can’t keep quiet. Also by being silent a person can actually hear what others are saying and thereby learn from them. According to a rabbinic teaching, this is why people were created with two ears and only one mouth, so that they could listen twice as much as they speak.

MASORET IS A FENCE FOR THE TORAH. When Rav writes “אתם, you—even mistakenly; אתם, you—even intentionally; אתם, you—even misled,” he is quoting the Talmud in Rosh HaShanah 25a. Rashi there comments: “mistakenly”—of their own accord. They though it was supposed to be a leap month. “Misled”—by false witnesses. The third part, “even intentionally,” is quoted by Tosafot in Rosh HaShana 22b s.v. lehat`ot, but Rambam in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh, 2:10 , reads “forced.”

Tithes are a safeguarding fence around wealth: And like we say in Tractate Taanit 9a about that child that was reading "A tithe shall you tithe (Aaser teaaser)" (Deuteronomy 14:22): Rabbi Yochanan said to him, "Take a tithe so that you will become wealthy." The [boy] said to him, "And is it permitted to test the Holy One, Blessed be He? But it is written (Deuteronomy 6:16), 'You shall not test the Lord your God'?" [Rabbi Yochanan] said to him, "Rabbi Hoshaya (said as follows), 'Except for this, as it is stated, "Bring the whole tithe into the storeroom, that there may be food in My house, and test Me now by this"'" (Malachi 3:10). And about this is it said, "Tithes are a safeguarding fence around wealth" - that the person that wants to be wealthy should give tithes with a good eye. And he should not say, "[I have] a thousand kor - how can I give a hundred to the tithe, and they are worth much." As God, may He be blessed and elevated, is trustworthy to pay him all that he gave and to multiply the reward. And this is true also based on experience. And the matter of charity is like the matter of tithes - and [so] when he increases charity, he adds wealth to his wealth. And a person's heart should not prevent him from giving large gifts to the needy, lest his wealth shrink and he not have enough. And he will know that this will be the reason that he will have a right to make [wealth]. And the very wealthy one should not think that by his giving much charity - if he doesn't give [proportionately] according to his wealth and multitude of assets - that he will be innocent. As an evil thing may come into his heart to say, "How many coins have I scattered in charity; how many, many were dying of hunger and I saved them." And he does not know about all [this], that the poor person who gives a 'great sum' according to the tithe is better [off]. As [in the case of] a poor man who only has a seah and gives its tithe as is fit and a wealthy man who has two thousand seah and gives one less than two hundred; the poor man gets out innocent, but the rich man is [still] obligated by them. So is [it with] charity: everyone must give according to what he has - whether [it is] little or whether [it is] much.

[Regarding the example given by Rabbi Bartenura about how tradition is a safegurarding fence around Torah:] "'Without volition' - of their own accord, [meaning] they believed it was fitting to intercalate [the month even though it was not]; 'mistaken' - as a result of false witnesses" - Rashi.

"Tithes are a safeguarding fence around wealth": As it is written (Deuteronomy 14:22), "aser taaser (you shall surely tithe)," [which is interpreted as] "tithe (taaser) so that you will become rich (titaasher)." (Taanit 9a)

TITHES ARE A FENCE FOR WEALTH. Midrash Shmuel notes that in an edition of the Mishna from Jerusalem the text reads “tithes are a fence for Torah,” and explains that those receiving the tithes will be able to immerse themselves in Torah and study it, per the Sages’ saying, “the Torah was only given to those who eat terumah” [*and I have already written in Ma`asarot 1:16 that this is a general name for all of the priestly gifts]. He quotes R. Yisrael explaining this using the verse “and you shall eat before Hashem, your G-d… the tithes of your grain… In order that you may learn to fear Hashem, your G-d” (Deuteronomy 14:23).

Tradition is a safeguarding fence around Torah: Traditions are the full spellings and incomplete spellings [of the words in the Torah] and the cantillation notes that the sages passed on to their students. And they are a safeguarding fence around the written Torah, such that you do not find differences among the books [of the Torah], except in a few places. This is not the case with the books of the Talmud, as in many place the versions differ. Also each and every day, new rationales are developed - and they write the version according to their opinion. And 'the right has been given' to tolerate it. 'As there is no perfect book in the world that they have not made to err.' And they attribute the mistake to the book and not to their opinion.

"Tithes, etc.": The text of a Jerusalemite [copy of the] mishnah, reads, "Tithes are a safeguarding fence for Torah." And he explained that, through this, the ones that receive it were able to be strong in Torah [study]; as per [the sages'] statement, may their memory be blessed, "The Torah was only given to those that eat the priestly tithe (terumah)" (and tithes is a general name for all of the gifts [given to the Levites and the priests]). And the teacher, Rabbi Yisrael explained that [it is because it] is written, "And you shall eat, etc. the tithe of your grain, etc. in order that you will learn to fear, etc." - Midrash Shmuel.

"Vows are a safeguarding fence around abstinence": When a person begins abstinence and is afraid, lest he violate [that abstinence], he should accept [it] upon himself with the language of a vow that he should not do such and such; and through this, he will conquer his [evil] impulse.

OATHS ARE A FENCE FOR ASCETICISM. Rav: when a person first attempts to become an ascetic… he accepts upon himself via a neder that he will not do such-and-such. See what I wrote on Nedarim 1:1, s.v. kenidrei k’sherim.

Vows are a safeguarding fence around abstinence: Abstinence is a superior virtue and there are several good virtues that are [needed] to acquire it, as we say (Avodah Zarah 20b), "Cleanliness leads to abstinence." And this is one who separates from the pleasures of the world - even from the things that are permissible in eating and sexual relations; even from all of the other desires in avoiding honor and lordship and wealth and what is similar to them. And he distances himself from the roots of [the pleasures] and brings himself near to the fundamentals (literally, trunks) of the soul and its foundation. And [hence] he is close to the service of the Creator, may He be blessed. How is it with food? One who eats a little in order to live that he be healthy to study much Torah and to do great service in the service of God. And he drinks to fill his thirst and not to get drunk and [so] not 'expose himself within his tent.' And that which he only has sexual relations to fulfill the commandment, behold this is from the way of abstinence - as his intention is not to enjoy from the world. And there is also a second benefit: that he guard his soul from sin - as when his impulse overpowers him and he desires to do a sin, he will say in his heart, "I am vigilant about what is permissible, [so] how can I do this great evil, and 'I will have sinned to my Father in heaven all of the days.'" And this thing will [protect] him from all of the stumbling blocks. But one who goes after natural physicality and is pulled by his desires and his pleasures - even if he does not do a forbidden thing - will be found to have distanced himself from the fundamentals of his soul and its foundation. He will have also caused his soul to follow the body and the physical and 'sever it with an ax from its roots and its foundation.' And [it is] as it is written (Hoshea 4:11), "Promiscuity, wine and new wine take the heart." Hence they gave a counsel to the one who is not able (to lead) to control his spirit and is pulled by the pleasures, to make a vow for some days to say, "I will not eat and not drink until time x except like this"; or to forbid what is permissible. And [then] his habit will control him, from that which he observes his vow. It comes out that he leads himself to conquer his impulse. And with this, the benefit that is in his hand is abstinence. And [it is] as [someone] said to Rabbi Pinchas (the editor said [that] this statement is in Yerushalmi Shabbat 1:3 and the version there is "to Rav"), "If you are not able to eat mundane foods in purity all of the year, eat [it so] for seven days." As one who eats mundane foods in purity is called an abstinent, as we say (Chagigah 18b), "The clothes of an ignoramus are impure in midras for the abstinent (prushim)." However it is not fit to fence oneself with fences unless his impulse is overpowering him, [and then] he may make a vow as a way of healing. However one who controls his spirit and is able to reach the trait of abstinence without a vow should not vow. [It is] as we said (Yerushalmi Nedarim 9:1), "Is it not enough for you with what the Torah forbade, such that you forbid yourself the permitted?" But certainly if you see a man whose impulse is overpowering him, he needs to add a big fence according to that which he needs to conquer his impulse. And once he has conquered his impulse, he goes back to the moderate disposition. There is a parable about a physician [relevant to this]: When the physician sees that the illness is mild and easy to heal, he gives him a mild treatment. But when he sees that he illness is heavy and strong, he chooses a strong treatment until he heals; and afterwards, he goes back and gives him moderate things that hold the body's health. And because of this, they said, "Vows are a safeguarding fence around abstinence" - and they did not say, "Oaths are a safeguarding fence around abstinence." As an oath halts immediately, as he swears that he will not eat this thing until day x. And that is not a safeguarding fence - as he is halted immediately, in that he cannot transgress it. But a vow is that he say, "If I eat more than this amount until day x, all of the fruits of the world will be forbidden until a different time that he specifies. That is called a safeguarding fence, as it is a thing that he may overstep. And it is better for the one whose heart is dedicated to the Heavens if he is not in control of himself to do the safeguarding fence without a vow.

"A safeguarding fence around wisdom is silence": And it did not say, "Silence is a safeguarding fence around wisdom," as it is different here, since there is no safeguarding fence around wisdom besides silence alone. And that is why it taught [the word], "fence" first [here]; which is not the case with the others - as even though, each one is a safeguarding fence to that thing, nonetheless, there is for that thing also another fence besides it - Midrash Shmuel.

"A safeguarding fence around wisdom is silence": What do we establish [these words] to be referring to? If it is about silence from words of Torah, behold, it is already written (Joshua 1:8), "and you shall reason it, etc."; if it is about silence from talebearing, evil speech and curses, they are [prohibited] from the Torah. Hence it is only speaking about optional words between a man and his fellow, in which a person should minimize his speech as much as possible. And about them Shlomo said (Proverbs 17:28), "A fool who is silenced is also considered a wise man."

A FENCE FOR WISDOM IS SILENCE. The mishna does not say “silence is a fence for wisdom,” following the order of the other sections, because it often changes the language of the last item in a list to make clear that it is the last—Maharal in Derech Chaim. Midrash Shmuel writes that this case differs from the others in that there is no fence for wisdom other than silence, for which reason the mishna says “a fence for wisdom is silence,” i.e. the only fence for wisdom is silence. Whereas in the other cases, though the mishna gives a fence for each one, other fences might exist.

A safeguarding fence around wisdom is silence: This is a safeguarding fence for both wisdom itself and for its traits. How is it? That he doesn't interrupt the words of his fellow, and he says about that we has not heard, "I have not heard." And even though it is not included in silence, silence brings to it. With wisdom, how is it? He does not speak in front of someone greater than him in wisdom. As one who studies in front of his teacher and sees a fit rationale should not immediately think that it is true; and he should not want to say it until his teacher has finished speaking. For were he to do so, he would miss what his teacher will say and he will not know the rationales of the earlier sages; as his heart will be 'moving and wandering from knowing their opinion.' And also because his [own] rationale cannot be so focused until he hears what the early scholars said and [then] weigh in the scales of his intellect which one is more proper - this one or that one. Therefore silence for a student in front of his teacher "is a safeguarding fence for wisdom." And when he finds a rationale and his teacher is still speaking, should he not be quiet? He should not open his mouth until the words of his teacher are clear and his rationale is etched into his heart - until he finishes his words and knows what his teacher taught him. And afterwards, his reasoning will be sharp and focused. And about this Shlomo, peace be upon him, said (Proverbs 18:2), "The fool does not desire understanding, but only to reveal his heart."

And since that [even] a fool who is silenced is considered wise, we understand from it that anyone who is silent, behold, he is wise. And also, above [the verse just referenced], it is written, "The knower of knowledge saves his speeches, the man of understanding's breath is very dear."

SILENCE. Rav: refraining from saying permissible¹¹⁵I.e., neither forbidden things, like gossip, nor things one ought to and must say, like words of Torah. things. Concerning them Solmon said, “even a fool, if he stays silent, will be thought a wise man” (Mishlei 17:28). Since even a fool, should he stay silent, will be thought a wise man, we can infer that anyone who stays silent is wise.¹¹⁶It would be tempting to say that this is a printer's error, as the verse says that even fools who stay silent are considered wise. Not all those who are silent, then, are actually wise! But if we reverse the sentence to read “we can infer that anyone who is wise stays silent,” we are still left with a conclusion that in no way follows from the verse. There is no error here, and Tosafot Yom Tov understands the verse in Proverbs as Meiri does in his commentary there. It is not that a fool will mistakenly be considered a wise man if he remains silent. Rather, though he is a fool, in this respect he will be considered wise: he stays silent when he has nothing substantive to say. So also Ibn Yachya there. Now there is proof that it is a wise thing to remain silent, for then one will not end up offering opinions out of ignorance and looking foolish. Moreover, the verse before this one says “a discerning man spares his words, an understanding one is reticent” (Proverbs 17:27); commenting on this first verse, Proverbs continues “even a fool, etc.” Since the words in the mishna are “a fence for wisdom,” Rav wished to quote a verse that mentions a wise man.

BELOVED IS MAN, WHO WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE. EVEN GREATER LOVE… AS THE VERSE SAYS, “FOR HE HAS CREATED MAN IN THE IMAGE OF GOD.” Rashi: man is beloved, as he was created in the image. Therefore, he must do the will of his Maker. R. Akiva was speaking of all men, as the verse he quotes for proof was said to all the sons of Noah, and not only to the sons of Israel. R. Akiva wished to find merit for all men, including Noahides.
Rambam says this clearly in Hilchot Melachim 8:10: Moses commanded us in the name of G-d to compel all men to accept the seven commandments that the sons of Noah were commanded. Whoever does not accept them shall be executed. Such a one as accepts them is referred to as ger toshav in rabbinic literature… Whoever accepts the seven commandments and is careful to keep them is called one of the “pious of the nations” and has a share in the world to come. This is provided he accepts them keeps them because G-d has commanded them in the Torah and made known through Moses that the sons of Noah had previously been commanded to keep them. But if he does these things because his reason compels him he is not a ger toshav and is not one of the “pious of the nations,” or even [the text should read “but rather”] one of their wise men.
Therefore, I wonder why it is that the commentators remained so distant from this approach and did not want to use it to explain the words of R. Akiva as applying to all men, limiting them instead to Jews alone. They drew support from the passage in the Talmud (Yevamot 61a), “you are called ‘man’, etc.”, stacking one midrashic reading on top of another!¹¹⁷The passage in Yevamot 61a is a midrashic reading of the word “man” in a verse in Ezekiel, and to assume that our mishna is using the word “man” to mean Jews only is likewise a midrashic reading; the end result, therefore, is midrashically reading “man” in our mishna based on further midrashically reading “man” in Ezekiel. Because of this they had to contrive a forced understanding of the “image” and the verse that our mishna brings as proof.
In my opinion, the following approach is the spacious, paved road. R. Akiva intends to instruct all men as we were commanded to do by Moses, per Rambam above. If that command extends to threats of destruction by the sword, it certainly includes persuasive speech intended to draw them to the will of their Maker. He speaks well of them and says that they are beloved in that they are created “in the image” in order to show them that the law of man is to keep the statutes and laws of G-d, as Rambam says. For since man is beloved of G-d, to the point that they he was created in His image, he must do the will of his maker, as Rashi writes.
Now we understand why the mishna chooses this verse, despite the fact that there are several similar verses that precede it, for instance “Let us make man in Our image.” For this verse is the only one that is given as a rationale for a commandment; when G-d commands Noah and his sons not to kill, he gives the reason “because G-d has made man in His image,” and R. Akiva is speaking to the Noahides as well.
We also understand why here the mishna says “in the image” and leaves out the verse’s descriptor “of G-d”, but later in the section about “children” it says “they were called children of G-d”, for this is a rebuke to the nations. They were created “in the image,” i.e. “in the image of G-d”, but only created such—since they do not keep the commandments, or if they do keep them they do not do so because G-d commanded them, they cannot be described as being “in the image of G-d”.
This also accords with the idea of “the image,” which Rambam has explained in the Guide for the Perplexed 1:1 as referring to the intellect that is unique to man and is his true essence. The purpose of this intellect is to know G-d to the extent it is possible and within man’s abilities. This truly wise sage chose his words cleverly and did not say that they are “in the image of G-d,” for they are lacking knowledge of G-d, and when the verse says that He “made man in the image of G-d” it means that this was the intent of the creation of man, i.e. that he have the kind of intellect which can reach knowledge of G-d. Since, however, the reality is that “they neither know nor understand, they go about in darkness” (Psalms 82:5) and the potential has not been actualized, it is only fitting that the mishna say they were created “in the image” and not “in the image of G-d”, since the intended knowledge of G-d was not achieved and they are left only with potential, which is fittingly called simply “the image.” This seems to be the explanation of R. Akiva’s words.
Based on this, we can see that the following mishna has chosen its language very carefully, as I will explain there.
Also, this is another facet of why Israel is “especially beloved”—for they are already beloved to G-d as part of mankind, which He made in His image, and they are still more beloved, “foremost in rank and foremost in honor” (Genesis 49:3), on account of two other things: they are children of G-d, which is the “rank” as it is a great virtue, and they possess the desirable utensil, the Torah, which is “honor,” as in “G-d will give his nation honor” (Psalms 29:11) [*which verse the Sages have expounded in the Talmud, Zevachim 116a as referring to the Torah].

He would say: Beloved is man, since he is created in the image [of God]. A deeper love - it is revealed to him that he is created in the image, as it says (Genesis 9:6): "for in God's image He made man": Since he doubled the expression, we should say that this is its explanation: "Beloved is man since he is created in the image" - as even if the thing was not made known, but man was [still] created in the image of God, he would be beloved in front of Him; since they were created in His image and in His likeness. But when He revealed the thing to us, He showed us a deeper love.

He would say that revelation of that which He benefited him a certain good is a separate benefit. As there are times when a man benefits [another] man by way of mercy and does not reveal the certain thing that he did for him because he is [too] lowly in his eyes.

"Beloved is man, etc.": Therefore it is incumbent upon him to do the will of his Maker - Rashi. And Rabbi Akiva was speaking about all men and like the proof that he brought, which is said about the Children of Noah and not the Children of Israel alone. And see Tosafot Yom Tov who discussed this at length.

"A deeper love - it is revealed to him": Rambam explained: A deeper love did the Holy One, blessed be He, show to man, as he informed and said to him, "See, I have made you in the Divine image." Because one who benefits his friend and informs him of the good that he has done for him, shows a deeper love than if he had benefited him but it is not important [enough] in his eyes to inform him of the good that he has done for him. And it can be explained, "A deeper love - it is revealed to him;" a revealed and publicized love. As not only did the Omnipresent have a secret love for man but rather even a love that was revealed and known to all.

He used to say: Beloved is man for he was created in the image [of God]. Especially beloved is he for it was made known to him that he had been created in the image [of God], as it is said: “for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6).
Beloved are Israel in that they were called children to the All-Present. Especially beloved are they for it was made known to them that they are called children of the All-Present, as it is said: “your are children to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1).
Beloved are Israel in that a precious vessel was given to them. Especially beloved are they for it was made known to them that the desirable instrument, with which the world had been created, was given to them, as it is said: “for I give you good instruction; forsake not my teaching” (Proverbs 4:2).
Mishnah fourteen contains another teaching of Rabbi Akiva.
This mishnah contains one of the clearest statements in rabbinic literature about the special status that the Jewish people enjoy as the chosen people. The mishnah begins with a general statement about humanity, that all of humanity was created in the image of God and that God actually tells human beings that they are created in His image. In essence, this may be one of the Bible’s clearest statements as to the nature of God; man was created in His image, and perhaps we could say that by seeing and understanding other human beings we actually see a reflection of God. [Although this may be obvious I use the word man in these situations to mean humankind and not to in any way exclude women]. God especially manifests His love by telling humanity that they were created in His image.
Rabbi Akiva now jumps from discussing all of humanity to discussing the particular relationship that God has with the Jewish people. This relationship, according to Rabbi Akiva, is not covenantal, that is based upon the Jews performance of the commandments. Rather it is genealogical. Jews are children of God, and just as a parent’s love for his/her child is (at least supposed to be) unconditional, so too is God’s love for Israel. Furthermore, this relationship cannot be severed. Imagine what a comforting image this must have been to those living through the tumultuous times in which Rabbi Akiva lived.
We could perhaps interpret the next phrase in the same way. The vessel under discussion is the Torah, which according to the rabbinic interpretation of Proverbs, was the blueprints through which the world was created. Just as the previous two signs of love in this mishnah were unconditional and irrevocable, so too is the gift of the Torah. Furthermore, according to Rabbi Akiva, the Torah was given to Israel and not as a gift to the entire world.
We should note that this ideology expressed by Rabbi Akiva was not the only ideology that existed in the time of the Mishnah. There were other sages who believed that God’s relationship to Israel was based conditionally upon Israel’s performance of the commandments and that the Torah belongs to all of humanity and not just Israel. However, the dominant trend amongst the rabbis was certainly that represented by R. Akiva.

AS THE VERSE SAYS, “YOU ARE THE CHLIDREN OF HASHEM, YOUR G-D” (Deuteronomy 14:1). The mishna does not cite the earlier verse “Israel is my firstborn son” (Exodus 4:22) because one might interpret that verse as referring only to that generation, which G-d desired to bring out of Egypt and called “my children.” The mishna therefore cites this verse, which was said in the context of the commandments that we have been commanded to keep forever, laws that never pass: “Do not cut yourselves, etc.” These are “obligations of the body,” which apply in every place and in every generation.
Midrash Shmuel explains in the name of Chasid Ya’avetz that the mishna chooses this verse because only in it does G-d tell Israel themselves that they are “His children,” as the verse says “you are the children.” In the earlier section of the mishna, concerning “the image of G-d,” He likewise tells the people themselves. This is also the case in the next section, with the verse “for I have given you a good teaching.” This explanation accords well with Rambam’s understanding of “made known to them.” According to Rav, however, who does not explain “made known to them” literally, instead understanding it as “clear to all,” the mishna does not bring proof from the fact that the verse speaks to the people and means simply that this is something clear and well-known to all people. In that case, my approach¹¹⁸That this verse was chosen because it refers to all generations. works better.

Beloved are Israel, since they are called children of the Omnipresent. A deeper love - it is revealed to them that they are called children to God, as it says (Deuteronomy 14:1): "You are children of the Lord, your God": Also since he doubled it like the first.

"a precious instrument:" It is the Torah which is called precious, as it is written, "The law of the Lord is perfect, etc." and it is written after it, "They are more precious than gold, etc." - Midrash Shmuel. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"as it says (Proverbs 4:2) 'For a good lesson'": All of the acts of creation - about which it is stated, "And God saw that it was good" - were only created for the sake of the Torah, which is called a lesson, as you say (Deuteronomy 32:2), "My lesson drops like the rain."

DESIRABLE UTENSIL [Heb. k’li chemda, lit. “desired utensil”]. This is the Torah, which is called chemda, for shortly after the verse “the Torah of G-d is perfect” (Psalms 19:8) comes the verse “which are more desirable [Heb. nechmadim] than gold, even much fine gold” (Psalms 19:11)—so Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yisrael.
I say that the mishna calls it a k’li chemda because through it the world was created, and the word chemda describes the creation of the world. For in the sh’moneh esreh for Shabbat the Sages wrote “you have called it¹¹⁹Shabbat. the chemda of days,” based on the Targum Yerushalmi¹²⁰Abarbanel quotes this Targum ad loc., as do others, but it is not in our editions. which translates the word vayechal, “and He completed” (Genesis 2:2) with the Aramaic vechamed. The idea is that the finished creation in its entirety was desirable in His eyes, for which reason He also said it was “good”. This is what Rav is referring to when he writes that the “good teaching” refers to creation, which is also “good”.
Since “good” refers more naturally to physical things and “desirable” is closer to intellectual things—as it is the soul which desires—the mishna does not call it the “good utensil” after the “good” of creation but the “desirable utensil.” This point is made clear in the verse “...that the tree is good for eating… and desirable for understanding” (Genesis 3:6), where “good” is said of the physical, of eating, while “desirable” is said of understanding.

Beloved are Israel, since a precious instrument has been given to them: With which the world was created - this is the Torah, since the whole world was created with it; and all of the creatures were only created so as to observe it. And everything under the skies - all of them - are a function of a function for the needs of the practitioners of the Torah. There is a metaphor [relevant to this] about one who makes a tool for his profession and, with it, he does all of his work. So too is the Torah the tool of the Holy One, blessed be He, and with it the whole entire world was created.

A deeper love - it is revealed to them that the precious instrument with which the world was created has been given to them: With which the world was created.

as it says (Proverbs 4:2): "For a good lesson I have given to you; do not forsake my teaching": And you should know that these words are of great benefit for devotion [to God] - since he revealed to us that man is more beloved in front of Him than all of the creatures because he is created in the image; and [that] Israel know that they are more beloved than all of the other peoples since they are called the children of the Omnipresent and He chose us from all of the nations and gave us His Torah, as a function of which the whole entire world was created. [So] by all events, we know that God, may He be blessed and exalted, is close to us. [Still,] a person should not think that if he does what is 'straight in the eyes of the Lord' and not sin that he is close to God, as you know that the grasp of man is limited and not complete [such] that he can reach devotion [to God]. And [yet] it should not appear to him that He is completely far from him - "a deeper love is revealed to" him 'if he is from the seed of the Jews.' And he should not be in his own eyes only an evildoer and not only righteous. 'And this is the teaching of man' - not to distance himself and not to come close, 'and all is in accordance to the majority of the deed.' As with the great devotion [involved here], how can we have it - and 'there is no man on the earth that does good and does not sin.' [It is] as Yirmiyahu said (Jeremiah 30:21), "His chieftain shall be one of his own, his ruler shall come from his midst; I will bring him near that he may approach Me, declares the Lord; for who is it who would pledge (yeaarev) his heart to approach Me?" And aarev [here] is an expression of aarevut (guarantee).

ALL IS SEEN. The mishna is referring to the entire world, both Jews and gentiles, which is why at the end it speaks of “the world,” which also refers to everybody. For this reason the mishna does not open with the words “he used to say,” as it is a direct continuation of the preceding mishna, in which “beloved is man, etc.” was said of all the nations of the world in order to instruct them and draw them to the commandments they were commanded in, as I wrote above. Our mishna now proceeds to call on all people, Jew and gentile, and warn them that “all is seen… and the world is judged well.”

Everything is foreseen: As it is written (Psalms 139:1-2), "Lord, You have examined me and know. When I sit down or stand up You know it; You discern my thoughts from afar, etc."

This statement includes great things and [so] it is fitting that this statement would be of Rabbi Akiva. And this is its explanation in brief on condition that you know all that came before it in the earlier chapters. He said [that] all that is in the world is known to Him, may He be blessed and He comprehends it. And that is his saying, "Everything is foreseen." And afterwards he said [that] you should not think that in His knowing actions [in the future], it is obligated by necessity - meaning to say that a person is forced in his actions to [do one] action out of the [many] actions. The matter is not like this, but [rather] freewill is in the hand of a man as to what he will do. And this is his saying, "and freewill is given." He means to say that freewill is given to every man, as we elucidated in the eighth chapter (Eight Chapters 8). And he said that the judgement of God, may He be blessed, with people, however, is with kindness and good - not according to the judgement that befits them, as He, may He be blessed, explained (Exodus 34:6), "of great patience and much kindness and truth" - and the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said "'of great patience' with the righteous and the evil." And the prophet (recounter) said (Psalms 145:9), "Good to all is the Lord." And afterwards he said that the virtues do not come to a man according to the quantity of the greatness of the deed, but rather according to the great number of good deeds. And this is that indeed the virtues arrive by repetition of the good deeds many times. And with this does a strong acquisition come - not when a man does one great deed from the good deeds; as from this alone, a strong acquisition will not come to him. And the parable with this is that when a man gives a thousand gold coins at one time to one man to whom it is fitting and he does not give anything to another man; the trait of generosity will not come into his hand with this great act, as [much as] it will come to one who donates a thousand gold pieces a thousand times and gives each one of them out of generosity. [This is] because this one repeated the act of generosity a thousand times and a strong acquisition of it came to him [in this way]. But [the other] only aroused his soul with a great arousal towards a good act, and afterwards it ceased from him. And so [too] with Torah, the reward of the one who redeems one captive with a hundred dinar or [gives] charity to a poor person with a hundred dinar which is enough for what he lacks is not like the one who redeems ten captives or fills the lack of ten poor people - each one with ten dinar. And in this comparison and this matter is that which he said, " in accordance to the majority of the deed" - and not in accordance to the greatness of the deed.

As the knowledge of God, may He be blessed, is not like our knowledge. And even though we call it knowledge like we say about our [own] knowledge, this is only [by way of] a total juxtaposition [of similar ideas under one name]. And just like we do not have the power to know the truth of His existence, may He be blessed, etc., so [too] do we not have the power to grasp and find His knowledge, as He and His knowledge are one; not like man, as he and his knowledge are two [separate things]. And Rabbi M. Almoshnino wrote that the opinion of Rambam is like the opinion that was written by Midrash Shmuel, and this is [Midrash Shmuel's] language: it is not an objection to begin with, as the knowledge of God, may He be blessed, is like [one who] observes and gazes at an action that a man does. And behold, a man's seeing of someone else's action does not force that action. So [too], the observation of human action by God, may He be blessed, does not force it. And His knowledge, may He be blessed, of the future is for Him knowledge of the present; as in front of Him there is no before and after, since He is not [beholden to] the laws of time. To here [are his words]. And this is the distinction between His knowledge and our knowledge; that His knowledge is always in the present, even that which is in the future in our terms. It is just that we do not have the power to grasp it and understand it, etc. And see Tosafot Yom Tov, who wrote at length about this.

"Everything is foreseen": Everything that a man does in the innermost rooms is revealed in front of Him.

Everything is foreseen yet freedom of choice is granted,
And the world is judged with goodness;
And everything is in accordance with the preponderance of works.
This is another statement by Rabbi Akiva. Note how in this extremely short mishnah, Rabbi Akiva succeeds in teaching some of the most basic theological principles of Judaism. It is testimony not only to the depth of Rabbi Akiva in particular and the Mishnah in general, but to their poetic abilities as well.
Everything is foreseen yet freedom of choice is granted: this is one of the most deliciously paradoxical statement of the rabbis. It captures in just four (Hebrew) words, much of the spirit of Jewish thought. Since God is all-powerful, God must know everything, including the future. However, our actions were totally due to fate, we would not be morally responsible for our actions. In order to hold ourselves responsible for what we do, we must assume that we have free choice. Judaism is therefore a religion based on these two beliefs: God is the all-powerful, master of the universe and yet human beings have moral responsibility.
And the world is judged with goodness: this is a follow-up statement to the previous one. The freedom of choice granted to human beings is in some senses frightening. If human beings have choice then they are responsible for their choices, and at the end of the day, most of us don’t stack up to what we should be. Therefore Rabbi Akiva assures us that God judges with goodness, meaning mercifully. He allows repentance to remedy our submissions to the evil inclination.
And everything is in accordance with the preponderance of works: a person is judged based on the majority of that person’s actions. This may also relate to the previous statement. Although God judges mercifully, one should not think that one’s performance of the commandments are not of consequence. God judges a person not based on any single deed, but on a character that has been built up throughout his lifetime. People who have built up a lifetime of good deeds will be justly rewarded.
Another interpretation of this last statement is that it does not have to do with God’s judgement. Rather it teaches that a person’s character is developed throughout his lifetime by the performance of works. For example, one charitable gift does not make a person have a charitable nature. However, a person who gives frequently will be described and act as a generally charitable person. Note that in Judaism a person is mostly judged based on his actions; he is what he does. While belief is important, it is not the essential aspect of a person’s character. Furthermore, character is shaped through action.

ALL IS SEEN, AND PERMISSION IS GIVEN. Rav in the name of Rambam: “all is seen”—all of a person’s deeds, what he has done and what he will do, are known to Him. And say not that since G-d knows all that a person will do he is forced to do everything he does, whether for good or for evil, because “permission is given.” For G-d’s knowledge is not like ours, and although we use the same word to speak of His “knowledge” and our knowledge it is nothing more than a borrowed term. Just as we are unable to know the true nature of His existence, as the verse says, “Can you achieve an understanding of God? Can you fathom the extent of the Almighty?” (Job 11:7), we are unable to understand the nature of His knowledge. For He and His knowledge are one, unlike man and his knowledge, which are two separate things. This is what the prophet means when he says “for my thoughts are not your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8)—these are the words of Rambam at the end of the eight chapters that he appended as an introduction to this tractate. They are repeated in Mishne Torah, in the fifth chapter of Hilchot T’shuva, and appear yet again in the Guide for the Perplexed, 3:20, where he writes about this at length.
[*Ra’avad writes in a gloss on Hilchot T’shuva 5:5: this author has not followed the ways of the wise, for a person should not begin a thing he does not know how to complete. He began with questions and difficulties, left the difficulties unanswered, and advised the reader to just go back to faith; it were better to leave the matter simple for the simple people and not to draw their attention to this and leave them in doubt. For they might later think heretical thoughts about this. I say that he has, in fact, followed the ways of the wise, the wise being the Sages, who said just the kind of incomplete things that Ra’avad criticized Rambam for. For the mishna in Chagiga 2:1 plainly says as much: anyone who looks into these four things would be better off not having come into this world: what is above, what is below, what is in front, and what is behind. I see no difference between the words of the tannaitic sage and the words of Rambam. For when the tanna says that such a person “would be better off not having come into this world” he is forbidding him to look into and research these things. Why would he do this? Hasn’t he made people aware of this issue? By Ra’avad’s reasoning he should’ve remained silent lest people think heretical thoughts. Should one deflect and say that this is actually what the tanna’s words mean, i.e. that he shouldn’t think heretical thoughts, one can similarly deflect and say that this is what Rambam meant, for he has told us that we cannot understand this and we therefore should not think of it as we will not gain understanding.
I say that in saying “all is seen and permission given” our tanna means to say that both things are true, as Rambam writes in his commentary. Now it would seem that the tanna should’ve reversed the order and said “permission is given and all is seen,” i.e. “permission”, which is free will, is given to man, and no action goes unaccounted for because it is seen and known to Him and He will reward and punish. For free will is the foundation of the entire Torah, and because of our free will G-d’s knowledge of our actions will then lead to reward or punishment. But there seems to be no logic in first saying that “all is seen,” for what difference does it make to us that “all is seen” if we do not yet know that “permission is given”? We must conclude, therefore, that the tanna’s intent is to bring to people’s attention that even though “all is seen,” there is no contradiction to free will, for “permission is given.” In formulating the mishna this way the tanna has brought up the issue and yet has offered no resolution, the expectation then being that one understand that there is none, as is clear from the fact that the mishna does not offer any. In any case, since we have shown that the mishna is to be understood as saying “even though all is seen, permission is given,” the tanna clearly does bring up the issue hidden in his words.
I also found a passage in Bereshit Rabbah 22:10 on Cain’s murder of Abel: R. Shimon bar Yochai said: this is difficult to say and impossible for the mouth to explain. This is like two fighters who were standing and fighting in front of the king. If the king wanted to, he could have separated them, but he did not want to separate them. One of them overcame the other and killed him, and he said, Who will seek out justice for me from the king? So too, “your brother’s blood cries out to me from the earth”. This is just like Rambam—R. Shimon bar Yochai points out that the king could have separated them, for he knew and saw that they were fighting, and does not answer why it is that he didn’t separate them, noting only that “this is difficult to say and impossible for the mouth to explain”; even so, the sage, the G-dly tanna R. Shimon bar Yochai, did not hold back from bringing up the issue.
As for why R. Shimon bar Yochai did not say this about the earlier sin of Adam, it might be because the story of Cain and Abel hints to the notion of free will. For they correspond to the two drives on which free will hinges: the drive for good and the drive for evil, as Rambam writes in the Guide for the Perplexed, 2:30.
The overall point is that Rambam spoke well and followed the ways of the wise and perfect, the G-dly tannaim.]
Midrash Shmuel writes that there is no difficulty to begin with, because G-d’s knowledge is like that of one who looks and observes the deed a person does. One person simply seeing what another is doing does not force the other person to do so, and G-d seeing a person’s deeds does not force him to do them. And there are no grounds to object that since He knows what a person will do, the person must be forced to do those things, because for G-d there is no before and after, as He does not exist in time. He writes that R. Moshe Almosnino writes that this is the opinion of Rambam himself. When he distinguishes between G-d’s knowledge and our knowledge he means this distinction: His knowledge is always in the present, as there is no future in relation to Him, and just as our knowledge of the present does not force anything to happen in the present, His constant knowledge of the present does not force anything to happen in the present. People are confused on this point because they cannot imagine how He could constantly know in the present even things that are, in relation to us, in the future. Rambam therefore establishes that His knowledge is not like our knowledge, and we should not err this way. This is also why the mishna says “everything is seen,” i.e. already known, for everything is revealed before Him and He does not look into the future.
[You should know Midrash Shmuel’s opinion that G-d knows things as one who observes the deeds that a person does is the answer given by the Ra’avad in the gloss quoted earlier, where he says that G-d’s knowledge is like the knowledge of the astrologers, etc. The gloss ends, however, with “and all this does not satisfy me.” You should further know that the Ra’avad was likewise preceded in this opinion by R. Sa`adiah Gaon in his book Emunot VeDe`ot, in the fourth treatise, where he writes something very similar. That will do for now.]
Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that the mishna says “is seen” instead of “sees” because even evil things that G-d does not desire are also seen. Saying “sees” would imply that He wishes to see them, and conerning evil things the verse says “and you cannot look upon wrongdoing” (Habakkuk 1:13).

and freewill is given: As He gave into the hand of people to do all that his heart desires - whether good or whether bad; as it is stated (Deuteronomy 30:15), "See, I set before you, etc." And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, said that this thing is from the wonders: That even though freewill is given to man to do his will, the Holy One, blessed be He, knows what he will want to do before the thought and before the action. And not by force will a man do the good or the bad, but rather from the will of his [own] heart. And God, may He be blessed, knows at the beginning that which will be his will - and even those things that are weighed out and it is possible that they will be and possible that they will not be. He knows everything at the beginning of the deed, and it is a wonder.

[Rabbi Bartenura's citation] is not found to be like his words in the Commentary of Rambam. But rather this is his language: "And he says that the judgement of God, may He be blessed, is truly with kindness and with goodness, not according to the judgement that befits them, as He elucidated, may He be blessed, about His ways. And He said, "Slow to anger to the righteous and to the wicked." And the psalmist said, "God is good to all."

"and freewill is given": into the hand of man to do good and evil, as it is written (Deuteronomy 30:15), : "See, I have given in front of you today life, etc."

AND THE WORLD IS JUDGED WELL [Heb. b’tov]. Rav writes in the name of Rambam: since the case is that “permission is given,” “the world is judged well”, etc. Although this is a good explanation, it is not found in our editions of Rambam’s commentary, which has the following: the mishna then says that G-d judges people with kindness and goodness, not accoding to what they truly deserve in judgment. He clarified His ways in this in saying “slow to anger” (Exodus 34:6), which the Talmud (Bava Kamma 50b) explains as applying to both the righteous and the wicked. And the poetic prophet says “G-d is good to all” (Psalms 145:9).

and with goodness the world is judged: And the Holy One, blessed be He, does not judge man only according to his deeds - rather [also] with His Goodness and His trait of kindness. And this is what David said (Psalms 25:7), "Be not mindful of my youthful sins and my transgressions." Sins - whether they are accidental or volitional - are what a man does in his youth, when his impulse impels him and his intellect is weak. However those that he does after he has grown in years and his intellect is complete are called transgressions or rebellion. And because of this, he confessed and said, "Both the sins of my youth and the transgressions from after I grew up, 'do not remember'; and so [too] let my memory go up in front of You, remember me for the good. 'But in keeping with Your kindness, You remember me - as befits Your goodness, Lord.'" As the world is judged with kindness, and even evildoers are judged with His goodness, as it is stated (Psalms 145:9), "Good is the Lord to all [and His mercies are to all of His creatures]." And the evildoers are included in His creatures - of the Holy One, blessed be He - as it is [found] in the midrash.

See Tosafot Yom Tov, who writes at length about this, and concludes and these are his words: And you should know that there is, nevertheless, retribution for a man according to his deeds. As "anyone who says that the Holy One, blessed be He, is foregoing, his innards become foregone." It is just that He is slow to anger and He judges the world with goodness, so that it not be lost and gone. And He collects what is His at times that are known to Him, may His perpetual awareness be blessed.

"and with goodness the world is judged": with the attribute of mercy. And nonetheless, not everyone is equal in this trait, since, "all is in accordance to the majority of the deed:" One who does many good deeds is given much mercy, and one who does few good deeds is given a little mercy. A different explanation: "all is in accordance to the majority of the deed" - according to the majority of a person's deeds is he judged, if the majority are merits, he is exonerated; if the majority are sins, he is liable. And Rambam explained, "Everything is foreseen": Every action of people - that which he has done and that which he will do in the future - is revealed in front of Him. And do not say, "Since the Holy One, blessed be He, knows what a person will do - if so, he is compelled in his actions to be righteous or evil." As "freewill is given" into his hand to do good and evil and there is nothing there that compels him at all. And since this is so, "with goodness (or properly) the world is judged," to collect [punishment] from the evildoers and to give a good reward to the righteous ones. As since the sinner sinned willingly, it is fitting that he be punished; and since the righteous one was willingly righteous, it is fitting that he receive a reward.

AND EVERYTHING GOES BY THE MAJORITY OF DEEDS [or HOW NUMEROUS THE DEEDS ARE, Heb. l’fi rov hama`aseh]. Rav, in his “alternate explanation” above, writes that a person is judged according to the majority of his deeds. Cf. my comments on Kiddushin 1:10 (s.v. vechol she’eino).
Rav writes in the name of Rambam: a person who constantly does numerous good deeds will get great reward… Rambam’s text of the mishna is “and everything goes by how numerous the deeds are [Heb. l’fi rov hama`aseh¹²¹The Hebrew rov can be read either as “majority” or “numerousness”.], but not by the deed.” But I do not know where he got this from, as this is not evident from Rambam’s commentary here, which reads: the mishna says that one acquires good character traits not through one great deed but through a large number of deeds… and the same is true of the reward for performing the Torah’s commandments… based on this, the mishna uses the language l’fi rov hama`aseh [by how numerous the deeds are], but not l’fi godel hama`aseh [by how great the deed is]. He is simply explaining why the mishna uses rov instead of godel. And Midrash Shmuel, who also writes that the text quoted by Rav was Rambam’s text, is not giving his own testimony but is testifying based on the testimony of a previous witness, as he takes his words from Rav even though he does not cite him by name.
I also saw that Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Moshe Alashkar that some versions have “and the world is judged with goodness but not by the majority of deeds.” He goes on to explain that the world is judged with goodness, with the attributes of kindness and mercy, but not by the majority of people’s deeds, for if He would look at the majority of deeds the world would be destroyed and cease to exist.
You should know that even so, a person is given the just deserts of all his deeds, for “if one says that G-d lets things go, his innards will be let go” [Bava Kamma 50a]. G-d judges the world with goodness in order that it not be destroyed and cease to exist, and “collects what is owed” at the points that He, whose memory is eternal, determines. Cf. my comments on Kiddushin 1:10 (s.v. metivin).

And all is in accordance to the majority of the deed: And even though the world is judged with the 'good of the Lord,' not every person is [equal] with [God's] trait of good. As for one who does much kindliness, the trait of kindness is much more than his deeds, and for the one who does little, it is little [more]. And [if] all are judged with His goodness, [yet] the good beyond the deeds of the evildoers is not as much as for the righteous; and also the righteous who do much and [those] who do a little are not the same, as "all is in accordance to the majority of the deed." And it is like it is said in the midrash (Vayikra Rabba 17:1), "'The Lord is good to those who hope in Him, to the soul that seeks Him' (Lamentations 3:25) - the one who hopes and is busy [with it] is not similar to the one who hopes and is not busy." And our teacher Moshe (Rambam), may his memory be blessed, followed the textual variant, "but not according to the deed." And he explained that all is according to the majority (quantity) of the deed. As in the matter of charity, one who gives a thousand zuz over a thousand times, that is according to the quantity of the deed; but "not according to the deed" - that is is the one gives it [all] at once. As this one arouses his thought a thousand times to do good among his people, and that one only aroused [it] the first time.

"all is in accordance to the majority of the deed": According to what a person repeats and is constant in the doing of good, his reward will be multiplied. As one who distributes a hundred gold coins to charity [giving out one coin at a time] is not similar to one who gives them out [all] at one time. And the textual variant of Rambam is, "all is in accordance to the majority of the deed"; and not "as per the deed."

HE USED TO SAY: EVERYTHING IS GIVEN ON PLEDGE, ETC. This mishna is also speaking to all people and is a continuation of what he said above, “beloved is man, etc.”, which is about all people, as I explained there. Now I wrote that mishna 15 simply starts “all is seen” and omits “he used to say” because it is a direct continuation of mishna 14 and not a new topic, and this mishna is likewise a continuation of mishna 15 and speaks to all people. Even so, the mishna starts with “he used to say,” because it is nothing more than an expanded clarification of mishna 15, and “he used to say” here means that he himself used to explain his words. Alternately, “he used to say” here might mean “he used to say the same thing in other words.”
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Chasid Ya`vetz that “everything is given on pledge” corresponds to “all is seen” in mishna 15. That is, even though “all is seen” and G-d knows of the evildoers, he does not give them what they deserve on account of their evil immediately because “everything is given on pledge,” i.e. He has guarantees, and this one will not escape Him. One can explain the words of Rav, that “a person’s feet are his guarantors,” similarly.

He would say: Everything is given as collateral: For everything that a person takes from this world, he is a guarantor and his children are guarantors. And one who inherits his father and his mother should not think, "This money is my inheritance, I will do all that I want with it." As nothing that he has is his, since everything is God's. And that which he took from Him, he took it on collateral; and in the future he will have to pay for it. There is a parable [relevant to this] about a man that came into a city and did not find [anybody] there. He went into a house and there he found a set table and all types of food and drink were upon it. He ate and drank and said, "Have I not acquired all of this, and it is all mine - I will do all that I want with it." And he did not see the owners who were observing him from another place. And in the future, he will have to pay [for] all that he will eat and drink, as he is in a place that he cannot escape.

The shopkeeper grants credit: One who gives much time with a debt and does not request it immediately. And this parable is clear and its intention is known. And that which he said, "and everyone who wants to borrow can come and borrow," strengthens the earlier matter that there is no necessity [forcing actions], but with free choice does a man do what he wants to do. And his saying, "and the collectors go constantly" is a metaphor for death and other punishments that come to a man.

And the language of Rambam - "it is a metaphor for death and other punishments, etc". - is like the language of Rabbi Bartenura on "a net is cast."

"Everything is given as collateral (with guarantors)": "The feet of a man, they are guarantors for him - to the place that he is requested, there do they take him." (Sukkah 53a)

Introduction This is another statement by Rabbi Akiva.

AND THE COLLECTORS. Rav: suffering and disasters. Rambam: a metaphor for death and other punishments, etc., which is what Rav writes on “the net is spread out”.

and a net is cast over all of life: This is death and a person cannot be saved from it - 'like fish caught in a bad net.'

and everything is prepared for the feast: [This] is to say the ultimate intention of all this is life in the world to come.

"with his knowledge, etc.": There are some that [follow] the textual variant, "with their knowledge or without their knowledge;" and it refers back to the collectors; And it is like that [which is found] in Chagigah 4b, [wherein the angel of death is speaking to one of his deputies], "How were you able to get her? etc." If so, it is about a group, [and] that is the meaning of "with their knowledge or without their knowledge;" but rather through the command of the Holy One, blessed, be He - Rashbam.

"and a net is cast": Afflictions and death.

He used to say: everything is given against a pledge, and a net is spread out over all the living; the store is open and the storekeeper allows credit, but the ledger is open and the hand writes, and whoever wishes to borrow may come and borrow; but the collectors go round regularly every day and exact dues from man, either with his consent or without his consent, and they have that on which they [can] rely [in their claims], seeing that the judgment is a righteous judgment, and everything is prepared for the banquet. There are many metaphors employed in this mishnah and we shall attempt to make sense of them one by one. Everything is given against a pledge: everything that a person receives in this world is given against a pledge that may be exacted from him in the future. This means that everyone will have to pay eventually for their sins. A net is spread out over all the living: there is no escaping from God’s power. God sees all of the deeds of man and will eventually exact payment for them. The store is open and the storekeeper allows credit: a person can take what he wishes in this world, and even take it temporarily without paying. God does not punish sinners immediately, but rather extends them credit, hoping that eventually they will return to righteousness. But the ledger is open and the hand writes: although God is merciful, this is not the same as forgetting or ignoring man’s deeds. All of man’s deeds are written in a book; eventually he will be held accountable for them. And whoever wishes to borrow may come and borrow: a person has free choice and may act wrongly today, hoping that in the future he will act better and be able to overcome the things he did wrong. But the collectors go round regularly every day and exact dues from man, either with his consent or without his consent: although a person may borrow, he must be careful for he does not know when his day of judgement will arrive. The “collectors” can come any day, and when they do they will collect whether he is ready to pay back his debt or not. Therefore a person should be careful to make sure he is never in “overdraft”. And they have that on which they [can] rely [in their claims], seeing that the judgment is a righteous judgment: in the end God’s judgement is righteous and fitting, even if humans cannot see it in this world. And everything is prepared for the banquet: in the world to come each person will eat the meal that he has prepared for himself in this world.

WHETHER HE IS CONSCIOUS OF IT OR NOT. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rashbam that there are editions that have “whether they intend it or not,” which is the best version of the text. The antecedent of “they” is “the collectors,” per the passage in the Talmud, Chagiga 4b: Whenever Rav Yosef got to the verse “there are those who perish unjustly” (Proverbs 13:23) he would cry. He said, “Does anybody die before his time?” Yes, as in the incident with Rav Bibi bar Abaye, who was in regular contact with the angel of death. Once, the angel of death said to his messenger, “Go bring me Miriam the women’s hairdresser [Aram. megad'la se`ar n'shaya].” He went and brought Miriam the babysitter [Aram. megad’la dardekei]. The angel of death said to him, “I asked you for Miriam the women’s hairdresser!” He said to him, “If so, I’ll bring her back.” The angel of death said, “Now that you’ve brought her, she stays. But how did you manage to take her?” Etc. This is what is meant by “whether they are conscious of it or not,” they carry out G-d’s command.

The shop is open: As people go in there and take all that they need now and don't 'see what will come from it.' And they don't think if they will have with what to pay when it comes time for the payment, since they find the store open and they can take all of their needs at the time. Such are people in this world.

With force and conspiracy - Arukh. And in a different version [of the text, it is written], "and the One who judges is a true Judge." And there are those that [follow] the textual variant, "and the judgement is true judgement," and those that [follow] the variant, "and the One who judges is a true Judge."

"The shop is open": and people come in there and buy on credit.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does Rabbi Akiva use the metaphor of the world as a shop and God as the shopkeeper?
• What is the one central message of this mishnah?

AND THE JUDGMENT IS A TRUE JUDGMENT. Rav: G-d does not deal despotically [Heb. b’tyronia] with his creatures. The Aruch explains b’tyronia as “by force and with false accusations.”
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rashbam that in his edition of the Mishna the text is “and the one judging is a true judge.” He also writes in the name of Rabbenu Ephraim that some editions have “and when he judges, the judgment is true,” and some have “and the judge is a true judge.”

and the shopkeeper grants credit: This is the owner of the store who gives to others on credit - he is the judge and is paid by them later. So is the Ruler over His world: He gives all the wants of those that come to the world - whether good or whether bad - and in the end, He will be payed by them later.

[This includes all] except for those learned [about] earlier in Mishnah 11, and in the beginning of the chapter [entitled] Chelek.

"and the shopkeeper grants credit": and trusts all who come to take [it]. And so [too] do people sin and the Holy One, blessed be He, waits for them until their time comes.

AND EVERYTHING IS PREPARED FOR THE FEAST. Rav: both the righteous and the wicked have a share in the World to Come once their debts have been collected. Other than those listed above in mishna 11 and in Sanhedrin 10:1. Cf. Eduyot 2:10.

and the accounting ledger is open: This thing is said for two matters. The one is a metaphor that there is no forgetting in front of His throne of glory. As the shopkeeper grants credit, he grants credit and lends to many people - [to] some for thousands and tens of thousand, and [to] some for one dinar. (And for an error) (for loss) Were it not for his alacrity that the ledger is open in front of him and he immediately writes everything, sometimes he would forget the small things because of the big ones - if he would lend orally. And about this is it said, "and the accounting ledger is open, and the hand writes." This is to say [with] both the big sins and the small ones - all of them - it is as if they are written in front of Him; and he does not forget the earlier transgressions. And the second [matter] is to inform us that there is no waiting for the opening of the ledger after he does the sin. Rather with the end of the act, it is already written; so that an instant not pass that this transgression is not attributed to him. As even though transgressions are forgiven to penitents, they are first attributed immediately when they are finished doing them. And afterwards if he repents, he is forgiven for them. [It is] as we say in the midrash, "One who does not do it, is not like the one who does it and is forgiven" - as the one who does not do is greater than the one that does and is forgiven. And [regarding] that which it said (Berakhot 34b), "The completely righteous cannot stand in the place that the penitents stand," it wanted to say that penitents have to separate from that which is permissible [but] similar to the matter in which they sinned. As if he transgressed sexual prohibitions, he should act with abstinence towards the thing that he sinned in - even with his wife and even with what is permissible - more than the completely righteous need to do.

"and the accounting ledger is open": to write down [the debts] in it, so that [the storekeeper] not forget.

and everyone who wants to borrow can come and borrow: As permission to [do so] is given to every man, and the one that wants to take the path that he desires, let him come and take: The fools thinks that the world was created to enjoy it, but all of the thoughts and the pleasure of the righteous is to be free to fulfill the commandments. And every man chooses for himself, but happy is the one who chooses the good.

and the collectors go constantly on their daily rounds: from the Heavens. As they search through the actions of people, as it is stated (Job 7:18), "You inspect him in the mornings" - to know and make known what they are doing.

"and the hand writes": Lest you say, "Even thought the ledger is open, there are times when the storekeeper is preoccupied and does not write everything"; therefore he said, "and the hand writes."

"and everyone who wants to borrow, etc.": And this is [the meaning of] "freewill is given" above - that no person is forced to borrow against his will.

and exact payment from man - with his knowledge: How is it? When he knows and remembers the sin that he does; [so] that when the punishment come to him, he recognizes and discerns that it is for that sin. And happy is he - as through this, he justifies the judgement and repents; and the sin is atoned for him.

"and the collectors": Afflictions and bad occurrences.

or without his knowledge: How is it? For example, when afflictions come to him and he does not remember the sins that he did. And there are some that think that the afflictions come to them unjustly, as they say, "'We are righteous and we have not sinned,' and why is there this great evil [that has come] to us." And they will die without repentance. And their worms will not die, as they vilified the judgement and justified themselves. Woe to them and woe to their carcasses - as they sinned against their bodies. There is a parable [relevant to this] about a king that said to his servant, "Go and take collateral from x." [So] he went and took collateral from him, but that man does not remember the debt. And he yells and is in wonder about [why] they are taking collateral from him, and it is given over to his heart (he is distressed about it). Such is the one who payment is taken from, from the Heavens, without his knowledge. But when he remembers the debt and knows that the taking of collateral is justified, the matter is not given over to his heart so much.

"with his knowledge": There are times when he remembers his debt and says, "You have judged me well."

and they have that upon which to rely: for their deeds: Upon [God's] trait of justice, and the judgement is true judgement.

"or without his knowledge": There are times when he forgot and cries out against the judgement of the Omnipresent, may He be blessed.

and everything is prepared for the feast: That the purpose of all of these things is in the end only to prepare the feast; meaning to say for life in the world to come.

"and they have that upon which to rely": [They rely] upon the ledger and upon the shopkeeper who is trustworthy about his ledger. So [too] these afflictions rely upon the deeds of man that are remembered in front of the Omnipresent, may He be blessed, even though they are forgotten from man.

"and the judgement is true judgement": As the Holy One, blessed be He, does not deal despotically with His creatures." (Avodah Zarah 3a)

"and everything is prepared for the feast": Both the righteous and the wicked have a portion in the world to come, after their debt has been collected from them.

IF THERE IS NO TORAH, THERE IS NO DERECH ERETZ, ETC. Rav explains derech eretz as proper business dealings with others. He writes: one who has no derech eretz eventually forgets his Torah. The tanna does not mean to say that one is a prerequisite for the other and must precede it in time, for if so neither would exist. For if each requires the other to exist first for its own existence, since they cannot both be first neither would come into being. And besides, derech eretz certainly must precede Torah chronologically, as I wrote on 2:2. The tanna simply means that if one does not study Torah, when he does business he won’t deal properly with others because he will not know what to do, along the lines of what the Sages said in the Talmud, Bava Kamma 30a: “one who wishes to be pious should study the laws of torts and commerce.” Similarly, one who does not do business properly with others will eventually forget his Torah for the sin of profaning G-d’s name, as people will say “Look at this Torah scholar and how disgusting his behavior is!” [Yoma 86a.]

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: If there is no Torah, there is no worldly occupation (derekh erets; literally, the way of the world): Meaning to say [that] one who does not know Torah is not complete in the traits of derekh erets; as most of the good traits that exist in the ways of the world are in the Torah - like "surely lend him" (Deuteronomy 15:8), "Surely award him" (Deuteronomy 15:14), "Just scales, just weights" (Leviticus 19:36), and many, many like these. If so, without Torah, his dispositions in derekh erets will not be complete.

He means to say with this that each of these two - each one of the two of them - helps the existence of the other and completes the other one. However his words about knowledge (daat) and understanding (binah) is a very subtle matter with the philosophers; and I will mention it [and] rely upon the understanding of the one that will investigate it. And that is that the knowledge that reaches us and that we acquire is, indeed, the comprehension of ideas that we comprehend if we separate the form and comprehend it or if we comprehend the separated forms in their [pristine] existence - without our making them knowledge, for they, themselves, are knowledge. And that comprehension is called understanding, and that is [the acquisition] of knowledge. And with knowledge, too, we understand [it] and it becomes possible to comprehend what we comprehend. And it is as if he said that if we do not comprehend an idea, we do not have knowledge; and if we do not have knowledge, we can not comprehend an idea - as we comprehend it with knowledge. And understanding this thing is very difficult - even from the books that are written about it, all the more so here. However, we are only straightening out the straight path to it. Any one whose deeds: We have already explained and elucidated these thing in this chapter in the words of Rabbi Chaninah ben Dosa (Rambam Pirkei Avot 3:9).

And the teacher of the mishnah did not come to speak about precedence or antecedence, that one needs to come before the other. As if you say that, not even one of them will be in existence. As if the one cannot exist except if the other precedes it and each one is required to precede the other, it comes out that it is impossible that the later exist without the earlier, etc. - [hence] it comes out that both of them do not exist, etc. But rather the intention of the teacher is that if he does not study [Torah], even though he gives and takes, he will not be good with the creatures; as he will not know [how] to act properly - as it is found in Bava Kamma 30a, "that one that wants to be a pious man, let him study the words of [the Order of] Damages." And so [too], "if there is no worldly occupation," meaning to say, if he does not give and take well, etc.; in the end his Torah will be forgotten from him because of the sin that he committed - that he profaned the name of Heaven. As they say, "[this man] who learned Torah, ...how rotten are his deeds, etc."

"If there is no Torah, etc.": [then] his give and take is not well with the creatures.

Introduction Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was one of the rabbis at Yavneh, after the destruction of the Temple. When Rabban Gamaliel was deposed as patriarch, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah took his place. In this mishnah there are really two totally separate mishnayoth. I have explained and numbered each individually.

IF THERE IS NO WISDOM, THERE IS NO FEAR [OF HEAVEN or OF SIN]. Rav already explained, in his commentary on mishna 9, the mishna of “anyone whose fear of Heaven does not precede his wisdom etc.,” that one must intend from the outset to study in order to become one who fears sin. Here, we can explain the mishna as follows. “If there is no wisdom,” even if a person wishes to be one who fears sin, his fear of sin cannot be realized because he doesn’t know what is a sin that he should avoid it, as in 2:9, “an unlearned person cannot be one who fears sin.” And “if there is no fear of sin,” i.e. a person does not intend to be one who fears sin, then “there is no wisdom,” i.e. his wisdom does not remain with him as in mishna 9.
In light of our explanation, we can see that this section of the mishna is parallel to the one that precedes it. For in the first part of the first section, the subject of the protasis—Torah—brings about the existence of the subject of the apodosis—derech eretz; in the last part of the first section, the subject of the protasis—derech eretz—ensures the continued existence of the subject of the apodosis—Torah. The same is true of the second section. In the first part, the subject of the protasis—wisdom—brings about the existence of the subject of the apodosis—fear of heaven; in the last part, the subject of the protasis—fear of heaven—ensures the continued existence of the subject of the apodosis—wisdom. Similarly, erudition brings about the existence of understanding, for without erudition there is nothing to understand; understanding ensures the continued existence of erudition, for without understanding, one’s erudition turns to naught. Similarly, flour brings about the existence of Torah, as maintenance of the body certainly must chronologically precede the intellection of the soul; the Torah ensures the continued existence of the flour, for if there is no Torah he will be punished and lack for flour until he starves to death. This explanation and this version of the text seem best.
Some editions have, in the first part of this section, “if there is no fear, etc.,” and we can say that this is because fear of sin has a virtue over and is more important than wisdom, for the purpose of wisdom is to have fear of sin. But then we have difficulty with the fourth section, where the first part says “if there is no flour, etc.” in place of the expected “if there is no Torah, etc.” Maharal resolves this in Derech Chaim by saying that since the tanna has already placed Torah first in the first section he does not wish to do so again, for which reason he also does not put the last section right after the first. Also, since it is last, there is another reason not to start the section with “if there is no Torah.” If the section would start that way, the mishna would finish with Torah, and it is improper to put Torah last.
Going along with this explanation, I say that the section didn’t start “if there is no Torah” because then the last words of the mishna would be “there is no Torah,”¹²²It would read, “if there is no flour, there is no Torah.” and one should not end the mishna this way because of the idea of “do not stop at an evil thing,” as Rav explains at the end of Mo`ed Kattan and at the end of Yadaim.

if there is no worldly occupation, there is no Torah: He wants to say that he first has to perfect himself in [his traits]. And through this, the Torah will rest upon him, as it never rests upon a body that is not in possession of good traits. [And] he should not learn Torah and afterwards take the commandments for himself, as this is impossible. And this is like the matter that is stated (Exodus 24:7), "we will do and we will understand," and like we have written [about it].

"If there is no wisdom, etc.": See above, Mishna 9 in Rabbi Bartenura. And one should say that this is what he is saying, "If there is no wisdom," then even if his thought is to be one that fears sin, his fear will not be [true] fear, as he will not know to continue to be careful. And so [too], "if there is no fear," means [to say] in his thought, [then] there is no wisdom;" meaning to say, his wisdom does not endure. And now all of the sections are the same, in that the first one in the distinction is the cause for the existence of the second. And the first one in the second distinction is the cause for the endurance of the second. Seek them. And see Tosafot Yom Tov, according to the [second] version of the text.

"if there is no worldly occupation, etc.": in the end, his Torah will be forgotten from him.

UNDERSTANDING [Heb. da`at]. Rav: he provides a reason [Heb. ta`am] for a thing. If so, the words ta`am and da`at in the verse “Teach me good ta`am and da`at” (Psalms 119:66) are synonyms.

If there is no wisdom, there is no fear: As there can be no complete fear without wisdom, as it holds it and gives light to lead him on the [proper] path.

And, if so, that which is stated in the verse, "Teach me good reasoning and knowledge," [is a case of] synonyms.

"if there is no knowledge, etc.": Knowledge is the finding of the reason for a thing and understanding is to figure out one thing from [another] thing, but without seeing its reason. And if there is no knowledge to give the reason for a thing, there is no understanding, since if he does not know the reason of a thing, it is as if he doesn't know it. But nevertheless, understanding is first, hence "if there is no understanding, there is no knowledge."

FLOUR. Flour, as opposed to wheat or bread. The mishna does not require that one have wheat, which one stores for a long time. On the other hand, the mishna is not satisfied with bread, which lasts only a day or a week, concerning which the Talmud expounds: “ ‘And your life will hang in doubt’—this refers to one who relies on the shopkeeper” (Menachot 103b). The mishna recommends the middle path of flour. This lasts several days, and can be used to make both bread and other baked goods—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Lev Avot.

if there is no fear, there is no wisdom: As he needs to have fear precede wisdom. As without this, the wisdom will not last in the end - [as] he will be sick of it and leave it. Since if he does not first have perfection of the traits and he does not fear God, 'what good is the cost in the hand of a fool to purchase wisdom, when he has no heart' to fulfill the word of God. As fear needs to [come] before wisdom.

"flour": It did not say, wheat or bread, because it did not want to assure him of wheat, the way of which is to store it for many days; and also not of bread that will not suffice, as it is for a day or a week, about which it is said, "'And your life will be dependent in front' - this is the one who relies on the baker." But rather [it assured something] in between them; that he should have flour for a few days ready to make bread from; and also other cooked foods made from flour - Midrash Shmuel .

"If there is no flour, there is no Torah": How will one who does not have what to eat, inolve himself in Torah [study]?

ANYONE WHOSE LEARNING IS GREATER THAN HIS DEEDS. Rav does not comment here because a very similar teaching appears earlier in mishna 9, and our tanna is simply dressing it in an appropriate parable. Rambam likewise writes in his commentary: “anyone whose learning is greater, etc.”—we have already explained these things in this chapter.

if there is no knowledge, there is no understanding: There are three 'brains' and they are divided to [contain] three things - wisdom, understanding and knowledge. Wisdom is that which he learns from others, understanding is that which he derives one thing from another by comparison and knowledge is that which he grasps on his own. And that which they said, "if there is no knowledge, there is no understanding," is because if he does not have the ability to grasp and know a thing itself on his own, how will he derive something by comparison to something [else]? As knowledge precedes understanding; and without knowledge, it is impossible that he have understanding.

"Anyone, etc.": [Something] similar to this was already taught in Mishnah 9. And this teacher only came to inform us of the matter with this nice metaphor. And so did Rambam write. And therefore Rabbi Bartenura did not explain anything about it

"if there is no Torah, there is no flour": Of what good to him is the flour that is in his hand; since he does not have Torah, it would have been better for him that he did not have flour and that would have died from starvation.

BUT FEW ROOTS. Deeds are like the roots because they are the main thing, as the mishna says earlier in 1:18, “deeds, not study, are the main thing”—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rashbam.

AS THE VERSE SAYS, “HE WILL BE LIKE A LONE TREE, ETC.” The verse before this one says “accursed is the one who trusts in man,” i.e. he does not trust that G-d will provide him his livelihood, instead turning to theft and trusting in the people that aid him. On the other hand, the verse before “and he will be like a tree planted etc.” says “blessed is the man who trusts in G-d”—Rashi.
Midrash Shmuel writes that the imagery of the wind uprooting the tree is also from this verse, which uses the word ar`ar, “a lone tree”, and aravah, “a plain” to emphasize that the absence of other trees and mountains around the plain leaves no obstacle in the way of the wind, which will buffet the tree until it moves it from its place. The other verse reads “and he will be like a tree planted by water, which spreads it roots out along the brook,” meaning that the tree will be well-rooted in the earth and all the winds in the world will not move it.
Rashi quotes a variant text of the mishna in which neither verse is quoted. It is possible that this was the text before Rav and Rambam, who would otherwise have commented and explained the proofs. Maharal, however, writes in Derech Chaim that the mishna is using the verses to prove only that upstanding and wicked people are likened to trees, but is not finding support in the verses for the other details of the parable, which it supplies on its own.

If there is no understanding, there is no knowledge: If he does not have the power to understand things by comparison [to another] thing, it is because he does not have complete knowledge to grasp and understand that thing [from which he seeks to understand,] itself.

If there is no flour, there is no Torah: Because he will need to search for his livelihood and he will not be able to be involved in Torah [study].

"but whose roots": The deed is similar to roots, because they are the essence, as we say above, "And the exposition [of Torah] is not what is essential, but the action" - Rashbam.

"'And he shall be'": Above it, it is written, "cursed is the man, etc." - who does not trust in God to occasion his livelihood, but rather is involved in much theft and trusts in the people who support him.

[*BY WATER. This is my emendation of the text, which should not read “by streams of water” because our tanna is quoting Jeremiah, 17:8. The text was corrupted to read “streams” based on Psalms 1:3, a verse which is much more commonly said by all than the verse in Jeremiah which our tanna brings as proof, where the word “streams” does not appear. The reason the mishna does not quote the verse from Psalms, even though King David preceded Jeremiah, is that it wishes to make the point that “even all the winds in the world… cannot move it from its place”; this is seen more clearly in the verse in Jeremiah, which says that the tree “spreads its roots out along the brook.”]

if there is no Torah, there is no flour: Meaning to say, since he has no Torah, no purpose [comes from] the flour. As a man only gains from his wealth that the needs of his body be found and that he be free to be involved in Torah.

"He shall be like a tree planted by the waters": Above it, it is written, "Blessed is the man, etc." - Rashi. And the wind and the uprooting are explicit also in the verse. As since it is written, "a lonely juniper tree" in the singular, and "wasteland (arava)," which is an expression [denoting a] plain, [it is] to indicate that there are two things to its disadvantage: as since there are no trees around it and it is also in a plain which has no mountains and hills around it; there is nothing to block the wind that comes upon it, and it will strike it until it moves it from its place. And in the verse, "He shall be like a tree planted by the waters," it is [also] elucidated, as it states, "and to the river will it stretch its roots"; as this is certainly to make known that it is well rooted in the ground and all of the winds in the world will not move it - Midrash Shmuel. And this is the reason that he did not bring the verse in Psalms - even though King David was earlier than Yirmiyah - because here it is more elucidated, [having stated,] "and to the river, etc." And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

He would say: Anyone whose wisdom exceeds his deeds, to what is he compared? To a tree whose branches are many but whose roots are few; and the wind comes and uproots it and turns it upside down, etc. But one whose deeds exceed his wisdom, what is he like? Like a tree whose branches are few but whose roots are many; since even if all the winds of the world come and blow upon it, they do not move it from its place: And we have already explained these things in this chapter regarding "Anyone whose fear of sin precedes his wisdom, his wisdom endures, etc." (Rabbeinu Yonah on Pirkei Avot 3:9).

R. ELIEZER CHISMA. This is the correct text, not the one in the printed editions which reads “R. Eliezer son of Chisma”. For he himself was called Chisma, as in the passage in Vayikra Rabbah 23:5 which says that he did not know how to do prisa al shema,¹²³This refers to a public recitation of some part of the daily prayers—possibly the first bracha of birchot kriat shema, possibly also kaddish and barchu. For the range of opinions, see the medieval commentaries on Megillah 23b. and the people dishonored him and said “this is what you call a Rabbi?” He came before R. Akiva and learnt how to do it, at which point the people said “R. Eliezer has grown strong! [Heb. it-chasam]” and called him R. Eliezer Chisma. [*The mishna in Terumot 5:3 also has R. Eliezer Chisma.]

Rabbi Eliezer ben Chisma says: [the laws of] Kinin (bird offerings): The offering of doves by women who give birth.

[That which is cited by Rabbi Bartenura] are the words of Beit Shammai. And according to Beit Hillel, there are only thirty-five [immersions required]. And according to the [actual] law, there is only one immersion required at all. And Rabbi Bartenura is only coming to emphasize the matter here [and not to tell us the law].

"Kinin:" Bird offerings are called Kinin, which is a term related to kan tsippor (bird's nest). And it has strict laws, for example, if obligatory and voluntary offerings get mixed; or an olah which is performed higher [on the altar] and a chatat, which is performed lower.

Introduction Rabbi Eliezer Hisma was a student of Rabban Gamaliel and of Rabbi Joshua. Legend has it that he was a great mathematician.

THE LAWS OF BIRD-OFFERINGS AND THE BEGINNINGS OF MENSTRUAL PERIODS. The laws of bird-offerings are treated in a separate tractate, and the beginnings of menstrual periods are the subject of the mishna in the beginning of the second chapter of Arachin.
[*Rav writes that in some cases the woman requires 95 immersions. This is the opinion of Beit Shammai in a baraita quoted in Niddah 29b, but the opinion of Beit Hillel is that she needs only 35. There might be a scribal error in Rav’s commentary, which should read “35” instead of “95”. But it is possible that Rav simply intends to point out how complicated this can get, for which reason he quotes the opinion of Beit Shammai; rather than issuing a halachic ruling he is merely emphasizing the potential difficulty, even though the halacha does not follow that opinion. The conclusion of Tosafot there (30a, s.v. sh’ma minah), moreover, is that the halacha follows R. Yossi ben Yehuda who says that one immersion at the end suffices. If so, the halacha does not even follow the opinion of Beit Hillel. It is all the more reasonable, then, to suggest that Rav meant only to emphasize the difficulty, for even had he quoted the opinion of Beit Hillel it would not have been the final halacha.]

and the beginnings of Niddah (menstruation): They are three [anatomical] places - the 'house,' the 'attic' and the 'entrance hall'; and also the many sightings of blood that exist with menstruant bloods - these are the body of the laws. And it is like they said (Bava Metzia 84b), "They brought sixty sightings of blood in front of him, and he determined all of them to be pure (non-menstrual) blood."

"these are, etc.": He is not coming to exclude other laws in the Torah, as behold he only excludes "astronomical calculations, etc." But rather he mentioned these because they are similar to astronomical calculations, etc., since they are [also] calculations. And even though these are calculations that come about because of a doubt that arose in them, as opposed to astronomical calculations, etc., [in which] there is no doubt about their calculations, nevertheless, they are preferable - Derekh Chaim. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"and the beginnings of Niddah (menstruation)": The laws of a menstruant who has lost her cycle and needs to guard [for the possibility of bleeding] until she goes back to the beginning [of a new cycle]. And sometimes, she is required to immerse ninety-five [times], according to the [opinion] that holds immersion at its proper time is a commandment.

Rabbi Eliezer Hisma said: the laws of mixed bird offerings and the key to the calculations of menstruation days these, these are the body of the halakhah. The calculation of the equinoxes and gematria are the desserts of wisdom. Rabbi Eliezer Hisma states that there are two different types of laws that are “the body of the halakhah”. This means that they are essential halakhot, paradigmatic of the Oral Torah. The “laws of mixed bird offerings” refers to cases where one type of bird offering accidentally became mixed up with a different type. For instance an obligatory offering became mixed up (perhaps in a net or in a dovecote) with a voluntary offering; or a sin offering became mixed up with a whole burnt offering. There is a whole tractate entitled Kinnim that deals with these situations. The second type of halakhah are the calculations of menstruation days. This refers to calculating how many days there are between a woman’s cycle. It is important to figure this out so that women can distinguish between menstrual bleeding and other types of bleeding. Much of tractate Niddah is devoted to this subject. There are two types of laws that are only “desserts of wisdom”. That is they help learning, but they are not essential. One is astronomy, that is the calculation of the seasons. The other is gematria, which refers to the adding up of numbers (obviously this is from the same word as geometry). According to the Meiri, Rabbi Eliezer Hisma wants to guide a person in his course of study. The first thing a person should learn is Torah. The two areas of Torah learning that he mentions are representative of some of the most difficult subjects in the learning of Torah. A person should first learn Torah so well, that he is able to master even tractates Kinnim and Niddah. Afterwards, when he has completely mastered even in these subjects, a person should turn his attention to science and mathematics, represented here by astronomy and geometry.

THEY ARE THE MAIN OF THE LAW. The mishna does not mean to exclude other areas of law, only astronomy and geometry. It picks these areas to contrast them to astronomy and geometry, which also involve calculations [cf. below]—Maharal in Derech Chaim. He also writes that the mishna chooses these areas of law to make an additional point: even though these laws involve calculations that arise from cases of uncertainty, whereas astronomy and geometry involve no uncertainty, the laws are still more valuable.
Kesef Mishne writes on Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 4:13 that although bird-offerings seem to be a thing of little value and the beginnings of menstrual periods revolve around an unseemly subject, they are the main of the law on account of the great reward one receives for their study. Astronomy and geometry, while their subject is an elevated one [see the explanation of gimatriyot below], are not the most important things but are like side dishes for wisdom. I will reproduce the end of his comment below.

Astronomical calculations and Gematria [numerical calculations]: As they contain many calculations, and the wisdom of mathematics sharpens a man.

"these (literally, these, these)": It means to say, these and these, and as it is explained in the gemara at the end of the first chapter of Chagigah, about "these, these are the body of the Torah." (See there in [the commentary] of Rabbi Bartenura.) And since Rabbi Eliezer Chisma was after the destruction, etc., and the laws of Kinin are only applicable, etc.; therefore he needed to make us understand that even they are the body of the law - even at the time when the Temple does not exist, since their study is in place of the [Temple] service. And that which it did not learn, "body of the Torah," here [is because] here he is speaking about doubts, and there is nothing about that in the written Torah, but rather in the oral halakha.

"these are the body of the laws (halakhot)": The essence of the Oral Law, for which one receives reward.

THEY ARE THE MAIN OF THE LAW [Heb. hen hen gufei halachot]. The mishna at the end of the first chapter of Chagigah uses similar language: hen hen gufei torah, which the Talmud (Chagigah 11b) explains as “these [hen] and these [vehen] are gufei torah”, as Rav writes on the mishna there; the meaning in our mishna is the same. R. Eliezer Chisma was a student of R. Akiva and lived after the destruction of the Temple, as Rambam writes in the fourth of the ten chapters in his Introduction to the Mishna, and the laws of bird-offerings have no practical application when the Temple is not standing. He therefore found it necessary to let us know that these are the main of the law even wen the Temple is not standing, because the study of these laws is a substitute for the sacrificial service, as I write on the mishna in 1:2.

And on account of their circling the world in a circle (hekef), their movement is called tekufah, etc. And his words are only about the knowledge of the movements, and not what follows from them, which is the sanctification of the month, and the intercalation of the years; as concerning that matter, certainly these and these are the body of the laws, etc.

"Astronomical calculations": The matter of the movement of constellations.

THE MAIN OF THE LAW. The reason that the mishna does not say “the main of the Torah” as it does at the end of the first chapter of Chagigah is that these laws deal with cases of doubt, and there is no mention of such things in the written Torah, only in the oral law that the Sages taught.

As in, "go down (redu) to there," which Yaakov said, is a hint to the 214 (the numerical equivalent of the letters in the word, redu) years that Israel stayed in Egypt. And so [too], "With this (Be-zot) Aharon should come," is a hint to the first Temple, which would stand for 410 (the numerical equivalent of the letters in the word, be-zot) years. And so [too] in Arukh: in the place of [the number,] one, we write [the letter], alef, and in the place of [the number,] one hundred, we write [the letter], kof. And in Derekh Chaim, he explained [that is is] the wisdom of measures and mathematics. And it is easy to accept this explanation, since Rabbi Eliezer Chisma knew how to approximate how many drops of water there are in the seas (as is found in Horayot 10a), etc. And therefore it was fit that he should say this, as is exemplified by their statement, may their memory be blessed, in the [Midrash] Rabbah at the beginning of Ecclesiastes.

"and Gematria [numerical calculations]": The calculation of the [numerical value of the] letters.

ASTRONOMY [Heb. tekufot]. Rav: the movement of the constellations. So also Rashi. Because they travel around [Heb. makifim] the world in a circular motion [Heb. hekef] their movement is called tekufah.
A variant text of Rashi’s commentary has: the dimension of the sun’s orbit and when it switches quarters. This is what the word tekufah means in the language of those who calculate the `evron,<sup>124</sup>Lit. “passing”. See notes below. which is the point at which the sun passes from one quarter of its sphere to another,<sup>125</sup>In classical and medieval astronomy, the earth occupies the center of the universe. Surrounding it are several celestial spheres, containing different planets and stars, which revolve around the earth from east to west. The sun, by contrast, has its own celestial sphere which moves from west to east. In addition, while the other celestial spheres complete their orbits around the earth daily, the sun moves incrementally and only completes its orbit every 365 days. The position of the sun in its sphere is divided into four quarters, their starting points corresponding to the solstices and equinoxes, which rabbinic literature calls tekufot. The act of intercalation is called `ibur, a word of unclear etymology. Numerous medieval commentators unterstand it as deriving from the word me`uberet, “pregnant” in the Mishna and Talmud. R. Avraham bar Chiyya, the 11th-century philosopher, astronomer, and mathematician, offers an additional etymology based on `avar, the Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew “passed”, explaining that the Sages take a month that has already passed and make it pass by again (Sefer Ha`ibur, ed. Filipowski, Ma’amar Sheni, Sha`ar Shelishi). Tosafot Yom Tov here offers a different etymology, making the verb le`aber a denominative deriving from the noun `evron, “a passing”, referring to the point at which the sun passes from one quarter of the sphere into the next. Tosafot Yom Tov seems to be conjecturing that the term was current in the Mishnaic and Talmudic periods, as it does not actually appear in Talmudic or subsequent astronomical literature. I have not made an exhaustive survey, but it appears that this etymology is original to Tosafot Yom Tov. as Rav writes on the mishna in Sahnedrin 1:2 (s.v. bishlosha), that the court must intercalate [Heb. me`abrin] on account of the tekufah.<sup>126</sup>This connects `ibur to the tekufah. Although leap years are now added based on a fixed formula and there is no longer a need for this, in the times of R. Eliezer Chisma they were still calculating the tekufot and detemining when to make a leap year based on their calculations, for this is what they did up until the days of Abaye and Rava, as Rambam writes in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 5:3.
If we accept this explanation of the word tekufot, we must say that R. Eliezer Chisma’s dictum aplies only to the knowledge of the sun’s motion itself and not the legal ramifications thereof in the sanctification of the month and the making of a leap year; these are certainly both the main of the law. R. Eliezer Chisma was addressing himself only to those people that study these things simply to know them and be well-rounded scholars; to them R. Eliezer Chisma says these are merely side dishes.

AND GIMATRIOT. Rav: alphanumeric calculations. Such as the midrash that the word Jacob said to his sons when he told them “go down (Heb. r’du, רדו) there” (Geneis 42:2) is a hint to the 210 years that Israel would spend in Egypt (Bereshit Rabbah 91:2). Or that the verse “with this (Heb. bezot, בזאת) shall Aharon enter the Sanctuary” (Leviticus 15:3) hints to the fact that the first Temple would stand 410 years. Rashi similarly explains gimatriot as alphanumeric calculations and the reading of a single word as an acronym. Aruch likewise writes: gimatriot—writing א instead of 1, writing ק instead of 100.
It seems to me that this is a loan-word from Greek, by which the Greeks call the science of measurement and arithmetic. Our Sages borrowed the word for all matters of calculation and number. So also the anonymous commentary on Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 18:13. I also saw that Maharal in Derech Chaim explains the word in our mishna as referring to the science of measurement and arithmetic.
If so, these are truly words that befit the one who said them: in the Talmud, Horayot 10a, R. Yehoshua testifies that R. Eliezer Chisma was able to estimate how many drops of water there are in the sea. This is through the discipline of engineering, for which measurement and arithmetic are prerequisites. It is because he had mastered all of these disciplines that it was proper for him to say this, as it would be improper for some other person who had not mastered these disciplines to speak this way, as the Sages say in Kohellet Rabbah 3:11. Therefore, this explanation of gimatriot as referring to measurement and arithmetic seems most likely. Cf. what I quote below from Maggid Mishne.
Now this discipline must chronologically precede astronomy, for without it a person dare not raise a finger in discussing the paths of the constellations and the hosts of the heavens. Even so, because of the importance of astronomy and its subject, the mishna places it before the chronologically earlier gimatriot.

And it appears to me that it can be explained that condiments are things that come before the meal to give appetite. And that is [because] one who is in an expert in the tekufot (astronomical calculations) - which means to say the ordering itself, which is the movements of the constellations, etc. - and Gematria - which is the wisdom of [sizing] (so explained Maggid [Mishneh]) - which precedes it;" these are the condiments that [will] give [him] appetite to the wisdom of Divinity. As from the knowledge of the spheres of the heavens, he will know and recognize the Creator, may He be blessed, as He is the Rider of [the] heavens; since from the ridden he will know the Rider. And so [too] according to the explanation of Rashi and Rabbi Bartenura that Gematria are the calculations of the letters, [it is that they are] "condiments to the wisdom," of Divinity that is in Sefer Yetzirah and those similar to it, that greatly use calculations of the letters and acronyms and [other letter] combinations. And it is possible to say that the teacher intended both of them, which are: to the wisdom that is attained by analysis and research - and that is through astrological calculations; and to the wisdom of Divinity, which is passed on to us (Kabbalah). And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"condiments to wisdom": Just like the condiments, that [people] are accustomed to eat at the end of the meal for dessert in the manner of a treat, honor their owners in the eyes of the creatures; so [too] do these wisdoms.

PARPRA’OT FOR WISDOM [Heb. parpra’ot lechochma]. Rav: like the parpra'ot people eat at the end of a meal for pleasure for dessert, these disciplines give a person honor in peoples’ eyes. If so, the Hebrew lechochma, which usually means “for wisdom”, means “of wisdom”¹²⁷Honor comes from knowledge of these disciplines, and is therefore “of wisdom”. The simple reading would have the word lechochma mean “for wisdom”, implying that knowledge of these peripheral disciplines is somehow beneficial to the main body of wisdom which is Torah. in our mishna. Rashi: because they are only parpra'ot, i.e. matters of wisdom.
The end of the Kesef Mishne I quoted above reads: “for wisdom” means the wisdom of the Talmud which alone is worthy of being called “wisdom” without qualifiers, because it deals with G-d’s commandments and because of the great reward given to those who study it and keep its laws. These disciplines, therefore, are merely parpra'ot for it, for they are not the main thing the way it is. My difficulty with this is that the first section of the mishna should then have said “these are the main of wisdom”.¹²⁸If the “wisdom” referred to at the end of the mishna is the wisdom of the Talmud, the mishna’s contrast should have been between the main of “wisdom” and the side dishes thereof; there would be no reason to call it first law and then wisdom.
I found the Maggid Mishne on Hilchot G’nevah 8:1 giving the following explanation. Tekufot is arithmetic [Heb. cheshbon] per the the Talmud’s language “to be choshev the tekufot” (Shabbat 75a), gimatri’ot is the art of measurement, and “parpra'ot for wisdom” means for the discipline of astronomy, which is called chochma and binah in that same passage in Shabbat. This explanation also encounters difficulties, because tekufot certainly means the path of the stars and their orbit, not arithmetic. His proof from “to be choshev the tekufot” actually proves the exact opposite, that tekufah is not cheshbon!¹²⁹For if it were, the verb and its object would be redundant, along the lines of “calculating calculations”. Also, how could the mishna call these parpra'ot when in fact they come before the meal? He must’ve understood parpra'ot to mean foods that come before the meal to create an appetite, as Rav explains the word in Berachot 6:5.
Now that we’ve mentioned that possibility, I say that tekufot refers to astronomy itself—the paths of the constellations and the whole host of the heavens. It, along with the geometry which precedes it, are appetizers that draw a person to that wisdom beyond which no greater wisdom lies for man: theology. For from a knowledge of the spheres of the heavens he will come to know the Creator, who is the one who “rides the heavens” (Deuteronomy 33:26)—from knowing what is ridden one comes to know the rider. Even according to the explanations of Rashi and Rav that gimatriot refers to alphanumerical calculations, we can say that “for wisdom” means “for theology,” because Sefer Yetzirah and similar works make extensive use of alphanumeric values, words read as acronyms, and permutations of the letters of a word. Based on this, we can also say that the tanna perhaps intended both things at the same time: tekufot are appetizers for human wisdom that can be attained through reasoning and investigation, and gimatriot are appetizers for our received theology.