פירוש על אבות 4:26

WHO IS WISE. Rav explains the question as “which wise person can take pride in his wisdom?” At first, this might seem like a contradictoin to what Jeremiah said: “Let not the wise man take pride in his wisdom, nor the strong man take pride in his strength, nor the rich man take pride in his riches—only in [Heb. ki im] this should one take pride: understanding and knowing Me” (Jeremiah 9:22). It is not, however, because our tanna understands the verse as follows. When Jeremiah says “only in this” he is speaking of the abovementioned things themselves. What he means to say is that the wise man should not take pride in his wisdom, unless [Heb. ki im]¹³⁰The Hebrew can mean “only in” or “only if”, the latter rendered here as “unless”. it be to understand and know Me; the strong man should not take pride in his strength, unless it be to understand and know Me; the rich man should not take pride in his riches, unless they be to understand and know Me. Our tanna therefore asks “which is the wise person” and so on as a question in response to the verse—since the verse says that there are wise, strong, and rich people that can take pride in their accomplishments but does not specify who they are, we must now ask to whom the verse refers.
The tanna has investigated the matter and found that the wise person in question is the one who learns from every man. Rav explains that this shows that his intent in acquiring wisdom is purely for the sake of Heaven, which would be precisely in order to “understand and know Me.” The strong man is he who subdues his desires. This is strength for the sake of Heaven, i.e. in order that one not sin before G-d, and there can be no greater “understanding and knowing Me,” as the purpose of this “knowing” is to fear G-d and keep his commandments. And the rich man who is satisfied with his lot and does not chase after wealth uses his time to engage in the service of Heaven, which is also “understanding and knowing Me.” The mishna therefore says of him “you are praiseworthy in this world, and it will go well for you in the next.” And the Talmud says in Berachot 8a that “whoever eats the fruits of his labor is greater than one who fears Heaven” for the same reason: one who has fear of Heaven but is not content with what he has and chases after wealth will not have time for the service of G-d.

Ben Zoma said, "Who is the wise one? He who learns from all men: The sages of the nations of the world have said one who knows all of the wisdoms [yet] does not love wisdom is not a wise man but a fool. As he does not love knowledge, which is intelligence. However, one who loves and desires it - even though he does not know anything - behold, this one is called a wise man. In any event, he will reach true wisdom and find knowledge of God. And about this Ben Zoma said, "Who is the wise one? He who learns from all men" - as so much does he love wisdom that he asks [it] from every person. And even from the one who only knows (another) [one] thing does he learn; and then his path becomes successful and he will become enlightened. And because of this he is called a wise one, as it says, "I have acquired understanding from all my teachers" (Psalms 119:99). As so did David, peace be upon him, say - that he learned from every person; and he did not say, "This one is not as knowledgeable as I." Rather he learned from them all and became enlightened. There is a metaphor [relevant to this] about a man that lost a small vessel - would he not seek it from every man?

This is clear and we have already elucidated its matter in the previous chapters.

And one can object from that which Yirmiyahu said (Jeremiah 9:22-23), "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, nor let the rich man glory in his riches; But rather let him that glory, glory in this; that he understands and knows Me." And it appears to me that it is not difficult, since our teacher [of this mishnah] reasons that that which is written, "But rather... that he understands and knows Me," is itself included in the wisdom, the might and the wealth that [the prophet] mentioned. And so did [Yirmiyahu] say, "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, etc.; but rather" in the wisdom that "understands and knows Me." And so [too] with the matter of might and of riches. And therefore the teacher [of this mishnah] asked, "who is the wise one," etc., to which the prophet referred.

Ben Zoma: Since he did not have length of days and was not ordained to be called, 'Rabbi,' they would call him according to his father's name. And so [too] Ben Azzai. And both of their names were Shimon.

Introduction Ben Zoma’s full name was Shimon ben Zoma, and he is never called by the title Rabbi, although he was clearly quite learned. He is famous for being one of the four rabbis who entered into the “Pardes”, the mythical orchard, which may refer to some type of esoteric theological speculation. The experience was too much for him and he went crazy (one died, another became an apostate and one, Rabbi Akiva, became one of the great sages of Jewish history). In this mishnah Ben Zoma teaches the definitions of wise, mighty, rich and honored. In my humble opinion the advice that he gives is amongst the best and most useful advice ever given.

AS THE VERSE SAYS, “I HAVE GROWN WISE FROM ALL MY TEACHERS”. Rav: and the end of the verse says, “for your laws are all my speech.” Which shows that the beginning of the verse means “I learned Torah from all of my teachers.”¹³¹That being the meaning of “growing wise”. The second half of the verse provides a reason for the first. If the reason is “for your laws are all my speech”, i.e. they are what I speak of all the time, the first half of the verse must mean “I have grown wise from all my teachers,” i.e. I have eagerly absorbed their instruction because all my desire was to know your laws. This is contra the following interpretation mentioned and dismissed by Maharal. And we should not read the first half of the verse as “I have grown wiser than all of my teachers,”¹³²The Hebrew supports both readings, because the prefixed mi- in mi-kol melamdai hiskalti can mean either “from” or “more than”. for it is not unexpected that after one learns from a teacher he becomes sharp and understanding in the subject, and it is no surprise if he gets to understand more than what his teachers taught him¹³³Precisely this rejected interpretation is offered by Ibn Ezra ad loc.—Maharal in Derech Chaim.
Rav: “for your laws are all my speech”, my intent is entirely for the sake of Heaven. I.e., since all my speech is of Torah, it is clear that my intent is entirely for the sake of Heaven.¹³⁴The reasoning is: I have learned Torah from all my teachers because my study was for the sake of Heaven, and it is evident that my study was for the sake of Heaven because it was the subject of all my speech. The middle premise, that my study was for the sake of Heaven, is implied by the two extremal premises. Rav assumes it and Tosafot Yom Tov clarifies the syllogism, which, written in syllogistic form, would go: 1. If Torah is all my speech, my study is for the sake of Heaven. 2. If my study is for the sake of Heaven, I learn from all my teachers. Therefore, since Torah is all my speech, I learn from all my teachers.

Who is the mighty one? He who conquers his impulse: Just as the power of the body is its virtue and its distinction, so too is the power of the soul is its virtue. And regarding the power of the body in man, it is also in animals - as they all have the power to lift weights and some more than others - [such that] Ben Zoma did not speak about it, as it is not called might. Rather [he spoke] about the might of the heart - which has two powers, to be mighty in war and that his heart never be afraid; and also the power to subdue the impulse. And this is dissimilar for man and beast, as animals do not have might of the heart. And about this, Ben Zoma said that the braver and stronger power of the heart is that which overcomes the impulse. As might in war is not such a great thing and 'like you, like them, in the description of men' - if they have power, this one also has strength, if 'they prepared their hands for battle, their fingers for war.' But to overcome the impulse - the enemy of a person in his face - and to destroy him, that is an elevated and strong might.

And this is exactly [one that] "understands and knows Me. "And the mighty man [intended] is the one "who conquers, etc." and that is might that is for the sake of Heaven, such that he not sin in front of Him. [And] there is no greater [example] of "understands and knows Me;" as the goal of this knowledge is to [be in] fear in front of Him and keep His commandments. And the rich man [intended] is "He who is happy with his lot" and is not confused by his wealth and so turns all of his days to the service of Heaven, and this is also "understands, etc." And therefore it is stated, "'You will be happy,' etc." And they said in the gemara, "He who benefits from the work of his hands is greater than the fear of Heaven, etc." As one who does not suffice and is confused by his wealth will not be free to do the service of God, may He be blessed.

"Who is the wise one": This is what it is saying: Who is wise, who is fitting to be lauded by his wisdom?

Ben Zoma said:
Who is wise? He who learns from every man, as it is said: “From all who taught me have I gained understanding” (Psalms 119:99). A person who is ready to learn from anyone will not reject the things he learns from other people just because they do not have high social or economic standing. For instance, a good teacher will not reject a suggested explanation from a student just because the student is younger and less experienced. A truly wise person is always looking for ways to expand his knowledge. This is true even of one who does not know a lot. If he is always looking for ways to learn, then he is truly wise.

ONE WHO SUBDUES HIS INCLINATION. The inclination to evil [Heb. yetzer hara] is called “inclination” [Heb. yetzer] without qualification, as it precedes the desire for good, at which point it rules over the body alone—Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yosef Karo. He also writes that this inclination is more particular to a person and a more basic part of his essence than the inclination to good, as the nature of man is to incline to evil. Cf. what I wrote on 3:9 on “anyone whose fear of sin etc.”

as it says, "slowness to anger is better than a mighty person and the ruler of his spirit than the conqueror of a city." (Proverbs 16:32): Slowness to anger [describes] the one who holds his anger and his will is not to take revenge immediately, but to wait for the time and place of his vengeance. As the angry one that takes revenge immediately, confounds his actions and acts without intelligence. And about this, Shlomo, peace be upon him, stated, "slowness to anger is better than a mighty person." The one who holds his anger - even though he does not forgive during his anger - since he leaves the matter of revenge until later, [shows] more might of the heart than the mighty one in war; as also without intelligence can he be mighty in fighting. But "the ruler of his spirit" - which is more than one who is slow of anger, since he forgives during his anger, as he fears the word of God - is mightier "than the conqueror of a city." [This is] even though [the latter] has two things - might of the heart and wisdom, as it is stated (Proverbs 21:22), "A wise man climbed to a city of warriors, and brought down its mighty stronghold." As it is with might of the heart, wisdom and correct counsel that they conquer cities. And about this it is stated (II Kings 18:20), "counsel and might for war." And the ruler of his spirit is greater and more significant than all of this and he comes out overcoming his impulse from all bad things.

[Since the prefix represented by the Hebrew letter mem which has been understood here as 'from' can also be understood as 'than,' it should be understood] that it should not be explained that it means to say, that he became more learned than his teachers, as this is not a novelty. Since after a person has learned from his teacher, he becomes wise and learned in his studies and it is not a novelty that he become more learned than what his teachers taught him - Derekh Chaim

"He who learns from all men": And even though [that person that he learns from] is lesser than he. As since he is not concerned about his honor and learns from the lesser ones, [it shows] that his wisdom is for the sake of Heaven and not to boast and revel in.

Who is mighty? He who subdues his [evil] inclination, as it is said: “He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that rules his spirit than he that takes a city” (Proverbs 16:32. This one statement may sum up 2000 years of Jewish experience. The Jewish ideal of strength and might is not the same as the Greek ideal, which is that of the mighty warrior and champion athlete. A person of great physical strength who performs amazing deeds is not necessarily mighty. The most difficult thing to conquer is not others or even great armies, but our own inclination to do wrong things. One who has control over this inclination is truly mighty. This is why for thousands of years Jews did not look to soldiers as their heroes, but to rabbis and other thinkers. Strength in Judaism is one of character and not one of might. After all the strongest person in the world is no stronger than a weak gorilla or bear. It is only through our ability to curb our appetites and control our instincts that human beings can differ themselves from animals.

AS THE VERSE SAYS, “BEING SLOW TO ANGER IS BETTER THAN BEING STRONG.” Rav: the meaning of the verse is that it is better to be slow to anger as a function of the strength involved in subduing one's inclination, not because of a lack of appetite. For if the verse means simply that being slow to anger is better than being strong, we would wonder why that is, as being slow to anger because of lack of appetite is not better.¹³⁵It is just not comparable—one is an act of strength, and the other a lack of a quality.

Who is the rich one? He who is happy with his lot: [This is] the one who says, "I have enough with my lot: since I am able to support myself and my household and to engage in Torah [study], what is there [for] me with [any] other money - it is only for me to have what I need and to uphold the word of God." As one who is not happy with his lot and is not satisfied with what God, may He be blessed, gave him is a poor person; as it is explained in the verse (Proverbs 15:15), "All the days of a poor man are bad, but one with a good heart has a constant feast." He wanted to say [in this verse] that all the days of a 'poor man' that desires money are bad - 'a lover of money never has his fill of money': but all the days of the one with a good heart, who is happy with his lot, are good (as the one) [like] one who makes a constant feast. Hence it is an extremely good trait to be happy with his lot. And he is called rich, since God, may He be blessed, gave him with what to support himself and engage in Torah and in the commandments. As 'what is the advantage to man in all of his toil,' except to fulfill the Torah and the commandments.

Since all of my conversation is about Torah.

"as it says, 'I have acquired understanding from all my teachers'": And the end of the verse is, "since your testimonies are my conversation" - which means to say, "I would learn Torah from all my teachers, and even from those that are lesser than I, and I would not be concerned about my honor; as all of my intentions were for Heaven alone." And so [too], "who is the mighty one," [means] who is fitting to be lauded by his might? "He who conquers his impulse."

Who is rich? He who rejoices in his lot, as it is said: “You shall enjoy the fruit of your labors, you shall be happy and you shall prosper” (Psalms 128:2) “You shall be happy” in this world, “and you shall prosper” in the world to come. This saying can be observed every day in newspapers and magazines. The rich and famous are not called the rich and happy for good reasons. Wealth is not measured by how much money one has in the bank account, but by how satisfied one is with what one has. This is not to say that people should not work hard in order to earn more money, or that people should renounce their material wealth and live lives of poverty. Such is not a typically Jewish ideal. However, along with working hard, a person who wants to be happy must be satisfied with what he has. In the middle of this section is a brief interpolated midrash on the verse from Psalms. The verse seems superfluous for it would have been enough to state either that “you will be happy” or “and you shall prosper”. The repetition teaches, according to the mishnah, that the verse refers to happiness and prosperity in both this world and the next.

YOU ARE PRAISEWORTHY IN THIS WORLD. Rashi: for he will not need to take from others. And in the next world because he enjoys the fruits of his labor and does not end up stealing, and will inherit both worlds.

as it says, "When you eat [from] the work of your hands, you will be happy, and it will be well with you" (Psalms 128:2). "You will be happy" in this world, and "it will be well with you" in the world to come: This verse is not a proof about the matter that one who is happy with his lot is called rich. Rather, [it shows] that a person is happy [also] with this good trait: when he does not desire to gather money and he hates gifts. [Instead,] he eats from the work of his hands and suffices with it, like the one who is happy with his lot - as his want is only to support himself. And Ben Zoma arranged these three traits like the order of Yirmiyahu the prophet, peace be upon him: wisdom, might and wealth, as it is stated (Jeremiah 9:22), "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom; let not the mighty man glory in his might; let not the rich man glory in his wealth." He had wisdom precede might because it is a true virtue and it is in the intellect of the soul and sits in the body, not like might which is only in the body. Still, [might] is more elevated than wealth, since might is in his body - something that exists all the days that he is still alive - whereas wealth is outside of his body. And it is something transient, as he can make his wealth, and others take it [after only] half of his days. And even though the prophet stated that a man should not glory in these three traits, Ben Zoma made a distinction and said that there is a side of these traits that is without [physical] exertion and toil and that he can glory in: With wisdom, it is to be one learning (in every) [from every] man. As such, he will understand fear of God; and there is no exertion in it, as it is wisdom and not work. With might, it is to overcome his impulse and to forgive during his anger. In this too he can glory, since he is doing it from his fear [of God]. And this is what Shlomo, peace be upon him, stated (Proverbs 19:11), "It is the intellect of a man that is slow to anger; it is his glory when he overlooks an offense." And since the desire of the one who is happy with his lot is only to learn and to keep the commandments, and when he has enough for his livelihood and support he is happy and recognizes that the rest is vanity, he is the 'rich' man who can glory in his wealth. As [in] all of these things, there is knowledge of the Creator, may He be blessed. [It is] as it is stated (Jeremiah 9:23), "But only in this should the one who glories glory, in his using his intellect and knowing Me; that I the Lord act with kindness, justice, and equity in the world; for in these I delight, declares the Lord." And Ben Zoma added a fourth trait and said:

"His impulse": The evil impulse is called 'the impulse' without differentiation on account of its coming first and governing the body by itself [before being joined by the positive impulse] - Midrash Shmuel. And he also explained that it is his impulse that is particular to him and has become powerful in him more than the positive impulse has become powerful and particular in him; as the nature of man leans more to the evil impulse.

"as it says, 'slowness to anger is better than a mighty person' (but it can also be read as, 'good is slowness to anger from might')": Thus is the explanation of the verse: Good is slowness to anger that comes from the angle of the might [involved in] conquering the impulse, and not from the angle of [having] a soft nature." And so [too, the rest of the verse, "and one who governs his passion than the conqueror of a city" which can also be read as, "and one who governs his passion from the conqueror of a city," is to be understood as "good] is the conquering of the spirit when it comes from the conqueror of a city; [meaning] from a king, when after he conquers a city and the people rebelling against him come to his hand, he governs his passions and does not kill them."

Who is he that is honored? He who honors his fellow human beings as it is said: “For I honor those that honor Me, but those who spurn Me shall be dishonored” (I Samuel 2:30). One who honors others is really bringing honor to himself. Note that the prooftext from I Samuel is said by God, and not by a human being. However, one could argue that all the more so this is true with regard to humans. If God honors those who honor Him, even though we were only created to honor Him, all the more so will humans honor those who honor them.

Who is honored? He who honors the created beings: One who honors his fellow, honors himself - not his fellow. [As] what benefit is there to a man if they [give] him honor? If he is honored, the honor that they gave to him does not add to his status and his honor. And if he is lowly, for [others] to honor him will not make him honored again. And all honor for the lowly is a loss for those that honor him, as his status is not increased. [It is] like Shlomo, peace be upon him, stated (Proverbs 26:8), "Like binding a stone in a sling, so is paying honor to a fool." As one who binds a stone in a sling is doing nonsense; and there is no honor given to the rock - as it was not elevated by this. And so [too] is it nonsense to give honor to a fool. It comes out that you will say that [with] all the honor that a person does to the created beings, he is honoring himself. [This is] because he causes them perforce to honor him and [it will be considered] a debt, which is true honor. And about this is it said, "Who is honored? He who honors the created beings."

Since if it were not like [the explanation of Rabbi Bartenura], but rather that the explanation of the verse was that slowness of anger is better than a mighty person, it would be difficult - why [should it be considered better]; as if he is slow of anger from the angle of [having] a soft nature, it is not good.

"Who is the rich one": who is fitting to be lauded by his riches? "He who is happy with his lot."

as it says, "For those who honor Me, I will honor; and those who despise Me will be held in little esteem" (I Samuel 2:30): And the proof of this verse is from an a fortiori argument (kal vechomer): If [with] the Holy One, blessed be He, that all of His creatures were only created for His glory, as it is stated (Isaiah 43:7), "that I have created for My honor" - and it would not be justified to owe them good for this, since they were not created for anything else and this is their work, and they have no right to do anything else - nonetheless, it stated, "For those who honor Me, I will honor"; all the more so and all the more so [with regard] to his fellows who a person is not (concerned) [obligated] to honor, [that] if he honors him, he will honor him [back], and raise him on his palms. And also with this trait there is no toil, and it is fitting and accepted.

"in this world": as you will not be in need from [other] creatures; and "in the world to come," as since he benefits from his [own] effort, he does not come to theft, and he inherits both worlds - Rashi.

"Who is honored": Because [of the fact] that one who merits to have these three things that are mentioned above - which are wisdom, might and riches - is automatically honored in the eyes of God and man, even if the [people] do not [fully] honor him on their account; hence the teacher appended [the following] to this and said, "Someone who has these traits and is honored automatically, what can he do to be [properly] honored by others? He should honor others."

"'For, those who honor Me, I will honor'": And the matter is an a fortiori argument (kal ve'chomer): Just like the Holy One, blessed be He - who is the King of honor and everything that He created in His world, He created for His honor - honors those who honor Him; all the more so should flesh and blood [do so].

"'and those who despise Me will be held in little esteem'": We learn [from here] the humility of the Holy One, blessed be He: He did not say, "and those who despise Me I will curse," but rather "will be held in little esteem" - automatically. And with the honor of the righteous ones He was more exacting, as it says (Genesis 12), "and those that curse you, I will malign."

AS TO A WEIGHTY ONE [Heb. kevachamura]. Other versions do not have this word, and the ones that do mistakenly inserted it due to the similarity of our mishna to the mishna in 2:1: “be as careful with a light commandment as with a weighty one [Heb. Kevachamura].” And the texts that do have it should read kelachamura.¹³⁶“As to a weighty one,” not “as with a weighty one”, which has no meaning in our mishna. I saw a manuscript copy of Avot from the Land of Israel that does not have the word kevachamura.

Ben Azai says: Run to do an easy commandment: They already said a reason for this thing - "for you do not know the reward given [for the fulfillment] of [the respective] commandments" (Avot 2:1). And now Ben Azai added another reason and said, Run to do an easy commandment and flee from sin; since a commandment leads to another commandment - as this is a natural propensity. As when a man does a small commandment once, he draws closer to God and accustoms his spirit to His service and it becomes easier in his eyes to do another commandment that [requires] the same effort as the first one or a little more; as he is already accustomed to the performance of a commandment. And when he does a second (for a third) [and a third] - even if it is much more effort than the first ones - he will do it quickly, since the habit already steers him greatly. [This occurs] until it steers him very much and he will completely do all of the commandments.

We have already elucidated the explanation of this statement in Chapter 10 of Sanhedrin. And the sages, peace be upon them, have already brought attention to a wonderful innovation in the Torah in which there is inducement to the performance of the commandments. And it is its stating (Deuteronomy 4:41), "Then Moshe separated three cities in Transjordan, etc.," while knowing that they would not be effective - as they would not have the [status] of cities of refuge until the three others in the Land of Israel would be separated. They said (Makkot 10a), "Our teacher Moshe, peace be upon him, knew that these three cities in Transjordan do not shelter until the three cities in the Land of Israel would be separated, as it is stated (Numbers 35:13), 'they shall be six cities of refuge.' And he separated these nonetheless, since he said, 'Since a commandment has come to my hand, I will perform it.'" And if our teacher Moshe, peace be upon him - the fathomer of the truths, the [most] complete of the complete - was eager to add half of a positive commandment upon all of his rank and wholeness in this way, there is no need to say that those whose souls are leprous and their leprosy is strong and gaining should do [so].

"A sin": And we do not learn [here], "an easy [sin]," as we do with a commandment. Since that which we learned [concerning a commandment ], "easy," means that it is easy for person to do. And sins are easy for a person to do and most of them are enjoyable for people. Hence it is not applicable to teach, "from an easy sin" - Derekh Chaim.

"Since one commandment leads to another commandment": That is the way of the world, that one who does one commandment finds it easier to do others; and one who starts to do sins will find it difficult to separate from them. And also, "since the reward for a commandment is [another] commandment;" [meaning it] is from the Heavens that the one who does one commandment is helped and another commandment is placed in front of him to [also] do, in order to give him the reward for both of them. And so too, "the reward of a sin, etc." Another explanation: "since the reward for a commandment is [another] commandment;" Since all that a person is rewarded and derives enjoyment while doing a commandment is itself considered a commandment for him. And [so] he gets reward for the commandment that he did and for the enjoyment and benefit that he experienced in doing it.

Introduction Ben Azzai’s full name was Shimon ben Azzai, and like Ben Zoma of the previous mishnah, he was never called Rabbi. He is famous for his utter devotion to Torah, a devotion so great that he never married (to the disdain of the other rabbis). Like Ben Zoma, he also entered the “pardes” the orchard of metaphysical speculation and died as a result.

FROM SIN. The mishna does not say “from a light sin” the way it says “to a light commandment” because “light” here has the sense that it is easy for a person to do, but all sins are easy for a person to do as they are all enjoyable; it is therefore not possible to say “from a light sin”—Maharal in Derech Chaim.

and a sin leads to another sin: This too is natural. Since he has done one sin and distanced himself from the service of God, may He be blessed, when another sin comes to his hand - even if the impulse does not have a desire for it like for the first - he will do it; as his spirit is accessible to his impulse and it pushes upon it. And even if his desire is not great in the matter, he will do all of the sins; as his nature is used to 'doing every abomination towards God that He hates.'

"one sin": Since God, may He be blessed, leaves him to his evil nature. But not that he is helped from Heaven [to do more sins], as was written by Rabbi Bartenura concerning "the reward of a commandment." As we say [Yoma 38], "One who comes to purify himself, he is helped [by God], one who comes to defile himself, [the way] is made open for him" - Rabbenu Yonah.

"and the reward for one sin is another sin": And the reward and benefit that one derives from doing a sin is considered like a sin itself for him. And [so] he is [punished] for the sin that he committed and for the reward and benefit that he received by doing it.

Ben Azzai said:
Be quick in performing a minor commandment as in the case of a major one, and flee from transgression; A person should be as careful in the performance of what seem in his eyes to be minor commandments as he is in the performance of what seem in his eyes to be major commandments. Likewise a person should distance himself from transgression, even a transgression that does not seem to be so serious.

THE REWARD OF SIN IS SIN. G-d leaves him in the hands of his evil nature. But G-d will not aid him in sinning, the way that Rav writes. He would aid someone in performing a commandment, as the Talmud says: “One who wishes to purify himself receives G-d’s aid; one who wishes to become impure receives His permission” (Yoma 38b). So also Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rabbenu Yonah.

since the reward for a commandment is another commandment: This is a reason other than nature. And so he wants to say that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not give good or evil into the hand of a person; rather only choice, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 30:19), "and you shall choose life." And since he has chosen a path, if he is going in the good, God is with him. And [so] if he does one commandment, it helps him to do another commandment - as on his own, he doesn't even have the ability to do good. And about this it says, "since the reward for a commandment is another commandment, and the reward for a sin is another sin." And not, God forbid, that this is his reward. As if so, what reward does he [actually] have? And the thing is not like this, as his reward exists for the world to come. But rather he wants to say that the fruit of [doing] a commandment is [doing another] commandment; and he eats its fruits in this world, which is that it helps him to do other commandments. And it comes out that the principle expands and it exists in the world to come. And this is what is stated (Isaiah 3:10), "Hail the just man, for he is good; they shall eat the fruit of their works."

For one commandment leads to another commandment, and transgression leads to another transgression; This is the first reason for why one should be scrupulous in the performance of even minor commandments. The performance of one commandment awakens a person to perform other commandments as well. I think we can compare this statement to exercise and healthy eating habits. A person who begins to physically exercise his body will naturally want to exercise more, to eat healthy and to stop bad habits such as smoking. One good thing he does for his body will lead to another good thing. So too with the negative side. If a person does not exercise, chances are he will also eat poorly. The worse he eats the less he will want to exercise, and he will deteriorate in a cycle. So too with commandments, the spiritual equivalent to exercise. The more a person performs the commandments, the more spiritually awake his soul will be and the more he will want to perform more commandments. However, the more a person transgresses, the more spiritually dead he will progressively continue to be, and he will continue in a downward spiral of sin.

and the reward for a sin is another sin: And if he chose death and evil and did a sin, the Holy One, blessed be He, distances Himself from him and leaves him and gives him over to his evil nature. And this is the fruit that comes out of the sin - that he is left to do another [sin], and he does not have the ability to veer from this path; as a man's path is not his own once he has already chosen his path. And this is what is stated (Isaiah 3:11), "Woe to the evil wicked man; as his hands have dealt, so shall it be done to him." And about this the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Yoma 38b), "One who comes to purify himself is helped; one who comes to defile himself is given openings." [That] is to say that if he comes to defile himself, he is not helped; but has many openings in which to enter and do evil - as he is left to do what is good in his [own] eyes. And about this the sages, may their memory be blessed, gave a parable (Yoma 38b): To what is this similar? To a man buying petroleum (naphtha). When he comes, [the seller] says to him, "Measure for yourself" - as if he did not buy it with his money, he would not have permission to [touch] it. But after they sold it, he says to him, "Measure for yourself" - because its smell is bad. So is it with the evildoers; after they have chosen the path of evil, they are left to their desire and their will. As, God forbid [that it be otherwise] - no man is assisted from the Heavens for a bad thing. But the righteous who choose the good path are assisted [for the good]. There is a parable [relevant to this] of a man who bought fragrant oil (afarsimon). [When] he went to measure it for himself, they said to him, "Wait until we measure it with you, and we will all be perfumed [from it].

For the reward for performing a commandment is another commandment and the reward for committing a transgression is a transgression. This is an extremely important statement. Throughout Avoth we have learned that the reward for the performance of commandments and the punishment for sin are meted out in the world to come. This is basically saying that one cannot expect to see divine justice in this world. However, Ben Azzai points out that there is one type of reward which is received in this world. A person who performs a commandment is rewarded by God by having the next commandment become easier for him. I think this means that one who takes the initiative to begin to lead a good and righteous life, will be rewarded by being able to continue to live a good and righteous life. In essence, the performance of the commandments is a reward in and of itself. The same is true with the opposite. One who sins will be punished by performing another sin. Once he is accustomed to sinning, his life will deteriorate into a life full of sin. The punishment is then, in essence, a direct result of what he does, in other words his sinful life is a punishment for his sins. Perhaps this is somewhat like the English saying, “you made your bed, now sleep in it”.

Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the relationship of section two to section three?

He would say: Do not disparage anyone, and do not shun any thing: That you should not disparage any person, and even a lowly one. And do not exaggerate your words, to say that it is far [removed] that damage will come to me from this talk.

And he said it is impossible that there not be for every man a time in which he can damage or benefit, and even with a small thing.

"Do not disparage anyone": by saying, "What can x do to harm me."

Introduction Mishnah three contains another teaching of Ben Azzai.

For you have no man who does not have his hour: Who is [then] able to damage or benefit - if little, if much.

"and do not shun any thing": [One should] make distance from anything that one should be concerned about. [And] do not say, "It will stay far and there is no reason to worry about it."

He used to say: do not despise any man, and do not discriminate against anything, for there is no man that has not his hour, and there is no thing that has not its place. The central idea in the first part of Ben Azzai’s statement is that every person has worth, just by the mere fact that humans were created in the image of God. Indeed, whereas Rabbi Akiva says that the foundation of all ethics is “love your neighbor as yourself” according to Ben Azzai the foundation of ethics is that man was created in God’s image. Since all humans are created in the image of God, a person should despise no man, for doing so would be like despising God. Furthermore, even someone who seems to be worthless and a total detriment to society has his hour and his place. One never knows when that hour or place might come. The second part of the statement teaches that one should one discriminate against things, thinking that they are useless. This line could be read as an environmental message. A person should not look at a piece of nature, for instance a fly or mosquito and wish that it had never been created. For each piece of God’s creation has it’s place and what may look to us as unnecessary actually fulfills a function in nature. A different interpretation of this last section, “do not discriminate against anything… and there is no thing that has not its place”, is that a person should not treat lightly any of his material belongings. What you may think is actually useless could be used by someone else or may even someday be useful to you. This too can be read environmentally, urging people to not lightly cast away things that have outgrown their use but to think about how they might be further used in the future.

and you have no thing that does not have its place: And [so] you have to be careful about it.

Questions for Further Thought:
What is the difference between Rabbi Akiva’s emphasis on “love your neighbor as yourself” and Ben Azzai’s emphasis on “in the image of God man was created”?

BE [VERY] LOWLY OF SPIRIT. Midrash Shmuel has “before every man”. See mishna 10 (s.v. “before every man”).

Rabbi Levitas, a man of Yavneh, says: Be very, very humble in spirit, for the hope of man is worms: How can a man be proud at all - as in the end, the worms will be better than he? And about this he said, "Be very, very humble in spirit" - to emphasize the thing and say how great the punishment is for haughtiness and that is the proud one. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, explained that he came to inform us that even though the middle point in all of the traits is the praiseworthy - like the trait of generosity, since both the spendthrift and the miser are bad and the middle is the [right] choice; and so with the trait of cruelty, that a person should not be cruel and [also] not completely merciful, as he should not have mercy on the wicked, and not be cruel to other people, rather the middle is the good path, to be merciful but to be cruel when needed; and so [too] totally with all (the intellect) [the traits], a man should grab the middle path and the moderate trait - yet this trait of haughtiness must be removed from oneself to the far extreme. As there is no trait more problematic than it; and most of the sins of the Torah depend upon it. And moreover, it causes forgetfulness of the Creator, may He be blessed, from the heart of a man - as it is stated (Deuteronomy 8:14), "And your heart grow haughty and you forget the Lord, your God." And this is what we learned [here], "Be very, very humble in spirit." And the sages of the Talmud have already argued about this thing in Tractate Sotah 5a - "One said, 'In excommunication is the one that has it and in excommunication is the one that does not have it at all.'" [This] is to say that a person should not be humble in spirit to the final extreme and not to be so lowly that people disparage him. Rather, he should be moderate in taking haughtiness - not to (beautify himself) [make himself proud], but not to lower his spirit to the utmost lowliness, that he not come to disgrace. And about this they said, "In excommunication is the one that has" much haughtiness "and in excommunication is the one that does not have it at all" - as he is not a person, but 'he is similar to the beasts.' "And the other one said, 'In excommunication is the one that has it at all'" - as it is so bad a trait that he must distance himself from it completely. And there should not be in him from it at all, like the opinion of Rabbi Levitas, and for the reason that we have written. And so is the law.

We have already elucidated and mentioned in the earlier chapters that humility is from the highest of traits. And it is the mean between pride and lowliness of spirit and it has no other name - just humility. But there are many names for pride: In the Hebrew language, high heart, elevated eyes, proud and high. And from the names of the sages, may their memory be blessed, [are] a high spirit, coarse-spirited and uppity. And across from them is lowliness of spirit. We have already explained in the fourth chapter (Eight Chapters 4:7) that a person needs to incline a little to one of the extremes until he establishes himself in the middle of, as a [type of] fence. But only in this trait from [all] the other traits - meaning to say with pride - due to the great deficiency of this trait for the pious ones and their knowledge of its damage, they distanced themselves to the other extreme and completely inclined towards lowliness of spirit, until there was no room for pride in their souls at all. And behold, I saw in a book from the books on characteristics that one of the important pious men was asked and told, "Which day is the one upon which you rejoiced more than any of your days?" He said [back], "The day that I was going on a boat and my place was in the lowest places of the boat among the packages of clothing, and there were traders and men of means on the boat [as well]. And I was laying in my place and one of the men of the boat got up to urinate and I was insignificant in his eyes and lowly - as I was very low in his eyes - to the point that he revealed his nakedness and urinated on me. And I was astonished by the intensification of the trait of brazenness in his soul. But, as God lives, my soul was not pained by his act at all and my strength was not aroused. And I rejoiced with a great joy that I reached the extreme that the disgrace of this empty one did not pain me and [that] my soul did not feel [anything] towards him." And it is without a doubt that this is the extreme of low spiritedness, to the point of being distanced from pride. And I will now mention a little of what the sages mentioned in praise of humility and [in] disgrace of pride. And it is because of this that this one commanded to come close to lowliness and said, "Be very, very lowly in spirit" - out of his fear that a person remain only in humility, all the more so that there be a trace of pride in him. As it is close to it, since modesty is the mean, as we mentioned. And they said (Talmud Yerushalmi Shabbat 1:3) in praise of humility [that like] that which wisdom made a crown for its head, humility made a sole for its heel - the explanation of which is its shoe - as it is written (Psalms 111:10), "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God." This is a proof that fear of God is greater than wisdom, as it is a cause for its existence. And it states (Proverbs 22:4), "[At the] heel of humility is the fear of sin," which is to say that you will find the fear of God at the heels of humility. If so, humility is much greater than wisdom. And they said (Megillah 31a), "This thing is written in the Torah and repeated in the Prophets and tripled in the Writings; every place that you find the greatness of the Holy One, blessed be He, you find His modesty: It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 10:17), 'the great God, etc.' And it is written after it (Deuteronomy 10:18), 'Who does the judgment of the orphan and the widow.' And it is repeated in the Prophets, as it is written (Isaiah 57:15), 'So speaks He who high aloft forever dwells, whose name is holy, "I dwell on high, in holiness."' And adjacent to it is '"with the contrite and the lowly in spirit."' And it is tripled in the Writings, as it is written (Psalms 68:5), 'extol Him who rides the clouds; the Lord is His name.' And it is written after it (Psalms 68:6), 'the Father of orphans and the Judge of widows.'" And you should learn from our teacher, Moshe, peace be upon him, in whom the intellectual virtues and the dispositional virtues were perfected - all of them directed to the level of prophecy - the master of Torah, the master of wisdom. And [yet] God, may He be blessed, praised him over every man with the trait of humility and stated (Numbers 12:3), "and Moshe the man is very humble, more than any person." And His stating, "very" is a sign of his great modesty and his inclining towards the side of the far extreme. And so, you will find him state (Exodus 16:7) "and what are we?" And so [too[ with David, 'the anointed of the God of Yaakov, the pleasant singer of the praises of Israel.' And he was an honored king, whose kingdom grew great and sword grew strong and who God, may He be blessed, designated through our teacher Moshe, peace be upon him, since he is the star that proceeded from Yaakov (Numbers 24:17), as the sages, may their memory be blessed, elucidated. And he was a prophet and the greatest of of the seventy elders [of his time], as he stated (II Samuel 23:8), "who sat in the sitting of the wise." And with all of this, he stated [about himself] (Psalms 51:19), "and a heart broken and crushed, God will not disgrace." And he increased in these virtues that indicate extreme modesty. And [the following is from] what the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said about pride. They said (Sotah 4b), "Any man that has coarse-spiritedness is like he worshiped idolatry. Here it is written (Proverbs 16:5), 'An abomination of the Lord is anyone of a high heart'; and there it is written (Deuteronomy 7:26), 'And do not bring an abomination into your house.'" And they said, "It is like he denied a fundamental [of faith], as it is stated (Deuteronomy 8:14), 'And your heart grow high and you forget the Lord.'" And they said that the sin of pride is like one who has forbidden sexual relations: It states [about the latter] (Leviticus 18:27), "As they did all of these abominations." And they said (Sotah 4b) that one who becomes uppity is he, himself - for God - like idolatry itself. And they brought a proof from the statement (Isaiah 2:22), "'Cease from man, whose soul is in his nose' - meaning to say, of a high (haughty) spirit - 'for by what (vameh) is he estimated?' - do not read it as vameh, but rather bamah (an altar, as both words are written with the same three letters)." And they said [about] one that becomes uppity that it is fitting to kill him. And they said (Sotah 5a) that anyone who has coarse spirit in him is fitting to be cut down like a tree-god. It is written here (Isaiah 10:33), "the ones of high stature cut down"; and there it is written (Deuteronomy 7:5), "and their tree-gods shall you cut down." And they said that God, may He be blessed, will not revive during the revival of the dead those that became uppity. [This was] their saying, "Any man that has coarse spirit in him, his dust will not be aroused; as it is stated (Isaiah 27:19), 'awake and shout for joy, you who dwell in the dust': he who was made dust in his life - meaning to say the humble ones - they are the ones that will be revived." And they emphasized this and said that any man that has coarse spirit in him, the Divine Presence cries out about him; as it is stated (Psalms 138:6), "and the high ones from afar, He makes known." And they elaborated with their words. They said in saying that tsaarat (a Biblical form of leprosy) is a punishment for the haughty ones, "For a swelling (seiat), for a rash, or for a discoloration" (Leviticus 14:56) - and a swelling is only height (haughtiness), as it is stated (Isaiah 2:14), "the elevated (nisaot) hills." It is as if it said to the one who becomes uppity is a swelling [of tsaarat]. And the end is what they said (Sotah 5a), 'In excommunication is the one that has it and in excommunication is the one that does not have it at all.'" [This] means to say that a person should not be humble in spirit to the final extreme, as it is not from the virtues. And they quantified it metaphorically - one in sixty four parts, meaning to say if we place pride in one corner and lowliness of spirit in another corner, there would be sixty four parts along the spectrum. And he should stand in the sixty-third section. He does not only want the mean with this trait, so as to escape from pride. As if he were to be missing [just] one section and [proportionately] come closer to pride, he would be put in excommunication. And that is the opinion of Rava about humility. But Rav Nachman decided and said that it is not fitting for a man to have from it - meaning to say from pride - not a large a section and not a small section, as its sin is not small. That which makes man into an abomination is not fitting to [even] approach. They said about this matter, "Rav Nachman bar Yitschak said, 'Not form it and not from part of it. And is it a small thing that which is written, 'An abomination of the Lord is anyone of a high heart?'" And to strengthen [precaution] from this cursed sin, [Rabbi Levitas] said, "Be very, very lowly in spirit for the hope of man is worms" - meaning to say that you need to force yourself until you have distanced yourself from pride, by your thinking of the end of the body, and that is its return to worms.

"The worms": Rambam explains that he should consider his end, and it is to return to the worms, etc. And [Tosafot Yom Tov] explained the meaning of the word tikvah at length, and concluded that it is [like] (Isaiah 28), "a line (kav) to a line." And its root is kuf-vav, and the [final] tav [in the word tikvat] is just an addition as in tiferet [and] tilboshet. And it is denoting a measuring line (a type of yardstick). And see Bereishit Rabbah, Parshat Bereishit, on the verse, "'yikvu hamayim' - a measure was made for the waters." And here also this is its explanation, that his measuring line is the worms. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"Be very, very humble in spirit": Even though the middle path is praiseworthy with other character traits, it is not like this concerning the trait of pride. Rather one should lean to the other extreme of lowliness of spirit - as pride is extremely disgusting. And also since most people stumble in it and people do not separate themselves from it, therefore one has to make an extra distancing.

Introduction There are actually two mishnayoth in mishnah four. The first mishnah is from Rabbi Levitas of Yavneh, who does not appear anywhere else in the mishnah. Rabbi Yohanan ben Berokah was a student of Rabbi Joshua.

THE HOPE [Heb. tikvat] OF MAN [Heb. enosh] IS THE WORM. Rambam: he should consider his end and his return to the worm. I found a similar approach in Rashi’s commentary to the verse “the only desire of the righteous is the good, and the hope of the wicked is wrath” (Proverbs 11:23): they are assured of and hoping for Gehinnom. This shows that once a person is sure that something will happen it can be said to be “his hope”.
Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that the mishna does not say “for your hope is the worm” because no person hopes to be eaten by the worms. It says instead “for the hope of man is the worm”, i.e. that every person is destined to be eaten by the worms.¹³⁷The “hope of man” refers not to any actual person’s hope but to the fate of every person insofar as he is human, per the use of “hope” Tosafot Yom Tov has established above. Saying “your hope” would imply a personal hope, which is not true. He also writes that the alphanumeric value of “man” [Heb. enosh, אנוש] is the same as the alphanumeric value of the sum of two other synonyms for “man”, אדם and איש. It is because of the joining of earth, אדמה, and the essence, i.e. potential, of man, אישות, that a person is the flesh, בשר, which is eaten by worms. He did not concern himself over the difference of one between the two values¹³⁸The value of אנוש is 357, and the value of אדם + איש is 356. [because one alludes to the joining of earth and the essence of man].
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Chasid Ya’avetz that the mishna means “be lowly of spirit” before those who insult you, and do not answer them becase “the hope of [the] man” who insults you is the worm, and why should you care what he says? He then says that this is based on the words of the prophet Isaiah: “Do not fear the disparagement of man, and do not be broken by their insults; for like a garment, a moth will eat them, and like wool, a worm will eat them” (Isaiah 51:7-8).
Midrash Shmuel also writes that “hope” here is to be understood literally, and explains the mishna as saying that the hope and desire of a person is that he receive a proper burial and not be buried like a donkey. I say that although everyone hopes to have a proper burial befitting a person, it cannot be said that his hope and desire is to be eaten by the worm. If he were to be buried and not eaten by any worms, that would be best. Not only that, we find the Sages mentioning people whom the worms did not touch (Bava Batra 17a) and, we find the story of R. Elazar bar Shimon in Bava Metzia 83b.¹³⁹In this story, R. Elazar bar Shimon’s daughter stores his body in her attic. One day she sees a worm coming out of his ear. He appears to her in a dream and explains that he once heard someone insulting a Torah scholar and did not sufficiently protest; the worm is a punishment for this. The import of the story is that worms only eat bodies that were engaged in sin, and it is possible to hope to be sinless and therefore not subject to worms.
I say that what caused the commentators all this difficulty is their understanding of the word tikvah as coming from the root k.v.h, meaning “to hope”. But this is not so, and the root is in fact k.v, as in the verse “kav by kav” (Isaiah 28:10). The second tav in the word tikvat is not in place of a hey¹⁴⁰If the word in our mishna is “hope” from the root k.v.h., “to hope”, then we understand tikvat as the word tikvah appearing in the construct state and we read tikvat enosh as “the hope of man”.; it is simply a suffix, of the kind that appears in the words tif’eret, tilboshet.¹⁴¹The roots of which are p.’.r. and l.b.sh., respectively—the tav at the end is a suffix added on to the root. Tosafot Yom Tov suggests that our word tikvat should be understood similarly, the tav being a suffix. We find this word in the verse “the line [Heb. tikvat] of scarlet cord” (Joshua 2:18). We understand the kav in Isaiah the same way—as a measuring cord, with the verse meaning that one receives measure for measure. We also explain the verse in Proverbs 11:23, tikvat enosh `evra, to mean that the wicked are judged by the measuring cord and condemned to the wrath and rage of G-d. And this is what our tanna means when he says tikvat enosh rimah: the measuring cord by which punishment will be dealt out to a person is the worm. [I later saw a passage in Bereshit Rabbah 5:1 on the verse yikavu hamayim, “let the waters be gathered” (Genesis 1:9): he shall make a measure for the water, as the verse says, “a kav [line] shall be stretched over Jerusalem.]

Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says: Anyone who desecrates the Name of Heaven secretly, they punish him publicly: [Of course,] the desecration of the Name that is mentioned in the Talmud is public (by definition). And according to the importance of a man can there be a desecration for a small thing, as was said (by Rav Nachman in Tractate Chullin) (Yoma 86a), "How is desecration of the Name? (Rav said,) 'For example, [if] I took meat from the butcher and did not give him money immediately.'" Hence the sages and men of repute (need) to watch their deeds more than other people. And every man is according to his standing. 'And anyone who wants to take the name (and consider himself important in this regard), let him come and take [it].' And they said in Tractate Sanhedrin 74a that even for tying a shoelace (in the way of the gentiles), he should let himself be killed and not transgress. This is not by way of obligation, yet one should let himself be killed for this - as he is doing a commandment that sanctifies God, may He be blessed, and [so] 'he acquires his [share in the] world [to come] in an instant. But in three things everyone is obligated to let himself be killed for them; and if he transgresses and does not allow himself to be killed, it is a major sin [in itself] like idolatry, murder and sexual immorality. And the punishment for public desecration of the Name is greater than those three, as it is stated (Ezekiel 20:39), "As for you, House of Israel, thus said the Lord God, 'Go, every one of you, and worship his idols and continue, if you will not obey Me; but do not desecrate My holy name any more with your idols and your gifts.'" Behold, it is elucidated for you that He was more (in remembrance of) [exacting about] that which they were worshiping idols because they were desecrating His holy Name publicly than [because] of the idolatry itself. And [hence] that which we learned, "Anyone who desecrates the Name of Heaven secretly," is speaking about things that are a desecration of the Name in of themselves, like idolatry - as he is affirming [the idol's] divinity. And so too, the one who swears falsely with the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He - which is deceiving the minds of the creatures - is a desecration - as it is stated (Leviticus 19:12), "You shall not swear falsely by My Name, desecrating the Name of your God; I am the Lord."

You know from Scripture that the unintentional transgressor has a sin. And because of this, he needs atonement with a sacrifice. And God, may He be blessed, said about him, "And he is forgiven from his sin that he sinned." But he is not like the intentional sinner. God forbid, for the One of the straight path, God - may He be blessed - to equate the intentional with the unintentional in [any] thing from the things. Rather his intention here is that the desecration of the Name, whether it is intentional or unintentional, will be punished publicly - if it was intentional, the punishment for intentional, if it was unintentional, the punishment for unintentional. But both punishments are public.

"secretly": And you [may] ask, behold, Rabbi Bartenura explained in Mishnah Yoma 8:8 that desecration of the Name (chillul Hashem) is [committed by] one who sins and causes others to sin; and this is one who sins and others learn from him; and if so, you don't find it "secretly," etc. And it appears to me that it is found with a sin that it is impossible [to do] without being joined by another - for example the sexual prohibitions. And it is also certainly true that one who eats forbidden foods and the like by himself and no one sees him is not [causing] a desecration of the Name at all. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

Rabbi Levitas a man of Yavneh said: be exceeding humble spirit, for the end of man is the worm. Usually a person should take the middle path and not be “exceedingly” anything. However, with humility one can be even exceedingly humble. For in the end all men end up in the ground, serving as food for worms.

ANYONE WHO DESECRATES G-D’S NAME IN PRIVATE. Rav explains in Yoma 10:8 that “desecrating G-d’s name” means sinning and causing others to sin, and I wrote there that this means that others learn from the sin to sin themselves, as Rav himself writes on the mishna later in 5:9. If so, how is it possible to do this in private?
One approach is that of Maharal in Derech Chaim, that “in private” means that few people know about it, not that it is truly in private. He also gives the case of ten Torah scholars who are together and one of them steals or enters a brothel, and it is unclear who it was.
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rabbenu Yonah that the desecration of G-d’s name in private here refers to someone who worships other gods, which is desecration because he does not acknolwedge the true G-d, or someone who swears falsely, concerning which the verse says “and do not swear falsely in My name, such that you desecrate the name of your G-d” (Leviticus 19:12). He also writes in the name of Rabbenu Ephraim that our mishna is discussing a Torah scholar sinning in private, who, had he sinned in public, would have caused others to learn from his sin and would have desecrated G-d’s name. [*This seems very forced to me, because in the end he did not sin in public and didn’t cause an actual desecration of G-d’s name, and the language of the mishna does not support this reading. Anytime somebody sins in private there is no desecration of G-d’s name, and the mishna speaks specifically of a desecration of G-d’s name.
As for what the case of the mishna would then be, I say that it would be the case of a sin that cannot be done without another’s participation, such as illicit relations and the like. The woman is forced,¹⁴²In which case he desecrates G-d’s name because she comes to despise Torah scholars and Torah itself. or even if she is seduced, she has only agreed to it because she reasons that there must not be any sin involved if he is willing to do it, causing a desecration of G-d’s name. Whereas when someone eats a forbidden food or the like and nobody sees him this does not cause any desecration of G-d’s name.]

There is no differentiation between unintentional and intentional when it comes to desecration of the Name: Not that he is punished for the unintentional like the intentional; but rather that also for the unintentional is he punished publicly, and each one 'will carry [the punishment] according to his transgression.' [This is] because the unintentional is considered a transgression [in such a case] when it is not beyond his control, since he should have been careful that it not come to him - and he was not careful. Therefore the verse obligates him in a sacrifice in order to atone for him.

"There is no differentiation between unintentional, etc.": It is known that the one who is unintentional also needs atonement. But he is not like the one who is intentional - God forbid for the straight paths of God, may He be blessed, to equate the intentional with the unintentional in anything. Rather, the intention [of the mishnah] is that his punishment is in public - if it was intentional, the punishment is [for an] intentional [sin]; if it was unintentional, the punishment is [for an] unintentional [sin], etc. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Berokah said: whoever profanes the name of heaven in secret, he shall be punished in the open. Unwittingly or wittingly, it is all one in profaning the name. This refers to a person who commits a transgression in private which had he done it in public would have desecrated God’s name. For instance, if he is a sage or other type of communal leader, if people would have seen him sinning, they would have learned from him. Such a person will be punished in the open so that everyone can see his hypocrisy. Since profaning God’s name is such a great crime, one that can lead to other people committing even more sins, the punishment is meted out even to one who unwittingly profanes God’s name. Maimonides points out that this is not to say that a person who unwittingly profanes God’s name receives the same punishment as one who does so wittingly. This would be inherently unfair. Rather what the mishnah teaches is that each gets their punishment in public.

THERE IS NO DIFERENCE BETWEEN INTENTIONAL AND UNINTENTIONAL SINS. Rambam: you already know from Scripture that even when one sins unintentionally, he has still sinned and requires atonement through a sacrifice, and G-d says that “he shall be forgiven for the sin that he sinned” (Leviticus 19:22).¹⁴³So he clearly is considered having sinned, and required forgiveness. But he is not the same as one who sins intentionally. G-d forbid that the just ways of G-d would treat an unintentional sinner like an intentional one in any way. The mishna here simply means that the punishment for the desecration of G-d’s name, whether it happened in public or in private, will be in public. The punishment will be the one appropriate for the case, whether he sinned intentionally or unintentionally, but either way it will be in public. Rashi also writes that the intentional and unintentional sins are only treated equally in terms of the publicity, not in terms of the punishment itself. He brings a proof from the case of the Jews who deserved to be destroyed for bowing down to the statue of Nebuchadnezzar and were not destroyed, which the Talmud explains is because “they only did this outwardly; G-d likewise only appeared to be destorying them” (Megillah 12a).
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Moshe Almosnino that it is fitting to treat the intentional and unintentional sinner equally with regards to the publicity of his punishment, because the one who sinned in private was sinning in public as far as the One against Whom he sinned is concerned, for nothing is hidden from His eyes. The mishna then repeats “in the desecration of G-d’s name” to clarify that it is for this reason that the unintentional and intentional sinner are treated equally with public punishments; a sin that desecrates G-d’s name is a sin against Him before whom all is revealed.¹⁴⁴The reasoning seems to be that since every sin against G-d is like a sin in public, and the punishment for desecrating G-d’s name would happen publicly, a sin which (in public) would be a desecration of G-d’s name is likewise treated as though it happened in public at least in regards to the publicity of the punishment.

ONE WHO STUDIES IN ORDER TO TEACH. “To teach” does not mean to the exclusion of actually doing, for of such a one “G-d says, Why should you speak of my laws?” (Psalms 50:16).¹⁴⁵The verse there discusses a wicked person. Cf. what I write below in the name of Kesef Mishne.

Rabbi (Shimon, his son,) [the editor said that the text in front of us is Yishmael] says: One who studies Torah in order to teach: The explanation is not, God forbid, that this is speaking about studying in order to teach and not to do - since such a one is given into his hand neither to learn nor to teach. Rather it is in order to do [according to] that which is forbidden and that which is permissible, and not to toil and look into it much; (rather) [as maybe] he will find something forbidden in the permissible things. Instead, he takes things according to their simple meaning. Because of that, he will only "be given the opportunity" according to his thought, [which is] to study and to teach.

After I decided not to speak about this testament because it is clear and since, according to my opinion, my words will not please most of the great Torah sages - and perhaps any of them - I went back on my decision and I will speak about it, without paying attention to the earlier or contemporary [rabbis]. Know that that which he said not to make the Torah into a spade with which to dig - meaning to say, do not consider it a tool to live by - he explained and said that anyone who benefits in this world from the honor of Torah removes his life from the world - the explanation of which is, from life in the world to come. Yet people have missed this obvious language and thrown it over the backs. And they have depended upon understandings of the words that they [themselves] did not understand - and I will explain them. And they established rules for themselves upon individuals and upon communities, and they brought people to think in their total foolishness that it is mandatory and fitting that they help the sages and their students and the people involved in Torah, and for whom their Torah [study] is their craft. And this is all a mistake, and nothing is found in the Torah or in the words of the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, that substantiates it or gives it a basis to rest upon at all. As when we look into the words of the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, we do not find among them that they were requesting money from people and they did not collect money for the honored and precious academies, nor for the heads of the exiles, nor for their judges, nor for the promulgators of Torah - not for one of their greats and not for any people of the nation. Rather, we find in each and every generation in all of their communities that there were among [the Torah scholars] poor men of extreme poverty and wealthy men of extreme wealth. And God forbid that I should suspect those generations of not being doers of kindness and givers of charity. As if such a poor man had extended his hand to receive it, they would have filled his house with gold and pearls; but he did not want [it]. Rather he sufficed with [the earnings from] the work in which he engaged - whether comfortably or with duress - and he was loath of what [came from] the hand of people, since the Torah prevented him from it. And you already know that Hillel the Elder was a wood chopper and that he studied in front of Shemaya and Avtalyon and he was extremely poor. And his rank was such that you know that some of his students were compared to Moshe, Aharon and Yehoshua; and the least of his students was Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai. And there is no doubt to the intelligent one that if he had instructed the people of his generation to let him benefit from them, they would not have allowed him to be a wood chopper. And [also] Rabbi Chaninah ben Dosa - about whom a heavenly voice went out and said, "The whole world is only nourished for the sake of my son, Chaninah; and my son, Chaninah, has enough with a kav of carobs from one Shabbat eve to [the next] Shabbat eve" (Berakhot 17b) - yet he did not request [anything] from people. And Karna was a judge in the Land of Israel and he was a water drawer. And when litigants would come in front of him, he would say, "Give me someone to draw [the water] in my place or [the wage from] my absence and I will adjudicate for you." And the Jews in that generation were not not cruel and were not lacking in doing kindness. And we do not find any sage of the poor sages that reviled the people of his generation for not making them rich - God forbid for them [to have done so]. Rather they believed in God, may He be blessed, and in the Torah of Moshe, through which a person merits life in the world to come. And [so] they did not allow themselves to request money from people. And they saw that taking it was a desecration of [God's] name in the eyes of the masses, because they would think that Torah is a profession from the professions though which a person lives and it will become disgraced in their eyes. And [so] the one that would do this, 'the word of God, he will disgrace.' However the ones that drew strength to disagree with the truth and with simple and obvious verses by taking people's money - whether voluntarily or against their will - were misled by stories that are found in the Gemara about people that [were disabled] or elderly, having come up in days, such that it was impossible for them to do work. As there was no strategy for them [to survive] except for the taking of money from others. And if not, what would they do - should they die? And the Torah did not command this. And you will find that the story that they bring as a proof (Bava Metzia 84b) when they said 'she was like merchant ships, from far does she bring her bread,' is about [someone disabled] who was not able to do work. But with the ability [to do work], the Torah does not create [such] a path. And Rabbi Yosef would carry wood from place to place and would say, "(Beautiful) [Great] is work, as it heats up its master" - meaning to say with the effort of his limbs. Since by carrying the heavy wood, he would heat up his body without a doubt. And he would praise this and be happy with it. And he derived pleasure from that which God, may He be blessed, apportioned to him, that which was for him from the virtues of sufficing. And I have heard the crazy and confused ones base themselves on the proof that they bring from their saying (Berakhot 10b), "One who seeks to benefit, let him benefit like Elisha; and one who does not seek to benefit, let him not benefit like Shmuel from Rama." And this is not at all similar to what they are bringing. Rather, for me, it is a great mistake to bring a proof from it, as it is clear and there is no room for a person to make a mistake in it. As Elisha did not take money from people - all the more so did he not request [it] from them and establish rules for them, God forbid. Instead, he would only take honor when someone gave him lodging when he passed by, to be in his home. And he would eat his bread on that night or on that day and he would return to his affairs. But Shmuel would not enter the home of a person and would not eat from any man. And about something like this the sages, may their memory be blessed, said that if a Torah scholar wants to emulate this to the point that he not enter the house of [any] person, that right is in his hand. But if he wants to lodge with people in his passing by them for the needs of [his] travel expenses, that right is [also] in his hand. As they already warned about eating [as a guest of] any man when it is not necessary. And they said (Pesachim 49a), "A Torah scholar that proliferates his meal in every place, etc." And they [also] said, "It is forbidden for a Torah scholar to benefit from any meal that is not [pertinent] to a commandment." And why should I write at length about this matter. Instead, I will mention a story which elucidates it in the Gemara (Nedarim 62a). And it is that a [certain] man had a vineyard in which thieves would enter. And each time he would see them on each day he [would] find his fruit lessening progressively. And he did not have a doubt that one of the thieves put his eye upon it. And [so], he was pained by this all the days of the harvest until he harvested what [was left for him to] harvest. And he put them out to dry until they dried and he gathered in the raisins. And the way of people when they gather dried fruit is that a few individual figs or grapes would fall. And it is permissible to eat them because they are ownerless and the owners already left them for their finders due to their small quantity. And Rabbi Tarfon came one day to that vineyard by chance and he sat and took from the raisins that fell and ate them. And the owner of the field thought that this was the thief that stole from him the whole year - and he did not recognize [Rabbi Tarfon] but had heard of him. And [so] he immediately took him and overpowered him and placed him in a sack and placed him on his back to throw him into the river. And when Rabbi Tarfon saw this, he yelled out and said, "Woe to Tarfon, for this man is killing him." And when the owner of the vineyard heard, he left him and ran away, knowing that he had sinned a great sin. But Rabbi Tarfon was distressed from that day onwards all of his days and he mourned about that which happened to him, as he saved himself through the honor of the Torah, while he was very rich and could have said, "Leave me and I will give you such and such gold coins." And he could have given them to him and he did not need to inform him that that he was Rabbi Tarfon. And [that way] he would have saved himself with his money and not with Torah. And they said, "All the days of that righteous man, he was distressed over this matter, saying, 'Woe is me, for I made use of the crown of Torah'" - as anyone who use the crown of Torah does not have a share in the world to come and is uprooted from the world. And they said about this, "It was since Rabbi Tarfon was very rich, and he should have appeased him with money." And so [too, the story that] Rebbi (Rabbi Yehuda Hanassi) opened his storehouses in a year of drought and said, "Anyone who wants to come and take his sustenance, let him come and sustain himself, but only if he is a Torah scholar." And Rabbi Yochanan ben Amram came and stood in front of him and he did not recognize him; he said, "Rebbi, sustain me." He said [back] to him, "Have you read [scripture]?" "No." "Have you studied mishnah?" "No." "[If so], with (in the merit of) what should I sustain you?" He said, "Sustain me like a dog or a raven" - meaning to say, even though there is no wisdom in me, just like God, may He be blessed, sustains the impure animal and the impure bird - as an ignoramus is no less than them. And he gave him. But afterwards he regretted [it], since he had seduced him with his words and he said, "Woe to me, since I benefited an ignoramus from my possessions." And the listeners of what happened to him said to him, "Maybe it was Yonatan ben Amram, your student, who does not want to benefit through the honor of Torah, when he could avoid it - and even with a ruse." And he investigated and found that it was so. And these two stories will silence anyone who disagrees about this matter. The things that the Torah did, however, permit to the Torah scholar are that they should give their money to a man to do business according to his choice and the profit will be all for them, if he wants. And one who does this has a great reward for it - and this is "the one who puts merchandise into the 'pocket' of a Torah scholar." And [also] that their merchandise be sold before all [other] merchandise, and that [things] be purchased for them at the beginning of the market [session]. These are rules that God, may He be blessed, established, [just] like He established the gifts for the priest and the tithes for the Levite - according to that which has been received by tradition. As these two actions are done by some businessmen towards each other by way of honor and even though there is no wisdom [to be honored] - a Torah scholar is worthwhile to be like an honored ignoramus. And the Torah eased the rules upon Torah scholars [regarding] taxes and quartering troops and [taxes] specific to each person, and that is called the poll tax - the community pays it for them. And so [too] with [revenue for] the building of walls and similar to them. And even if a Torah scholar is endowed with money, he is not obligated in anything of all this. And Rabbi Yosef Halevi, may his memory be blessed, already instructed a man in a certain place who had gardens and orchards and was obligated to pay thousands of gold coins [in taxes] on their account - and he said that he would be exempted from giving anything on their account from all that we have mentioned, since he was a Torah scholar. And [this is so] although even a poor man in Israel would give this tax. And this is a law of the Torah, [just] like the Torah exempted the priests from the half shekel [that even the poor had to pay] - as we have elucidated in its place - and that which is similar to it.

"To teach, etc": This is not so as to deduce [that the mishnah means], "to teach" but not to observe - 'for to a man who has such things,' 'says the Lord, "What is it to you that you should recount my statutes?"'

"One who studies Torah in order to teach will be given the opportunity both to study and to teach": is the textual variant that we have. And this is its explanation: one who studies in order to always be involved in Torah study and does not have in mind to do kindness with the creations - like Rabbah (Rosh Hashanah 18a), who was involved in Torah study and was not involved with doing kindness - even though he needs to be involved in doing kindness, nonetheless he is afforded [the time] to teach and to learn and [so] his plan will be fulfilled. "But the one who studies in order to observe" who wants to be involved in Torah study and to also be doing kindness - like Abbaye (Ibid.) who was involved in Torah study and in doing kindness - is afforded [the time] to fulfill his plan and he will merit "to study, to teach, to observe, and to practice." And there are some commentaries that [understand], "One who studies in order to teach," [to mean] in order to be called Rabbi, and they have the textual variant, "he is not given the opportunity to study and teach." But in most books, I have found the first variant, and it is the main one.

Introduction part one Since this mishnah is really two mishnayoth, I will treat each piece separately. Rabbi Ishmael of this mishnah is the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka. He was a student of those rabbis who founded the yeshiva in Yavneh after the destruction of the Temple. Rabbi Ishmael his son said: He who learns in order to teach, it is granted to him to study and to teach; But he who learns in order to practice, it is granted to him to learn and to teach and to practice. Rabbi Zadok said: do not make them a crown for self-exaltation, nor a spade with which to dig. So to Hillel used to say, “And he that puts the crown to his own use shall perish.” Thus you have learned, anyone who derives worldly benefit from the words of the Torah, removes his life from the world. Although one who learns Torah only in order to teach is not really learning for “the sake of heaven”, he is nevertheless rewarded by God, by having the opportunity to learn and teach. However, one who learns in order to practice, which is an even higher commitment, is rewarded by even having the opportunity to practice the commandments. Note again that this mishnah considers the performance of the commandments a reward unto those who perform them. In other words, the one who learns, teaches and studies is rewarded not with material wealth or with other promises, but with the opportunity to continue to perform these commandments. He will not be persecuted by the ruling authorities, which would and did prevent many people from learning Torah throughout Jewish history. Introduction section two Rabbi Zadok lived before the destruction of the Temple. According to legend he fasted for forty years before the destruction, praying that the Temple should not be destroyed. When Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai fled Jerusalem and was granted three requests by Vespasion, the Roman general turned emperor, one of them was that a doctor be provided for Rabbi Zadok. The teaching of Rabbi Zadok is connected thematically to Rabbi Ishmael’s teaching from the previous mishnah. Rabbi Zadok’s first warning is clear. One should not use Torah learning as means for self-aggrandizement. Torah should be studied for the sake of God, and in the end honor will come of itself. To use the Torah as a spade means to use the Torah for a means to earn a living. The Talmud teaches that just as God taught the children of Israel for free, so too should you teach for free. We should note that although this was an ideal that Torah should be taught for free it has rarely been followed throughout Jewish history. There were certain exemptions sought for this rule, and in practice, due largely to the exigencies of history, rabbis were often paid for their work. Furthermore, Torah study and teaching is difficult enough that it often requires one to devote full time to its pursuit. However, despite this, Maimonides excoriates those who earn a living teaching Torah. He writes, “There is no basis at all for this [for earning a living teaching Torah] in the Torah.” According to Maimonides the sages of the Talmud did not accept charity from their neighbors and were content to live a life of poverty, so devoted were they to Torah. “They never permitted themselves this begging people for money. They saw, indeed, that this taking founds would be profaning the Name of God in the sight of the masses because then people come to regard the study of Torah as no more than another occupation by means of which a man makes a living.” Other medieval scholars vehemently disagreed with Maimonides and stated that Torah scholars who earn a living are not guilty of any transgression. Speaking personally, I believe that Maimonides rule is somewhat impractical, and would potentially lead to a deterioration in the study of Torah. If people could not feed their families while studying Torah, they would not be able to study, nor teach. However, I think that the spirit of his warning should remain in the ears of those who engage in the study of Torah or work as rabbis. While it may be necessary to earn a living doing so, the primary motivation cannot be profit. A rabbi who turns his training into a way to earn a buck and does not do so “for the sake of Heaven” seems to me to have broken this transgression. In the second half of this mishnah, Rabbi Zadok quotes Hillel. This quote is taken from chapter one, mishnah thirteen. This is the first time we have seen in our mishnah one rabbi quoting another. Rabbi Zadok treats Hillel’s saying almost as if it were a prooftext from the Bible. By Rabbi Zadok’s time, Hillel’s statements had become “sanctified” and were good enough to prove things. This phenomenon is very important as we trace the development of Torah study and rabbinic literary compositions. According to Rabbi Zadok, one who receives financial compensation in this world for teaching Torah, will not get a reward in the world to come. It is as if he uses up the reward which he deserves.

IS GIVEN THE ABILITY TO BOTH STUDY AND TEACH. I.e., he is given the ability to study and to fulfill his plan of teaching. The mishna needs not speak of one who studies in order to learn, for his good intent to study will certainly come to fruition. Our case tells us something more: when his intent is to teach, he is given the ability to teach and his own studies will also succeed, so that neither will suffer, for G-d will give him wisdom¹⁴⁶Based on Proverbs 2:6.—so Midrash Shmuel.
Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that one who studies only in order to learn for himself does not need much learning, and is indeed not given the ability to do all that he plans, for even if he learns a single law he has learnt.¹⁴⁷If his only intent is to learn, he will not receive Divine assistance to do anything more than the bare minimum of learning. If his intent is to teach, however, he will be given much more; see Derech Chaim.
Kesef Mishne writes in Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:10 that “in order to teach” here means that he does not study for learning’s sake but to gain honor by becoming a rosh yeshiva, based on the Talmud in Nedarim 62a: “To love Hashem, your G-d, to listen to His word and cleave to Him”—a person should not say, “I will study Tanach in order that people call me chacham; I will study the Mishna and Talmud in order that people call me rabbi; I will continue my studies so that I will be one of the elders and sit in council.” Alternatively, his intent is to study and earn money the way that one would in learning any trade. In this case, he is given the ability to study and teach as he planned, but not more. Whereas one who studies in order to do is studying with pure intentions. R. Tzadok then tells us that it is sinful to study only in order to teach, which is what he means by “do not make them into a crown, etc.”¹⁴⁸ Kesef Mishne there says that the two parts of R. Tzadok’s warning apply to the two kinds of intent he mentioned earlier: learning in order to gain honor (making Torah into a crown), and learning in order to earn money (making Torah into a spade).

One who studies in order to practice will be given the opportunity to study, to teach and to practice: He wants to say that his intention is to analyze his learning so as to know the truth of the matters and his will is to toil several days and [even] years to fathom a small thing and to conduct himself according to the truth; behold, this is one who studied in order to practice - as the whole thrust of his intent is only that his action be truthful. Therefore, he "will be given the opportunity to study, to teach and to practice" - as it is all included in action.

"and to teach": which is to say that he is afforded [the opportunity] that he will study and that his plan to teach will be successful. And [about one who] studies [only] in order to study, it is not necessary to let us know, as he will certainly be able to fulfill his good plan - that he wanted to study. But in our case, we are finding out a novelty: that if his plan is in order to teach, he is afforded [the opportunity] to learn - and even his study by himself is successful, and not a thing will be reduced, as 'the Lord gives wisdom' - Midrash Shmuel. And See Tosafot Yom Tov.

"Do not make [the Torah] into a crown with which to aggrandize yourself": such that you should not say, "I will study so that I will be called, 'my Rabbi' and they will have me placed at the head," but rather learn out of love and in the end the honor will come.

TO KEEP AND TO DO. Even though his intent was only “to do”, he is given the ability “to keep” away from sin, in order that he not be “one who immerses while holding a rodent”¹⁴⁹Touching a rodent makes one impure. To purify himself he must immerse in a mikveh. Immersing in the mikveh while holding the rodent is an exercise in futility, as he is still touching the rodent and remains impure. In the rabbinic idiom, one who “immerses while holding a rodent” is acting in order to achieve some outcome while simultaneously doing something else that prevents the outcome. Here, the desired outcome of performing positive commandments, doing G-d’s will, is being counteracted by the regular transgression of negative commandments.—so Midrash Shmuel.
In a copy of Avot from the land of Israel the word “to keep” does not appear, and this seems to be the correct text. For “to do” would obviously include keeping away from sin; as I wrote earlier, far be it that that doing positive commandments but not keeping away from negative ones be good in G-d’s eyes and an expression of His will! “To do”, rather, means simply to keep all the laws of the Torah.

Rabbi Tzadok says: Do not make it [the Torah] into a crown with which to aggrandize yourself, and not into a spade: That he not make his words of Torah like a spade to aggrandize himself and be honored on their account in this world, as that is benefit from honor. The exception is if he has the intention that if be for the Torah's honor. (Like they show) [As when they show] him honor, the Torah is honored by it. And if the whole-hearted intention of the sage is for the honor of the Torah - and not for his honor - it is permitted.

"to observe (guard), and to practice": As even though his intention was only to practice, he is afforded the opportunity also to guard [himself] from sins, so that he should not be like one who dips [into purifying waters] and has an [impure animal] in his hand - Midrash Shmuel. And in a text from the Land of Israel, "to observe" is not what we [have]. And that is the main [version], since certainly "to practice" is to keep [all of the commandments] of the Torah. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"and don't use it as a spade with which to dig": And do not study Torah in order to make from it a craft from which to earn a living, like a spade to dig with. As one that does this misappropriates the sanctity of the Torah and is liable for the death penalty from the Heavens, like one who derives [tangible] benefit form holy things (hekdesh). And teachers of small children receive payment for watching the children so that they will not err and cause damage; and payment for breaking up the cantillation, as a [Torah] teacher is not responsible to exert himself and to teach the students the breaking up of cantillation. But payment for teaching is forbidden to take, as it is written, (Deuteronomy 4:14), "And I did the Lord command at that time to teach you the statutes and the judgments, like the Lord, my God commanded me" - just like I [was taught] for free, so too are you [to be taught] for free. And so [too] is a judge forbidden to take payment for his legal decisions, but rather only for [not doing something else at that time] - [for] something that it is clear how much he would lose from the cessation of his work in order to hear the claims of the litigants, and [this is] only if he takes from both of them equally. But if he takes more than this, his decisions are nullified. And that which the Torah permitted the Torah scholar to derive [tangible] benefit from the words of Torah is that he may sell his merchandise in the marketplace before any [other] man, and also that he should be exempt from all taxes, yokes and property assessments. And the public is obligated to even give the poll tax for him. And even if he is wealthy and has much money, he is able to legally request that they exempt him. And if a Torah scholar is sick and suffering from afflictions and people bring many large portions for him on account of the honor of the Torah, he is [obligated] to accept, since it is impossible for him to earn a livelihood in another way. And so [too] a Torah scholar who the [community] appoints upon itself [as an] officer or the head of the group and he involves himself in the needs of the [community], it is permissible for him to take a reward from them; and even much more payment then he needs for his livelihood, so that his foods should be healthy. And through this, he will be great and feared and awesome in their eyes, as we find with the high priest, about whom it is written, "high (great) from his brothers" - and the sages expounded (Yoma 18a), "They should make him great from his brothers, such that his brothers, the priests, should make him wealthy from their [assets]. And the early sages who would abstain from this [were doing so out of piety] but not according to the [letter of the] law.

DO NOT MAKE THEM INTO A CROWN ETC. Not to gain honor through them and not to earn money through them, and both are necessary to say—Maharal in Derech Chaim.

and not into a spade with which to dig into them: That he not have benefit of money, as one should not benefit from them at all.

As it is written, "like He commanded me," meaning to say that he commanded me to study (teach) for free. For were it not [understood this way], to what is "like He commanded me" referring - as one cannot say that it is [referring to teaching] for payment, and did He command him that it is insufficient not to take reward? And one also cannot say that this is what it means - "'like He commanded me' and I am not saying [the commandments] on my own," as surely the Israelites were not doubting this, as behold, it is written, "they will believe you forever" - Rabbenu Nissim.

NOR A SPADE WITH WHICH TO DIG. Rav: it is forbidden to take money for teaching Torah, as the verse says “and G-d commanded at that moment to teach you laws and statutes” (Deuteronomy 4:14), and another verse earlier¹⁵⁰Tosafot Yom Tov clarifies that these are two separate verses that Rav wrote as one. says “...as Hashem my G-d commanded me” (Deuteronomy 4:5)—just as I learnt for free, you must learn for free. This is based on the Talmud in Nedarim 37a, where Ran writes (s.v. uchtiv re’eh): “As He commanded me.” I.e. he commanded me to teach for free. Otherwise, to what could “as He commanded me” be referring to? We cannot say that it means “[as He commanded me] to teach for pay”, for how could Moses say “as he commanded me”—had G-d commanded him this? Is it impossible to teach without taking pay? We also cannot say that he meant G-d commanded him these things and they were not of his own invention, for the people certainly would not have entertained such doubts, as the verse says “they will believe in you forever” (Exodus 19:9). We must say, rather, that “as He commanded me” must mean that He commanded me to teach for free.
Rav also writes: similarly, a judge may not take money for rendering judgment… and if [he does], his rulings are void. This is a mishna in Bechorot 4:6, see our comments there.
Rav also writes: the Torah has allowed him to benefit… in that his merchandise should be sold in the market first, and that the first customers in the market be directed to him.¹⁵¹Our editions of Rav do not have this second benefit, but Rambam includes it in his commentary on the mishna, which is Rav’s source. Rambam in his commentary here: ...for merchants regularly honor one another by doing these two things, even though there is no learning among them. A Torah scholar is not worse than a respected ignoramus.
Rav also writes: he is also exempt from all taxes and burdens. This is based on a verse in Ezra 7:24: “We also declare to you that it is unlawful to levy minda, b’lo, and halach¹⁵²Types of taxes. on all the priests and Levites, singers and gatekeeprs, Nethinim and whoever serves in this Temple of God.”

And thus Hillel used to say: And one who makes use of the crown (taga) [of learning] passes away: Taga is an expression that means crown, as [crown is rendered] in its [classical Aramaic] translation.

And that they can purchase [merchandise] at the opening of the marketplace, because [this and selling at the opening are] two actions that some merchants do for each other as a matter of honor, even without [taking] wisdom into consideration. And a Torah scholar is worthy of being [treated as well] as an honored ignoramus - Rambam.

AS HILLEL USED TO SAY. 1:13.

From here you learn that any one who benefits from the words of the Torah: One who benefits from words of Torah in this world, behold he removes his life from the world to come. And it is not only benefit from honor and benefit of money that they spoke about, but it is forbidden even to save oneself [with Torah]. As behold, they tied up Rabbi Tarfon to throw him into the river, as they thought that he was a thief. And he (only) said, "Woe to Tarfon, as this one is killing him." And since they [then] recognized that he was Rabbi Tarfon, they let him go and he ran away. All of the days of that righteous one, he was anguished about this thing and said, "Woe is to [me] that I have made use of the crown of Torah" - since anyone who makes use of the crown of Torah does not have a portion in the world to come. And we say the reason is because Rabbi Tarfon was very rich and he could have appeased him with money (Nedarim 62a). And we also say in Bava Batra in the first chapter (Bava Batra 8a) [that] Rabbi (Rabbi Yehuda Hanassi) opened his storehouses in a year of drought. He said, "Let the masters of scripture, the masters of Mishnah and the masters of Talmud enter! Let the ignoramuses not enter!" Rabbi Yochanan ben Amram pushed and entered; he said, "Rabbi, sustain me." He said [back] to him, "Have you read [scripture]?" "No." "Have you studied mishnah?" "No." "And if so, with (in the merit of) what should I sustain you?" He said, "Sustain me like a dog or a raven." He got up and sustained him. But after he left, he said, "Woe to me, since I gave from my money to an ignoramus." Rabbi Shimon beRabbi said to him, "Maybe that was Yonatan ben Amram, your student, who does not want to benefit (with the honor) [from the honor] of Torah." They checked and found that it was like his words. [Hence], Rabbi said, "Let all enter!" But [didn't] Rabbi also say [he wanted] to sustain [based] on the honor of Torah? Rather it was a year of drought, when it is a commandment to sustain whoever is lacking his needs; and the one who needs may take. However Rabbi did not want to give benefit from his money to ignoramuses. And Rabbi followed his reasoning, as Rabbi said, "Punishment only comes to the world because of ignoramuses." And nonetheless Yonatan ben Amram [went] beyond the letter of the law. As since he saw that they were only sustaining Torah masters, he said, "If so, they are sustaining based on the honor of Torah" - and he did not want to benefit from the honor of Torah. And it appears that maybe if they had not been willing to sustain him on the condition that he was an ignoramus, he would have sustained himself through the honor of Torah - as this transgression is no greater than all of the commandments in the Torah, about which it is stated (Leviticus 18:5), "and live by them" and not that he die by them, except for the three known ones (Yoma 85b). And that which they said (Ketuvot 105b), "From here, [we see] that the verse counts one who brings a gift to Torah scholars as if he brings up the first fruits" - they only said it about something to which commoners are [also] accustomed, as it is the way of people to bring a gift to an important person even if he is an ignoramus. And that which the sages said (Berakhot 10b), "[A scholar] who wants to benefit, he may benefit like Elisha" - this is [referring to] one who puts his merchandise into the 'pocket' of Torah scholars (for them to resell for a profit), their reward for which is great and it is permissible. And the verse also exempts them from types of taxes and fees and even from money for the poll tax, and other [benefits] that are known from tradition that the Holy One, blessed be He, allowed Torah scholars. And so did Rabbi Meir (Halevi), may his memory be blessed, arrange the matter.

As is found in Ezra 7:24, "all priests, etc. the king's tax, the poll tax and the meal tax, no one is empowered to place upon them."

"from the world": The explanation [of this] is, from life in the world to come - Rambam.

Rabbi Yosi says: Anyone who honors the Torah, etc.: And what is the honor of Torah? That he not place [holy] books on the floor and that he not sit on a chair or bench together with them on the same level; and that he honors it and its learners. As it is a known thing by force of the verses - and logic attest to it - that we can assume that someone who speaks well about the good and about the sages is righteous. And [regarding] any one who judges them unfavorably, takes [up] their actions to say that they are not thought out and does not see them to be a merit for them; and when evildoers are spoken about, he justifies their deeds - it is known that he has a trace of evil. And do not have a doubt that you can discern the hearts of men by this. And there is a whole verse about this that Shlomo, peace be upon him, stated (Proverbs 27:21), "For silver, the crucible; for gold, the furnace; and a man, according to his praising" - meaning to say, according to what he praises. And even though it is written (I Samuel 16:7), "but the Lord sees to the heart," that is speaking concerning heresy. As a man does not have the ability to discern if his fellow is a heretic, since these are matters hidden in the hearts of the heretics. But the speech of the believers (the editor said, according to the [context], some words are missing here, and there are those that have the textual variant, "but they are like believers in their speech.")

Honor of the Torah is in teaching alacrity in its performance and honoring the sages that support it and the books that they wrote abut it. And so [too], desecration of the Torah is the opposite of [these] three.

"Anyone who honors the Torah": There is no greater honor of the Torah than the one who expounds on all the missing letters and extra letters in the Torah, and gives a reason for each and every embellishment on [its letters]; to say that there is nothing purposeless in it. And also (another explanation) is, the one who honors a Torah scroll and honors those that study the Torah and those occupied with it - all of these are included in "one who honors the Torah."

Introduction Rabbi Yose was one of Rabbi Akiva’s students. He was one of Rabbi Judah Hanasi’s teachers, and is one of more prevalent sages in the Mishnah.

his body will be honored by the created beings: He is helped from the Heavens that the created beings will honor him, since he honors the Torah and does the things that we mentioned. And about their opposites, they said:

Rabbi Yose said: whoever honors the Torah is himself honored by others, and whoever dishonors the Torah is himself dishonored by others. There are several explanations as to what it means to “honor the Torah”. One is that to honor the Torah is not to place a Torah scroll on a bed or a bench, or a book of the Torah (the Pentateuch) on a Torah scroll, or a volume of the “Prophets” or “Writings” on a volume of the Torah, or a volume of the Talmud on top of any book of the Bible. These are all physical ways of honoring the Torah. Others explain that honoring the Torah means to honor its commandments and to perform them eagerly. Still others explain that honoring the Torah means acting in a moral manner when performing the commandments.

Anyone who desecrates the Torah - his body will be desecrated by the created beings: About these they said, one who reveals [improper] faces of the Torah and says, "Why was it necessary to write, 'And Timna was a concubine'?" (Genesis 36:12), and similar to it - behold this is one who desecrates the Torah.

AND POINTLESS OATHS [Heb. shvuat shav]. Rav writes in his second explanation: the tanna calls a false oath a pointless oath. This is based on the Talmud, Shevuot 20b, where Rav Dimi says in the name of R. Yochanan that a pointless oath is when one swears that he has eaten or not eaten, and the opposite is true. Rashi ad loc. explains: shav here means “nothing”, as in the verses “cords of nothingness [Heb. chavlei shav]” (Isaiah 5:10) and “I have struck your children for nothing [Heb. leshav]” (Jeremiah 2:30); in this instance, as well, the oath has left his mouth for nothing. The souce for the prohibition is “Do not mention the name of Hashem, your G-d, in vain [Heb. leshav]” (Exodus 20:7).
I first wondered at this, because the mishna in Shevuot 3:8 asks “What is an oath of shav?” and does not list the case of one who makes an oath about past events. We can answer this as follows. The Talmud there says that Ravin disagrees with Rav Dimi and calls the oath of “I have eaten/I haven’t eaten” a false oath [*see my comments on Temurah 1:1, s.v. sofeg], while a pointless oath is one that involves an obviously false claim, such as “this is a woman” of a man. He holds that one who makes a false oath receives lashes, and the Talmud traces the source for this to the double use of the word shav in the verse in Exodus 20:7: one shav indicates that a pointless oath incurs lashes; the second shav, which now seems unnecessary, indicates that even a false oath incurs lashes. How, the Talmud asks, does Ravin know that a false oath is about a past event? It answers that, since the Torah clearly compares the false oath to the pointless oath, it is reasonable to assume that just as the pointless oath concerns a past event, a false oath concerns a past event. Rashi ad loc. explains that a pointless oath is about a “past event” because it makes a claim that is obviously false, as opposed to an oath about doing or not doing something in the future.
We can similarly say that Rav Dimi would agree that any oath about a past event would follow logically from the classic case of a pointless oath, which is making an obviously false claim. Because the term “pointless oath” refers most directly to an oath claiming the opposite of what is well-known, the mishna defines a pointless oath as “making an oath claiming the opposite of something well-known,” but indeed, any false oath concerning a past event would be included in this.
[*But there is a simpler approach. The Talmud says there (Shevuot 21b) that one who makes the oath “I have/haven’t eaten” is obligated to bring a sacrifice of atonement, whereas the abovementioned mishna says that one who makes a pointless oath is not obligated to bring a sacrifice. For this reason, the end of that same mishna says “this is the ‘pointless oath’ which one who makes intentionally must receive lashes for, but for which one who makes it unintentionally need not bring a sacrifice,” and the Talmud says that “this” means to exclude the case of “I have/haven’t eaten” which would require a sacrifice, as I wrote on that mishna (Shevuot 3:8, s.v. zo hi). Now even though the Talmud was in the middle of defending Ravin’s position, it is clear that even Rav Dimi agrees to this detail, as the Talmud says in Shevuot at the beginning of page 21a that Rav Dimi holds that swearing “I have/haven’t eaten” falsely would obligate one to bring a sacrifice.¹⁵³This is why that mishna could not include the case of swearing about a past event in the “pointless oath”, even though it actually is—the mishna means to list those pointless oaths that would not obligate one to bring a sacrifice, and a false oath about a past event, even though it is included in the category of pointless oaths, does obligate one to bring a sacrifice.]
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan that our mishna mentions pointless oaths and not false oaths because even when the law requires an oath and the one swearing is telling the truth, such an oath is considered a pointless oath as far as the litigant is concerned because he knows what is true, and making a true oath of something that is already known is called a pointless oath. If so, our mishna would be following the opinion of those who argue with Rav Dimi and hold that “I have/haven’t eaten” goes in the category of false oaths, which are forbidden by “do not swear falsely in My name” (Leviticus 19:12).¹⁵⁴According to Midrash Shmuel, the mishna's warning is not that involvement in court cases will cause one to swear falsely. It is rather that even the legitimate oaths one makes in court have a dimension of pointlessness to them, and so our mishna is discussing piously refraining even from legitimate oaths as opposed to refraining from truly transgressing any prohibitions. If so, shav refers exclusively to these somewhat “pointless” oaths and not to any truly problematic ones, and cannot include false oaths. As such, it cannot be following the opinion of Rav Dimi, according to whom the word shav includes false oaths about past events; it must be following the opinion of those who argue and hold that the word shav simply means “pointless”, and can therefore be borrowed to describe these somewhat pointless oaths. Rambam follows this opinion in Hilchot Shevuot 1:3. Cf. Rav’s commentary on on 5:9.

Rabbi Yishmael, his son, says: One who withholds himself from judging: Even though it is written (Deuteronomy 16:18), "You shall appoint magistrates and officials in all of your gates," and (Deuteronomy 16:20) "Justice, justice shall you pursue," as it is a commandment to judge [legal cases] - that is in a place where there are no other judges. But any time he can withhold himself, it is good for him to send its yoke onto others, since [that way] he will prevent himself from several problems.

He is nonchalant in legal decisions to force his decisions without awe and fear.

"An imbecile, etc.": An imbecile in that he brings enmity upon himself. And wicked as he is not concerned whether [the litigant] will steal or make a vain (false) oath. And on top of that, arrogant in spirit; as it is arrogance of spirit that brought him to this - to give legal decisions and to judge [so as] to acquire [fame] like the [fame] of one of the great ones in the land - Midrash Shmuel.

"One who withholds himself from judging": in a place that there is someone greater than he. And also (another explanation is) [that] he tells the litigants that they should compromise.

Introduction Rabbi Ishmael was the oldest of Rabbi Yose’s five sons. Most of his statements in the Talmud were stated in the name of his father. He lived in Tzippori (in the Galilee). In this mishnah and in the next, Rabbi Ishmael discusses judgement. We should note that in the time of the Mishnah, being a judge was not a profession. Jewish courts were not fixed institutions, such as an independent state might have. While there may have been rabbis to whom people knew they could turn, this is not the same as an established court system. Furthermore, in some cases, anyone could act as a judge, even those without any special qualifications. A person could potentially gather three people and ask them to render a decision. (See Sanhedrin, chapter three). In such a system (or lack of system) it becomes especially important to give instructions to people when they should or should not judge. This is the subject of the next two mishnayoth.

A FOOL, WICKED, AND ARROGANT. A fool, because he causes others to hate him. Wicked, because it bothers him little if he causes the innocent party to pay or make needless oaths. He is also arrogant, because it is out of arrogance that he wishes to judge and issue rulings, that he may become famous and have the kind of reputation the great men of the land have—Midrash Shmuel.

removes from himself enmity: As one who leaves the court guilty will hate the judges.

"removes from himself enmity": Since one who leaves a court guilty hates the judge, as he says in his heart, "He did not [properly] look for my innocence."

Rabbi Ishmael his son said: he who refrains himself from judgment, rids himself of enmity, robbery and false swearing; But he whose heart is presumptuous in giving a judicial decision, is foolish, wicked and arrogant. Seemingly, Rabbi Ishmael is asking all people to avoid acting as judges, saying that those who don’t judge avoid many pitfalls. They don’t make enemies out of those whom they find guilty, they don’t misjudge, thereby in essence robbing from the falsely convicted, and they don’t make people swear when they shouldn’t have to. However, the second half of Rabbi Ishmael’s statement seems to imply that the first half is not referring to normal, qualified judges. A good judge is not “presumptuous”, in other words he carefully weighs his decisions, and makes sure he knows all of the facts and all of the laws before he renders his decision. One who does not do so is foolish, for he thinks that he is smarter than he really is, wicked, for he recklessly renders decisions, and arrogant, for he assumes that he will not make a mistake. According to Rabbi Ishmael it is the presumptuous, untrained judge that is problematic. Rabbi Ishmael’s statement should be considered a warning not to judge when one is not qualified. It is not a warning that even the qualified should refrain from judgement. Counterbalancing this tradition, there is an assumption that those who are trained have a duty to judge others, for if they did not, society would not be able to enforce its laws. Other commentators point out that this mishnah only applies in a case where there are other, more qualified judges. But if there is no one else more qualified, each person has an obligation to judge as best as he can. Nevertheless, he must render his decision with fear and with the proper respect for the seriousness of his job.

theft: Lest he obligate one who is not guilty to pay; and the matter is considered for him as if he had stolen from him.

"theft": Lest he declared the innocent guilty, and it comes out that theft came about through him.

and the false oath: Lest they obligate one an oath that is not according to the law; and it comes out that he makes him stumble in a vain oath.

"and a false (literally, vain) oath": Lest he obligate someone who is not obligated to take an oath [to do so, such] that it comes out that he brings him to a vain oath. And also (another explanation is) that the teacher [of the mishnah] is calling a false oath, a vain oath; for example, one who says, "I did not borrow," and he borrowed, as at the time of the oath, it came out of his mouth in vain.

One who is nonchalant about giving legal decisions: He put this thing adjacent to the one who withholds himself from judging because [the latter] needs to decide upon it with deliberation and much analysis and [so] the matter is a burden to him; but [in contrast] the one who is nonchalant about giving legal decisions that thinks about himself that he knows to give the correct legal decisions and he will not err:

"One who is nonchalant:" without research and without deliberation.

is an imbecile: He is called an imbecile because he is wise in his [own] eyes, and there is no greater imbecility than this - as 'there is more hope for a fool than for him.' Since when the fool does sins, he himself knows and recognizes that he is not walking on the good path, and he does not think that he is not erring. And [so] there is hope for his betterment, as maybe he will repent to God. But with the wise one in his [own] eyes who is nonchalant about giving legal decisions, what hope is there? Since he thinks that he is wise, how will he [change] - as it would appear to him like leaving wisdom and intelligence.

wicked: Even though he [already] said that he is an imbecile, that expression does not include his not being a fearer of sin. Because of this, he needed to say that he is [also] wicked. As if he had fear of Heaven, he would not have been so quick with his words - since he knows (that comprehension) [that error] is found among people and it is easy for any person to sin - and even for the greatest and most analytical sage.

and arrogant in spirit: Even though he [already] said that he is imbecile and does not fear sin, now he adds and says that it is from haughtiness and arrogance of spirit and from wanting to lord [it over others] that he is nonchalant about giving legal decisions - [it is] in order that the world see that he decides legal cases quickly and to show them that he is wise, so they will appoint him to be a judge and master over them. And that is his evil thought. Behold, these three traits are in the one who is nonchalant about giving legal decisions and who renders [these] decisions without trepidation and fear - may the Omnipresent, in His mercy, save us from them.

DO NOT JUDGE A CASE ALONE. Rav writes that this even applies to a single expert judge, who is authorized to judge cases alone, as Rav writes in Sanhedrin 3:1. [*Rav also writes: but if the litigants accepted him as a judge, even one who wishes to act piously can judge the case alone. I don’t see the logic here, for even in this case it is better to work the ruling out with others. Additionally, when there are three judges the litigant who is ordered to pay doesn’t know which of the judges decided against him; in considering each judge individually, he can always assume that this judge ruled in his favor but was overruled by the other two. Maharil uses this in the Likutim to explain Shmuel's saying¹⁵⁵Sanhedrin 3a. that although the ruling of a court that convenes with only two judges is valid, the court is called a “brazen court”: they are brazen and do not care that the litigant they order to pay will know that neither of them ruled in his favor.
Indeed, Tur writes at the beginning of Choshen Mishpat 10 that “through much back-and-forth, the judge will penetrate to the depth of the case.” The word “back-and-forth” usually means discussion with another person, not internal back-and-forth, and it does not seem reasonable to distinguish between expert and non-expert judges in this respect.

He would say: Do not judge alone: This is also from the matter of withholding oneself from judging. As even though an expert (judges) even alone, it is [of] the trait of piety that he not do so but [wait] until he takes colleagues that judge with him and they will help him. And it comes out a little that he withholds himself from judging, as not all [of the judging] is placed upon him.

The Torah permitted an expert [known] to the public to judge by himself, as we explained in Sanhedrin. But this is the word of the Torah and here it warns him a little from the angle of ethics and not from the angle of prohibition. And he said [that] if your colleagues disagree with you in an opinion from the opinions, do not force them to accept your argument - as they know if they must accept it, and it is not your right to force them to accept your opinion.

And I do not know [Rabbi Bartenura's] reason, since it is nonetheless better for him to make the judgment in a group; and also if they are three, the convicted will not know who convicted him. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"Don't be a lone judge": Even though an expert may judge alone, it is from the way of piety that even an expert should not judge alone. [And that is] only when the litigants have not accepted him upon themselves as a judge; but if they accepted him upon themselves, he can judge alone even in the way of piety.

He used to say: judge not alone, for none may judge alone save one. And say not “accept my view”, for they are free but not you. According to the rabbis, the Torah does permit an expert judge to judge alone. Nevertheless, Rabbi Ishmael warns judges not to do so, for only God can truly judge alone. Human beings, even those who are expert in law, should set up courts of three, as is described in Sanhedrin, chapter three. When this expert judge is sitting with two others, and they disagree with his decision, he may not say to them “accept my view”. He may not use force, even verbal force, to get them to acquiesce to his own view. “For they are free but not you”, means that since they are the majority, they may compel you to accept their, majority decision. You, even though an expert, cannot compel them to accept your, minority decision.

for there is no lone judge aside from One [God]: He wants to say that there is no lone judge except for the Holy One, blessed be He. And there is [someone] who explains, "for there is no lone judge aside from one" [that] this is the expert, but not other people who are not experts. And therefore a person should not consider himself an expert and he should think that he needs a group.

"for there is no lone judge aside from the One [God]": The Holy One, blessed be He, who is alone (unique) in His world.

And do not say, "Accept my opinion": Also when you take a group to judge the legal case and they disagree with you, do not say, "I am the expert and they are not experts. [Hence] they should accept my opinion and nullify their opinions in my [favor]. As if it were not for my humility, I would have judged the case alone; [so] now too, [decide according to] my argument." As you should not think this.

"And don't say": to your colleagues that disagree with him, "Accept my opinion, since I am an expert and I could have judged without your association."

for they are permitted and not you: If your colleagues (rise early) [agree] with your opinion, it is upon them to accept your words. But, if not, you are not permitted to force them about this.

"for they are permitted and not you": Given that you have joined them to you, it is fitting that he should decide according to the majority.

ANYONE WHO UPHOLDS THE TORAH IN POVERTY [Heb. me`oni]. Rav: he is tight on food and still puts his work aside in order to study Torah. The mishna does not says “anyone who studies” because of the second section. There, the mishna did not want to say “anyone who does not study Torah” because we might understand this to refer to one who does not study Torah out of arrogance on account of his wealth. The mishna therefore says “anyone who leaves aside the Torah because of wealth,” i.e. because he needs to busy himself with it he leaves aside his Torah study. In the first section, as well, when the mishna says “anyone who upholds the Torah in poverty” it means that his business needs do not cause him to cast aside his study; instead, he maintains his study—Maharal in Derech Chaim. If we go with this approach that the first section of the mishna was so worded under the influence of the last section, we can also understand the use of the word me`oni, which really means “because of poverty”. Though it would have been more natural to say be`oni, “in poverty,” the mishna used the me- prefix under the influence of the second section which says me`osher, meaning “because of wealth”.¹⁵⁶Where the meaning really is “because of wealth”, as Maharal has explained.

Rabbi Yonatan says: Anyone who implements the Torah in poverty: Since he compresses his hours and neglects his work needed for his livelihood in order to implement the Torah and the commandment, and [so] he studies and does the commandments in difficulty:

He said that anyone that is occupied with Torah and is poor and needy and - with all of this - pains himself to be occupied with it; in the end he will be occupied with it in wealth, such that there not be anything to disturb him from the reading. And one who is not occupied with Torah because of his multitude of money [so that] his involvement is in eating and in drinking and in rest; in the end he will become impoverished and time will be tight for him - until the reason for his neglect of the reading will be his preoccupation with bread for him to eat.

And that which we did not teach [in this mishnah], "who is involved," is because of the end, that we do not want to teach, "anyone who is not involved." As I would have [then] said [that it is] because of the haughtiness of his heart due to his wealth that he is not involved in Torah [study]. And hence, it is taught, "one who neglects, etc;" meaning to say, on account of his needing to be involved in his [assets, since] this matter causes his neglect of Torah. And so too, this is what he means to say: "One who implements the Torah in poverty" [such that] his [business] affairs do not negate his study, but [rather] he [still] fulfills his [obligation to] study - Derekh Chaim. And according to this, it appears to me that [the wording of the beginning], "me'oni (literally, from poverty), is also in view of the end; as we learn [there, literally] "from wealth;" the explanation of which is as a result of wealth. And [this is the case] even though it should have taught, "be'oni (in poverty).

"One who implements the Torah in poverty": who is pressed for food and abstains from his work to be involved in Torah [studies].

Introduction Rabbi Jonathan was a student of Rabbi Ishmael’s. This is his only statement in the mishnah. These two facts go hand in hand. Rabbi Ishmael was the founder of a bet midrash (study house) that differed from the bet midrash founded by Rabbi Akiva. The Mishnah is the product of Rabbi Akiva’s bet midrash, and therefore sages who were from Rabbi Ishmael’s bet midrash rarely have their statements included in it.

WILL EVENTUALLY UPHOLD IT IN WEALTH. Experience has shown that this is often untrue,¹⁵⁷I.e., that such people don’t always become wealthy. as in the story of the poverty-stricken R. Elazar ben P’dat in Ta`anit 25a, whom G-d asked: “would you like me to remake the world, so that perhaps you will be born in a time of plenty?” Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that our mishna is discussing a person with average luck.¹⁵⁸Heb. mazal, a term with complicated theological connotations. And sometimes this happens to a person so that wealth not take him away from his studies,¹⁵⁹Even though the person in question deserves the wealth promised to him by the mishna, G-d keeps it from him in the knowledge that if he gets to be wealthy he will abandon his Torah study. The mishna’s promise, then, is only fulfilled for the kind of person that will not abandon his studies. as in the midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Mishlei 934): the Torah said before G-d: the verse says “In its left are wealth and honor” (Proverbs 3:16)—why then are there Torah scholars in poverty? G-d answered, “To cause those who love Me to inherit what truly is”¹⁶⁰This seems to be how the midrash is reading the verse. (Proverbs 8:21)—why are they poor in this world? In order that they not busy themselves with other things and forget the Torah, as the verse says “for a wise man praises poverty, and the mindless fool, gifts”¹⁶¹This seems to be how the midrash is reading the verse. Unlike the commentators, who see עשק as the subject and חכם as the object, and understand the verb יהולל to mean something like “make foolish, mad” (from הוללות), the midrash sees עשק as the object and חכם as the subject, and understands the verb יהולל to mean “to praise”. This sets up a nice parallelism for the second half of the verse. (Ecclesiastes 7:7).
And sometimes this is the result of a sin, for which suffering atones. Of such a case King Solmon says, “honor G-d with your wealth, etc”, and immediately afterwards, “do not despise G-d’s disciplining” (Proverbs 3:9, 3:11). Rabbenu Yonah ad loc. explains the juxtaposition of the two verses as follows: if, in doing good, you do not see a life of success, do not doubt G-d and do not despise G-d’s discipline, my son, etc.

his end will be to implement it in wealth: As he will become wealthy. And in addition, he will also have broad hours to be occupied with Torah [study] and to implement the commandments, since his income will be great. And he will not require the toil of his hands, but rather he will eat and study 'in joy and with a good heart.' As through wisdom, he will have all the good. [It is] as we found with King Shlomo, peace be upon him, who asked for wisdom and did not ask for silver and gold, as it is stated (Proverbs 30:8), "Keep lies and false words far from me; give me neither poverty nor riches, [but] provide me with my daily bread." There is a parable [relevant to this] about a king that said to his servant, "Ask [for] what I should give you." [The servant] said, "If I ask for silver and gold, he will give [it] to me; for properties and lands, he will give [it] to me. I will ask for the king's daughter for my wife, and everything [else] will be included." So did Shlomo, peace be upon him, say, "I will ask for wisdom and everything [else] is included, 'For to be in the shelter of wisdom is to be in the shelter of money'" (Ecclesiastes 7:12).

"his end, etc.": and even if experience frequently shows the opposite of this, [as does] the story of Rabbi Elazar ben Padat (Taanit 25), "If you want, the world can be destroyed, etc." Derekh Chaim wrote that our mishnah is [dealing with] someone of average circumstance (mazal). And also, [the reason such a person does not always become wealthy is] so that his wealth will not cause him to neglect [his Torah study]. And so [too] in the midrash, "Because of what do the children of the poor, etc. So that they will not get involved in other things and forget the words of Torah, as it is written, 'As oppression makes the wise, silly.'" And also, sometimes it is the consequence of sin - and afflictions cleanse. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"One that disregards the Torah in wealth": Due to abundance of his [assets], he needs to put his attention sometimes to this, sometimes to that, and [so] has no free time to be involved in Torah [studies].

Rabbi Jonathan said: whoever fulfills the Torah out of a state of poverty, his end will be to fulfill it out of a state of wealth; And whoever discards The torah out of a state of wealth, his end will be to discard it out of a state of poverty. One who studies Torah despite his poverty and despite the fact that he could earn more money if he worked more, will eventually be rewarded with wealth. In contrast, one who neglects the study of Torah because he is so busy trying to earn more money, will eventually lose his wealth. Some commentators on the mishnah raise a difficulty. Empirically speaking one can observe that this mishnah simply is not true. We often see people who study Torah and yet do not become rich and we see people who do not study Torah and do not grow poor. These commentators therefore interpret it to mean that anyone who studies the Torah out of poverty will continue to keep the Torah even if he becomes wealthy; and anyone who does not study the Torah while wealthy will not study it even if he becomes poor. In other words we should not assume that his Torah study, or lack thereof, is a result of his economic status. Another interpretation is that wealth is not to be taken literally. Rather it refers to the type of wealth mentioned in mishnah one of this chapter, that is being satisfied with one’s portion in life. One who is poor but studies Torah will be satisfied with his life, and thereby will feel himself to be wealthy.

And anyone that disregards the Torah in wealth: Since many times and many hours, he had the free time to study and did not do [it, he]:

will in the end disregard it in poverty: As he will need to exert himself for his livelihood and he will not find it; to the point that, as poetic justice, he will not find free time to be occupied with Torah, even if he wanted. And it comes out that he will leave the world without Torah.

DO LESS BUSINESS [Heb. be`esek] AND BUSY YOURSELF WITH TORAH. This seems obvious. Perhaps the mishna means to say that one should spend less time on business not because it is too difficult or because on is lazy, but specifically in order to study Torah—Maharal in Derech Chaim.
Rav has `esek without a bet,¹⁶²Which would make the phrase “do little business”. and the text of the Mishna I have from the land of Israel was thus emended.

Rabbi Meir says: Minimize business and engage in Torah: That you make your work flexible and your Torah fixed.

He said [to] minimize your business and be constant with the Torah and Be humble of spirit before everyone - meaning to say that you not be humble of spirit in front of the big people alone; indeed in front of every man. [Such] that when you sit with any man that it be, your speaking with him should be as if he is greater than you. And all of this is to flee from pride, as we have elucidated. And the matter of many reasons for neglecting it will be presented to you is that there are many things that cause neglect and require someone to be occupied with them. And when you are not occupied with Torah, time will disturb you with one of those things.

"Be, etc.": [This is] simple, what can it teach us? And one can explain that it is coming to say that the minimization of business should be for the sake of Torah [study], and not for the sake of the effort or laziness - Derekh Chaim.

"Minimize business": Minimize occupation with your merchandise and your craft, and let your main occupation be in Torah [study].

Introduction Rabbi Meir was one of the great students of Rabbi Akiva, and according to the Talmud, the anonymous sayings in the mishnah were really stated by Rabbi Meir. In other words, when Rabbi Judah Hanasi composed the mishnah, he used Rabbi Meir’s mishnah as the base.

BEFORE EVERY MAN. Rav: and learn even from one who is below you in wisdom. This agrees with the version of mishna 4 quoted by Midrash Shmuel: “be lowly of spirit before every man”—that mishna is in terms of arrogance, while our mishna is in terms of learning.
But Rambam explains our mishna in terms of arrogance. This agrees with the text of mishna 4 in our editions, which does not have the words “before every man”.¹⁶³The difference between mishna 4 and our mishna would then be one of degree. Indeed, Rambam explains that our mishna emphasizes that one must be lowly of spirit not just in the presence of great men (as one might have concluded from mishna 4), but “before every man”.

Be humble of spirit before everyone: This thing is also from the topic of Torah, and so it was said in the midst of his words that were words [about] Torah - and he did not [put] it earlier nor later. And he wanted to say [that] even if you are successful in Torah [study] - which is the true advantage - do not become haughty; and it is not necessary to say that it is not fit to become haughty for all of the other foreign, physical advantages.

According to the textual variant of Midrash Shmuel in Mishnah 4, there it is regarding the issue of pride and here it is regarding the issue of study. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"Be humble of spirit before everyone": to learn even from someone lesser than you in wisdom.

Rabbi Meir said:
Engage but little in business, and busy yourself with the Torah. A story is told of Rabbi Meir, that he earned three sela’s a week. One he would spend on food, one on clothing and one he would give to support other scholars. When asked why he was leaving nothing for his children as an inheritance, he replied that if they are righteous, they will merit their own living and if they are wicked, why should he leave his belongings to God’s enemies. This story illustrates well Rabbi Meir’s faith that God would help provide for those who learn Torah. Note that Rabbi Meir works for a living; he does not himself accept charity nor solely depend on God’s provenance. Furthermore he recognizes that although he can earn a living while studying, others are not so successful. God’s aid is not forthcoming to all and therefore he gives charity. While he has faith that in the end God will provide, his faith does not prevent him from taking action.

IF YOU HAVE LABORED MUCH IN TORAH. And exerted yourself and expended great effort on it, “there is much reward, etc.”, because the reward is commensurate with the effort and exertion and not with the learning. This is why the mishna says “if you have labored,” not “if you have learned”; everything depends on the labor, whether one has learned much or little. The mishna in 5:23, “the reward is commensurate with the suffering,” is a proof to this—Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yehuda Lerma. See my comments on 2:16, s.v. if you have learned.

Be humble of spirit before everyone: And even before the lowly and the degraded and the inferior - so as to distance oneself from the trait of haughtiness - and it is not necessary to say, before one that is your equal.

"And if you labor in Torah": and you exerted yourself and put effort into it, "there is abundant reward, etc." As the reward is according to the proliferation of labor and effort, and not according to the proliferation of study. And therefore, it did not state, "if you learn," but [rather], "if you labor" - as everything is dependent on the labor, both for the one who expends much and for the one who expends little. [A] support for him is the mishnah at the end of Chapter 5 that teaches, "According to the pain is the reward" - Midrash Shmuel

"many reasons for neglecting it (batelim) will be presented to you": that will assist to have you neglect it. Another explanation [which understands the word, batelim, as idle ones]: There are several idle ones in the world, which are the evildoers and bad animals which are idle ones; and through them, the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring punishments to you.

Be of humble spirit before all men. A person should act humbly in front of all other human beings, not just those who are superior to him. This is also true (or perhaps especially true) for those who are learned in Torah. Although they are more learned than others, they must act humbly in front of all people.

If you neglect the Torah, many reasons for neglecting it will be presented to you: These are the evildoers, the bears and the lions, that bring neglect from work - as they are the disciplining staff. And through them the Holy One, blessed be He, punishes those neglectful of Torah study. As He does not want to pay back with His [own] hand, but rather through others - with the trait of punishment.

"And if you labor in Torah": He, Himself will pay your reward, and not through an agent. And in this, the measure of good is greater than the measure of punishment.

If you have neglected the Torah, you shall have many who bring you to neglect it, but if you have labored at the study of Torah, there is much reward to give unto you If a person neglects the study of Torah, there will continuously be things that further prevent him from studying Torah. This can easily be observed. When someone postpones doing something, be it study, exercise or any activity that can be postponed, it only gets more and more difficult to find the time to engage in that activity. However, if one does start to study, Rabbi Meir has faith that he will receive a rich reward. The commentators understand this to mean that God himself will reward such a person.

And if you labor in Torah, [He (God)] has abundant reward to grant you: The Holy One, blessed be He, Himself in the His [full] glory gives the reward for those that are occupied with His Torah - 'not through an angel and not through a messenger.' And with this He is assuring all of those that come to the world that He sends the punishments through His messengers to lighten the matter, 'as not like our Rock is their rock.' But 'great peace is there to those who love His Torah,' and 'goodly reward to those that fear Him' - He pays them by His hand and not through others, in order to increase their reward. There is a parable [relevant to this] about a king for whom a craftsman made a fine vessel. The king commanded and said to his servants that they should take money from his treasury and pay him nicely. And will they not give him less than if the king himself would pay him? As their hearts are not broad like the heart of the king, due to his great wealth and honor; and their nature towards generosity is not like his nature. Even if they give the king's money, their present will be smaller than the king's present. So [too] is, the blessed Holy One, blessed be He, in the trait of goodness - He wants to give with His hand 'to enlarge the reward and elevate it.'

HE WHO PERFORMS ONE COMMANDMENT ACQUIRES ONE ADVOCATE [Heb. praklit]. Aruch (s.v. praklit) notes that the Targum translates “my advocates, my friends” (Job 16:20) as praklitai, chavrai.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: One who does a single commandment acquires a single defender: That is one that advises good for a person in front of the king.

A praklit (defender) is [a man] that advises good for a person to the authorities. A katigor (prosecutor ) is the opposite of this - and he is one who tale-bears on a man to the king and attempts to kill him. And they said that repentance after bad deeds or good deeds from the start - each of these two matters - prevent injuries and sicknesses from coming to a person.

"Repentance and good deeds": The language of Rambam: Repentance after bad deeds or good deeds at the beginning of the matter. To here [are his words]. And it lists repentance first because of what the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said, "In the place that repentants stand, even the completely righteous cannot stand" - Midrash Shmuel. And Rashbam follows the textual variant, "Torah and good deeds." See Tosafot Yom Tov.

"Defender": A good interceding angel.

Introduction Since this mishnah contains two mishnayoth from two different sages, we will treat each one individually. There were two Tannaitic sages by the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob. The first lived during the time of the Second Temple, and the second was a student of Rabbi Akiva. This mishnah is from the latter sage.

REPENTANCE AND GOOD DEEDS. Rambam: “repentance” after evil deeds, or “good deeds” to begin with. Midrash Shmuel adds that the mishna puts “repentance” before “good deeds” based on the Talmud, Berachot 34b: “even the perfectly righteous cannot stand where those who have totally repented stand.” He also writes in the name of Chasid Ya`avetz that Rashbam reads “Torah and good deeds,” for every action is included in “good deeds”—if a person confesses his sin to G-d, he has merely fulfilled what the Torah has commanded: “and they shall confess” (Numbers 5:7). The same is true if he returns what he has stolen or receives lashes prescribed by law. But Chasid Ya`avetz notes that all of the versions have “repentance”, and says that “repentance” refers to regret and contrition, which are the main components of repentance, for confession without contrition is nothing. This is the meaning of the verse in Leviticus 26:40, which is now to be read “and they shall confess their sins”—but without regret, which is the meaning of “in the treacherous way that they betrayed Me”. Then, “I will bring them to the land of their enemies,” and “perhaps then their uncircumcised heart will be humbled and they will gain appeasement for their sin”, and their repentance will be complete. Cf. my comments below.

One who does a single sin acquires a single prosecutor: That is one that advises bad for a person in front of the king.

"like a tris": A shield. Since the [Aramaic] translation of (II Kings 19:32) "he shall not advance a shield upon it," is vela yikadmenah bitrisin. And some explain that it is [related to] "trisei chanuiot, the explanation [of which] is a shutter - Arukh.

"prosecutor (katigor)": A bad interceder. And the expression katigor is [from] koreh tagar (one who calls out complaints). And the explanation of sanigor, which is the opposite of katigor, is soneh tagar (one who hates complaints).

LIKE A TRIS. A shield; the word appears in the Aramaic translation of the verse “he will not approach it with a shield” (2 Kings 19:32). Some explain it as deriving from the shutters that were used to lock up storefronts [Heb. trisei chanuyot]. Both explanations are quoted by Aruch.

Repentance and good deeds are like a shield against punishment: As the repentance that a person does for his bad deeds and the good deeds that he did from the beginning - behold, they protect him like a shield against punishment.

"against punishment": It means to say [punishments] 'that rage and come' according to the custom of the world. But you cannot explain that it is the punishment of sin; as about this they said (Mishnah Yoma 8:8), "Repentance [and Yom Kippur] suspends and afflictions cleanse" And the proof is from "good deeds" [which is] at the beginning of the matter [meaning to say, that such a person did not sin] And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

FROM PUNISHMENT. The statement of the Talmud in Yoma 86a that “repentance and Yom Kippur 'suspend' the punishment and suffering completes the atonement” does not contradict our mishna, for the “shield” in the mishna is that very “suspension” the Sages were referring to. The idea is that people are not entirely destroyed, but suffer just enough for their sins to be atoned for and for them to return to their previous states, as much as is judged necessary by the account of the G-d who knows every individual's circumstances. In short, they serve as a shield that protects people from complete destruction—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Abarbanel.
I say that the “punishment” in our mishna is not the punishment for a sin but the afflictions and misfortunes of daily life, and I will prove that this is the case. We mentioned earlier that Rambam explains “good deeds” as referring to good deeds done before any sin has been done. If so, since he has not sinned and no punishment for sin is forthcoming, to what end would he need this shield? We must conclude that “punishment” here refers to the accidents and ills that occur in the world. Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that we follow the opinion in the Tamud, Shabbat 55b that “there is suffering without sin”. And even according to the opinion that “there is no suffering without sin” all that is required is a minor sin for punishment to come, as is evident from the Talmud in Berachot 5b; repentance is a shield from that punishment.
[*Maharal felt it necessary to justify his position even according to the opinion that “there is no suffering without sin” because when the Talmud concludes that “there is suffering without sin” it is doing so because this is one of two statements made by R. Ami, the other of which is “there is no death without sin”; the latter having been disproven, it was assumed that the former was as well. The truth of the matter, however, might be that since the former was never explicitly rebutted it stands. In fact, Tosafot write ad loc.: “We conclude there is death without sin and there is suffering without sin”—even though the statement “there is no suffering without sin” was not rebutted.

Rabbi Yochanan the shoemaker says: Every gathering that is for the sake of Heaven, its end is to endure: [If it is] for Torah or good deeds, it is called a gathering that is for the sake of Heaven.

"its end, etc.": Rashi explained that in the future its counsel will endure and be successful. And in Midrash Shmuel [the author] explains it about the gathering itself. And that which we learn, "its end" is to say that even though you will see the poverty of the assembly at the beginning, its end is to endure. And the gathering "that is not for the sake of Heaven;" even though you see they are successful, their end is not to endure. And it is not difficult [on account of] "An association of idols is Ephraim - let him alone" (Hoshea 4:17); as behold, their end was not to endure.

WILL BE ESTABLISHED IN THE END. Rashi: the resolutions they make will endure and succeed. Midrash Shmuel explains “will be established” as referring to the assembly itself, which is why the mishna says sofah, meaning “its end”.¹⁶⁴The Hebrew is sofah lehitkayyem, lit. “its end is to endure”. There is no antecedent for “its” other than “assembly”. The mishna means that even if the assembly seems to be faring poorly at the beginning, in the end it will be well-established. And an assembly that is not for the sake of Heaven, even if it initially seems to be successful, in the end will not endure. And do not be bothered by the verse “an assembly of idols is Ephraim; let him be” (Hosea 4:17), for they also did not endure in the end.¹⁶⁵ Midrash Shmuel is reading the words chavur atzabim as “an assembly of idols”. None of the commentators understand it this way; they all read these words to mean “attached to idols”.

And every gathering that is not for the sake of Heaven, its end is not to endure: [This is] when they gather, one to lord over the other, and each one seeks honor over his fellow.

"that is not, etc.": Even though the gathering is for a matter of a commandment, so long as there is a disqualifying thought [involved], like arrogance and pride - which is something common with those that deal with the public - it is [considered] not for the sake of Heaven. And that is why it does not teach, "and the one that is for the matter of a sin."

WHICH IS NOT FOR THE SAKE OF HEAVEN. Even if the assembly is for a good purpose, if there is any disqualifying intent behind it—such as arrogance, which is common among public activists—it is called “not for the sake of Heaven.” For this reason the mishna does not say “which is for the sake of sin.”¹⁶⁶The mishna could have drawn a contrast between and assembly which is “for the sake of Heaven” and one which is “for the sake of sin” but did not do so; the contrast is instead a much more subtle one: it is between an assembly which is “for the sake of heaven” and one which is “not for the sake of heaven”.

THE HONOR OF YOUR STUDENT SHOULD BE AS DEAR TO YOU AS YOUR OWN. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Meiri that the text is “as dear to you as your colleague’s.” R. Moshe Almosnino likewise writes that Rashi has “as your colleague’s” and that this is the correct version. Maharal in Derech Chaim agrees with our editions because for any given person it is unclear how dear a colleague’s honor is, so it should not be used for comparison. Cf. my comments on 2:10.

Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua says: Let the honor of your student be dear to you as your own, like the honor of your fellow: He wants to say each one according to his honor - that is known to be fitting for his fellow and for a student [respectively]. But he is not saying that he honor his student like his fellow, as this is not correct. But rather just like you are not allowed to subtract from the honor of your fellow that is fitting [for him], so [too] do you not have the right to lessen from the honor that is fit for your student.

"Like the reverence of your teacher": As we say in the Bava Metzia 33. And Rashi explained, "It is because they would sit together in the study hall and ask and answer each other and learn one from the other" To here [are his words]. And it is not that he equates them completely; as, if so, everything is equal. But rather [only] concerning the matter of love; which is to say that he should be beloved to him in the way he naturally loves - and it is beloved in his eyes to honor or to revere - one who is on a higher level than he. And the word "beloved" relates to all of them - Midrash Shmuel.

"Let the honor of your student be dear to you as your own": As so do we find with Moshe, who said to Yehoshua, his student (Exodus 17:9), "choose for us men" - he made him equal to him.

Introduction Rabbi Elazar was another student of Rabbi Akiva’s. In other places in the mishnah he is referred to as Rabbi Elazar without the name of his father, Shammua.

AND THE HONOR OF YOUR COLLEAGUE AS THE FEAR OF YOUR MASTER. As the Talmud says in Bava Metzia 33a: the Torah scholars in Babylon stand for one another, rend their garments in mourning for one another, and deliver eulogies for one another. Rashi ad loc. explains: as a student must do for his master; for they sit together in the study hall, raise difficulties and resolve them together, and learn from one another—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Abarbanel. He also writes in the name of the commentators that the mishna does not mean to totally equate the two things, for then any distinction would be erased; it equates them only in that the two things should be equally beloved. That is, honoring a colleague should be as dear to him as it is naturally beloved and dear to him to honor or fear someone at a greater level than he is. If so, the word “dear” applies to the entire mishna.¹⁶⁷I.e., when the mishna says “and the honor your colleague as the fear of your master” it means “and the honor of your colleague [should be as dear to you] as the fear of your master.”

and the honor of your fellow like the reverence of your teacher, and the reverence of your teacher like the reverence of Heaven: Honor is included in reverence, but reverence is not included in honor, as Malakhi stated (Malachi 1:6), "A son should honor his father, and a slave his master; and if I am a father, where is My honor, yet if I am a master, where is My reverence, etc.?" - he said "fear" with a slave and "honor" with a son, as the matter is like this. And here, it mentioned fear for the teacher and for Heaven - as one needs to fear [teachers], because fear of the teacher is the foundation of fear of Heaven. [This is] since he teaches him Torah and 'to fear the Lord, his God.' And one who loves the Torah, loves the sages and will fear the word of God. And to the one who teaches him, there is within him the fear of Heaven and walking in the good path - that is why it says, "the reverence of your teacher." But with the student and the fellow it [only] mentioned honor, as one is not obligated in their reverence. It comes out that you have learned that the honor of your student needs to be as dear in your eyes as the reverence of Heaven, that is incumbent upon you. And you may not negate the one, [just] like the other - as they are all dependent, one upon the other. And, if so, the four of them are all of one level - the honor, according to the honor [of each]; and the reverence, according to the reverence [of each].

Meaning to say that even though Moshe was his teacher, behold also to Aharon there is a greater status, as he was his older brother. And we expound in Ketuvot 103, "'[Honor your father] and et your mother' - [the word et comes] to include your big brother." And hence according to the law, they were even and treated like fellows and, nonetheless, he called him, "my master." And all of this is just from the way of piety. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"and the honor of your fellow like the reverence of your teacher": As Aharon said to Moshe (Numbers 12:11), "my apologies to my master" - his brother was older than him in years and he [still] called him, "my master."

Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said: let the honor of your student be as dear to you as your own, and the honor of your colleague as the reverence for your teacher, and the reverence for your teacher as the reverence of heaven. Rabbi Elazar’s statement ranks the honor that a person would customarily give to others, and says that in each case one should give even more honor than is expected. A teacher should respect students as if they were teachers themselves. This is learned from Moses’s conduct, for in Exodus 17:9 he says to Joshua, “choose for us men”. He does not say, “choose for me” but rather “us” even though he is clearly Joshua’s superior. Similarly, one should treat a colleague with the same reverence one would give a teacher, who is one step higher. This is learned from Aaron who says to Moses in Numbers 12:11, “O my lord”, even though he was Moses’s brother. Finally, a person should have as much reverence for one’s teacher as he has for God. This is learned from Joshua in Numbers 11:28, who tells Moses to execute Eldad and Medad, who Joshua believes are rebelling against Moses. Joshua considers their rebellion against Moses to be like a rebellion against God, because Moses is Joshua’s teacher.

AND THE HONOR OF YOUR COLLEAGUE AS THE FEAR OF YOUR MASTER. Rav: for Aaron said to Moses, “I beg you, my lord” (Numbers 12:11). He was older than Moses, and yet called him “my lord”. So also in Avot deRabbi Natan 27. Rashi also quotes this at the end of parsahat Beshalach. These sources do not use the earlier verse “let my lord not be angry” from parashat Ki Tisa (Exodus 32:22) as one could deflect the proof by saying that perhaps Aaron called Moses “my lord” at that point because he was afraid of his wrath. But when he said “I beg you, my lord” he was speaking not for himself but on account of his sister, at which point there was no reason to call Moses “lord”; it is clear, then, that the honor of a colleague should be as the fear of the master.
As for what Rav writes about Aaron being older, which is also mentioned in Avot deRabbi Natan, the intent is that even though Moses was his master Aaron had the point of being his older brother, and the Talmud says in Ketubot 103a that “[honor your father] and your mother” (Exodus 20:11) means to include an older brother. Moses and Aaron then come out equal in terms of honor and would have the status of colleagues with regards to one another, and yet Aaron calls Moses “my lord”.
And it seems that all of this is merely drash and asmachta¹⁶⁸Meaning, these laws are not actually a straightforward interpretation of the verses; they are a pious behavior for which a hint has been found in the verses. and a teaching for the pious. As such, the Talmud asks in Kiddushin 33b whether a person whose son is his master should stand before the son or vice versa and does not bring any conclusive proof one way or another; if our mishna were saying a full-fledged halacha the Talmud should have quoted it as proof.¹⁶⁹For even though Aaron was Moses’ older brother, since Moses was his master he treated him as such. Rambam’s ruling in Hilchot Mamrim 6:4 that a father does not stand for his son who is his master would be even more difficult, as it would be a contradiction¹⁷⁰Whereas the Talmud in Kiddushin simply does not quote our mishna, Rambam would be openly contradicting it. to our mishna, which would seem to obligate the older brother to honor and fear the younger brother who is his master.
It is possible that the obligation to honor one’s father, which is explicit in the verse, differs from the obligation to honor one’s older brother, which is only midrashically read into the verse; indeed, Rambam calls this latter obligation “the words of the Scribes” in that same chapter. This is consistent with his approach in labeling any law that emerges from a midrashic reading of a verse as “the words of the Scribes”, as I have written on Eruvin 1:2.

"and the reverence of your teacher like the reverence of Heaven": As it is written (Numbers 11:28), "my master Moshe, destroy them" - destroy them from the world. [He meant by this to say,] "Since they rebelled against you, it is as if they rebelled against the Holy One, blessed be He and they are liable for destruction."

BE CAREFUL IN YOUR STUDIES. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Ritva that some versions have “be careful with your student,” meaning that one should take care to teach the student well, because otherwise the student’s mistaken ruling will be considered intentional on the part of the one who taught him.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Be careful in study, for an error in study is considered an intentional transgression: As he should review the things until he can not forget anything, [and ] to the point that he reaches the depths of the matters - since the nature of a man is short in understanding wisdom and [since] forgetfulness is common among people. He should also not rely upon his first reasoning, as we wrote at the beginning of the book. As with all this he is committing an intentional transgression - since in anything that is a matter of the Torah and of the commandment wherein error is common and he [still] does not pay attention [to it] and errs, he is not accidental, but rather he is called a transgressor (poshea). As he should have thought that every man errs and have been careful not to sin, but he was not careful. And [there] are four [relevant categories]: the transgressor, the one close to [being] an intentional transgressor, the accidental sinner and the one close to [being] under duress (out of his control).

These three good ranks were given to this nation at the beginning of the giving of the Torah. And they are priesthood, monarchy and Torah. Aharon merited [to take] priesthood, David merited [to take] monarchy, but the crown of Torah remains for anyone who wants to be crowned with it. And the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Yoma 72b), "And lest you will say that this crown is less than the other two, it is not like that. Rather it is greater than both of them. And the two are in it, as it is stated (Proverbs 8:15), 'Through me kings reign and rulers decree just laws' and it states (Proverbs 8:16), 'Through me ministers administer, etc.'" But the crown of a good name comes from Torah [as well], meaning to say its knowledge and its practice - as through them does a truly good name come.

("In study": There are some that have the textual variant, "with his student, for an error of the student, etc.") We have the textual variant, "with his student," and the intention is that he should be careful to teach his student properly, for an error of the student in a legal decision is considered an intentional transgression for the teacher that teaches him - Ritva.

"Be careful in study": such that your study should be exact and according to the law.

Introduction Rabbi Judah, the author of the first saying in this mishnah, was the son of Rabbi Ilai, and was a student of Rabbi Akiva and of Rabbi Tarphon. Rabbi Judah is the most prevalent sage in the entire Mishnah. When he disputes with Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Shimon (two sages with whom he often disputes) the halakhah is always according to his view. Rabbi Shimon is Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, the famous sage who according to legend wrote the Zohar. He is also a student of Rabbi Akiva’s.

[*THE CROWN OF A GOOD NAME ETC. Rav is quoting the Talmud in Yoma, towards the top of 71b: The Rabbis taught: once, the high priest left the Temple with the people in tow. Once they saw Shemaya and Avtalion they left him and followed Shemaya and Avtalion. When Shemaya and Avtalion turned to the high priest to take their leave of him, he said: Go in peace, sons of the nations! This is an insult, for they were descendants of Sennacherib, as Rav writes on 1:10. They said to him: the sons of the nations who act like Aaron will go in peace, but the son of Aaron who does not act like Aaron will not go in peace. Rashi explains ad loc.: you have insulted us, and a baraita (Bava Metzia 58b) says that “Do not pain one another” (Leviticus 25:17) refers to paining one with words; people should not say to a descendant of proselytes “Remember what your ancestors did?” as the mishna says in Bava Metzia 4:10.]

Rabbi Shimon says: There are three crowns: the crown of Torah, the crown of priesthood and the crown of monarchy: The crown of priesthood was given to the House of Aharon, as it is stated (Numbers 25:13), "It shall be for him and his descendants after him a pact of priesthood for all time." And the crown of monarchy was given to the House of David, as it is stated (Psalms 89:37), "His seed shall be forever; his throne, as the sun before Me." But the crown of Torah rests [available] for all those that come to the world - one who wants to merit it, let him come and merit. And this crown is greater than the [other] two crowns, as the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 368), "There are three [decorative] rims: the rim of the table, the rim of the inner altar and the rim of the cover on top of the ark in which rests the Torah, engraved upon the tablets. And the cover and its rim rests inside the dividing curtain, [whereas] the other two rest outside the dividing curtain. Behold for you that the Torah is more glorious than the table that corresponds to the table of the kings; and likewise [than] the altar that is the crown of priesthood, since they burn incense upon it every day." And there is another proof. That is that there are houses for monarchy and priesthood: a house for monarchy, as it is stated (Jeremiah 21:12), "House of David, thus said the Lord, 'Decide justice in the morning'"; a house for priesthood, as it is stated (Psalms 135:19-20), "House of Aharon... House of Levi." But for fear of God, which is the crown of Torah, there is no special house, as it is stated (Psalms 135:20), "those who fear the Lord, bless the Lord" - "in every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you" (Exodus 20:21).

"for an error in study is considered an intentional transgression": If you err in a legal decision from your not being exact in your study, and you come to permit the forbidden; the Holy One, blessed be He, considers it for you as if you had done it intentionally.

Rabbi Judah said: be careful in study, for an error in study counts as deliberate sin. The study of Torah, of which Rabbi Judah speaks, is one in which the one studying compares different traditions and strives to learn the matter deeply, its reasons and its details, all in order to know what the correct halakhah should be. One who errs in this type of learning, and therefore makes an incorrect halakhic ruling, is considered as if he did so intentionally, and therefore has intentionally caused someone else to sin. A rabbi must be very careful in his rulings, and carelessness is considered to be as sinful as intentionally making a mistake. Note that in this mishnah we can detect the tension between tradition and innovation. The “study of Torah” referred to does not mean the mere recitation of the learning one has received. The “study of Torah” means delving into Torah to come up with rulings that have not been made before. One who passes down his tradition word for word as it was received does not have to worry as much, because he is not adding anything of his own. However, one who adds his own reasoning, must be extremely cautious, and if he carelessly makes an error, it is counted against him as if he did so intentionally. While innovation, according to Rabbi Judah, is important and possible, it requires more caution than mere transmission.

but the crown of a good name outweighs (rises above) them all: He wants to say that for all of the crowns, they need the crown of a good name. And behold, that is dependent upon the crown of Torah. For with what is there a good name to a man if not because he is occupied in Torah [study] and fulfills the commandments? And about this is it stated (Ecclesiastes 7:1), "A good name is better than good oil." He meant to say [here] that if he puts down afarsimon oil in his house, it has a good smell (for him) and for the people of his house and for his close neighbors. But if they distance themselves from it a little, they do not smell it. But [with] one who is crowned by a good name - even if he stands in this corner, his reputation goes from one end of the world to the other. "And the day of death than the day of his birth." [Here] he wanted to say (as from) [as] the good name has more significance than the good oil, so [too] is the day of death more significant than the day of his birth for someone who departs with a good name. And if people are happy about the birth and sad on the day of death, it is because they do not have understanding. There is a parable [relevant to this] about a city with a ship leaving the sea for dry land and a ship entering the sea from dry land: For the one entering [the sea] they make music and parties, but for the one leaving [it], they don't do anything at all. And are the people of this city not fools? As at the time that it is entering the danger of the sea, they should have been afraid for it and not rejoice; and when it left and was saved from the great danger, it would have been fitting to make music and to rejoice. So [too] when a person is born is it fitting to be afraid for him, [as to] whether he will go on the good path or whether he will not. But when he leaves with a good name from the world, [it is fitting that] his 'neighbors and friends will rejoice' for him. But they do the opposite.

"There are three crowns:" that are written in the Torah, that the Torah obligates to treat with honor.

Rabbi Shimon said: There are three crowns: the crown of torah, the crown of priesthood, and the crown of royalty, but the crown of a good name supersedes them all. There are three crowns that the Torah teaches us to respect: 1) one who has learned Torah; 2) the priest; 3) the King. These are representative of the three types of leadership in Israel, the sage/prophet, the priest who is connected to the Temple and the king who governs the people. However, Rabbi Shimon says there is a crown greater than all three, and that is the crown of a good name. This can be proven by the fact that if any of these three, the sage, the priest or the king behaves badly by sinning and thereby gains an ill reputation, we are no longer obligated to respect that person. This is a statement of the responsibility of leaders. A leadership position in society does not automatically entitle one to respect, without any connection to actions. A leader who wishes to be respected must earn that respect by his deeds. An interesting commentary on the three crowns is that they are representative of three types of qualities that leaders often have: the king is wealthy, the priest is from an aristocratic family, and the sage is intelligent. In all of these cases the crown is meaningless, without the crown of a good name.

Rabbi Meir said: Make His will like your will, etc.: We have [already] explained it in the second chapter, with the help of Heaven.

"the crown of Torah": About it is written (Leviticus 19:32), "and you shall respect the face of the elder (zaken)" - the one who has acquired wisdom (the first letters of these words, zeh [she]kanah chochmah, spell out zaken).

"the crown of priesthood": About it is written (Leviticus 21:8), "And you shall sanctify him" - he shall be holy to you.

"and the crown of the monarchy": About it is written (Deuteronomy 17:15), "Surely place upon yourself a king" - that his fear should be upon you.

"but the crown of a good name": Whoever has in his hand good deeds and a good reputation because of his deeds - we have not found a crown for him in the Torah such that one is obligated to honor [its bearer]. But it rides on top of them all, as all three of the crowns require it. Since if he is a Torah scholar and his reputation is hateful, it is permissible to disgrace him. And if he is the high priest, we say in Yoma 71b, "Let the children of the nations come in peace who are doing the deeds of Aharon and let not the sons of Aharon come in peace who are not doing the acts of Aharon. And if he is a king, it is written (Exodus 22:27), "and a prince among your people you shall not curse" - when he does the actions of your people.

BECAUSE YOUR COLLEAGUES WILL TEACH IT TO YOU. Rav: do not rely on your colleagues to come from the master’s house and teach you the Torah. If so, the entire mishna reads as one thing: Exile yourself… and do not say that it will come after you because your friends will teach it to you. Some editions have “and that your friends will teach it to you,” as Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Abarbanel.

Rabbi Nehorai says: Exile yourself to a place of Torah: That you should live in a place that has much Torah and many sages in it.

He said [to] seek a [proper] place for reading and study, as the reading will become firm and be established [when you are] with another [person]. And do not rely upon your [own] understanding and say that you do not need colleagues and students that will stimulate you.

"Exile yourself to a place of Torah": if there are no Torah scholars in your place.

Introduction Some believe that name of Nehorai is a nickname for either Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Nehemiah or Rabbi Elazar ben Arach. The word Nehorai means “full of light” in Aramaic. Others believe that Nehorai is the name of a tanna who was a student of Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Tarphon.

and do not say that it will follow after you, that your colleagues will make it yours: Do not rely upon your colleagues that went to study, that they will come and teach you. As you, yourself, need to exile yourself with them and to pursue the Torah if you want to know it.

"and do not say that it will follow after you": Torah scholars will come here.

Rabbi Nehorai said: go as a [voluntary] exile to a place of Torah and say not that it will come after you, for [it is] your fellow [student]s who will make it permanent in your hand and “and lean not upon your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5). Rabbi Nehorai teaches that one should leave one’s home and search out someone with whom to learn Torah for one cannot learn Torah on one’s own. Torah study is best done in the company of others, with a “hevruta” and with a teacher. Remember that since the Oral Torah was not yet written down at this point, learning Torah on one’s own was next to impossible. If one was lucky and wealthy he might have had a copy of the written Torah, but the Mishnah and all of the other compositions of the rabbis did not yet exist and even when they were compiled, they were learned orally. Although in our day we have books and one can learn Torah without a hevruta, it is still far more effective to learn with a hevruta. Furthermore, one cannot really begin to learn Talmud without a teacher, someone to explain how to read the Talmud and understand what the arguments mean. Rabbi Nehorai emphasizes that a person should not wait for a teacher to come to him. He must go out and even go into exile in order to find a teacher. Perhaps in the word “exile” Rabbi Nehorai hints that one may even leave the land of Israel to go study Torah. In general exile from the land of Israel was seen as a punishment and it was forbidden for a person to initiate such an exile. However, if exile is for the sake of Torah, it is permitted, and even under some circumstances, encouraged.

Do not rely on your understanding: Even when you do study and exile yourself to a place of Torah and become wise, "do not rely on your understanding" - that you not depend upon your rationale; but rather you should do all of the deed according to the counsel of the sages.

"that your colleagues will make it yours": And do not rely upon your colleagues when they return from the house of the teacher that they will make it yours, such that you will learn from them what they learned from the teacher. But rather, exile yourself - you yourself - to the place of the teacher, since learning from the mouth of the student is not the same as learning from the mouth of the teacher. Another explanation: "as your colleagues will make it yours" - Why do I say to you, "Exile yourself to a place of Torah?" Because "your colleagues will make it yours;" as even if you are sharp and extremely analytical, the Torah will only be yours through your colleagues with whom you give and take. And that is [the reason] that it ends, "Do not rely on your understanding."

NEITHER THE TRANQUILITY OF THE WICKED ETC. Rav: we do not know why the wicked succeed or why the righteous are crushed with suffering. The mishna’s two cases then go from the lesser to the greater: not only do we not understand the tranquility of the wicked, who we know are wicked and whom we see doing well, we don’t understand the suffering of the righteous, who might only appear to be but not truly be righteous; this is why the mishna uses “nor even”—Midrash Shmuel in the name of the commentators.
According to Rav’s second explanation,¹⁷¹“We in exile have neither the tranquility that G-d would grant the truly wicked in order to deny them any portion in the World to Come, nor the suffering that is brought upon the righteous which is likewise for their good—we are somewhere in between, being neither fully wicked nor fully righteous.” the reason the mishna says “nor even” is because the first part—that we do not have tranquility—is obvious to us who strain in the exile.
One might ask: according to Rav’s second explanation, what is R. Yannai telling us? What is the purpose of this mishna? Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rabbenu Ephraim and Ramah that this is so that we do not despair and see ourselves as totally wicked people with no hope, G-d forbid; neither should we think we are righteous and have done all that we are supposed to in terms of studying Torah and keeping the commandments.

Rabbi Yanai says: We do not have the tranquility of the wicked: As the righteous do not have the quiet and security and wealth and all the needs of the world like the wicked.

He said that a man's being a student to someone who is wiser than he is better and more fit than being a teacher to someone lesser than he - as in the first situation he will gain and in the second situation he will decrease. And you should understand [it] from that which we elucidated in Sanhedrin, that they placed the head of an academy of twenty-three [scholars] at the back of a great academy of seventy-one, because of the principle that 'we bring up in holiness and we do not bring down' - as they saw that they raised his rank with this.

[It is in the format of] teaching, not only this [which is more obvious] but also this [which is less so]: It is not necessary [to mention] the tranquility of the wicked which is not understood to us, as we know that he is wicked and see that it is well for him; but even the afflictions of the righteous, as it is possible that he appears to be righteous but he is not - and that is why it teaches, "or even" - Midrash Shmuel. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"We do not have in our hands": Like (Yevamot 105a), "it was not in his hand;" meaning to say this matter is not known to us, why the way of the wicked is successful and for what reason the righteous are suffering with afflictions. Another explanation: During the time of the exile, we do not have any of the tranquility and quiet that the Holy One, blessed be He, is accustomed to give to the wicked in order to drive them out of the world to come; and not even any of the afflictions that are designated for the righteous, which are the 'afflictions of love,' which do not entail the squandering of Torah [study]. This is to say, we have left the category of the wicked, as we do not have the tranquility that the wicked have; but we have not reached the category of the righteous, as our afflictions are not ['afflictions] of love,' like the afflictions of the righteous.

Introduction Again, this mishnah is really two mishnayoth and we will treat each separately. Rabbi Yannai is probably the father of Rabbi Dostai who was mentioned above in mishnah 3:8. This is his only statement in the mishnah

BE AT THE TAIL OF LIONS ETC. Rav: people greater than yourself. For this will be of benefit to you, as Rambam writes.
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Meiri that the text of the mishna should include: “as the verse says, ‘he who walks with the wise will grow wise, and he who befriends fools will end badly’ (Proverbs 13:20).” Rabbenu Yonah does not have this verse in his text of the mishna but does quote it as a proof to the mishna. He explains that the word “with” implies that he is secondary to them, while the word ro`eh, “befriend” here connotes that he is a master over them, as the ro`eh¹⁷²The word also means “shepherd”. is always at the head.

or even the suffering of the righteous: The afflictions of love of the righteous, in such a way that they will not be prevented from Torah study. And there are some that explain, "We do not have the tranquility of the wicked," that even though it is just that the wicked has it good and the righteous [suffers] - nonetheless we do not grasp the reason of the thing. And it is from the truths the argument for which our knowledge does not grasp. And this is what Yirmiyah, peace be upon him, said (Jeremiah 12:10), "You are correct, Lord, if I argue upon You; yet I shall present cases with You: Why does the way of the wicked prosper; are the workers of treachery at ease?" And about this is it said, "We do not (have) the tranquility of the wicked" - since we know that there is truthfully an argument for the matter, but we do not grasp to know it.

And it teaches, "or even," as it is an obvious thing that we do not have tranquility in our hands, we the tired ones of the exile. And Rabbi Yanai wants to teach us about this, to say that we should not despair to think of ourselves as completely wicked and that our hope is lost, God forbid. And also that we are not righteous, that we have already perfected that which is upon us to perfect in Torah [study] and [the performance of] the commandments - Midrash Shmuel.

"Be the first to greet every person": and even to a gentile in the marketplace.

Rabbi Yannai said: it is not in our hands [to explain the reason] either of the security of the wicked, or even of the afflictions of the righteous. Rabbi Mathia ben Harash said: Upon meeting people, be the first to extend greetings; And be a tail unto lions, and not a head unto foxes. Although we have seen that on several occasions tractate Avoth attempts to answer the question why do the wicked sometimes prosper and the righteous suffer, Rabbi Yannai admits that humans do not truly know the answer to this question. Usually the rabbis say that the wicked receive whatever reward is due to them in this world, so that in the world to come they will only suffer, whereas the opposite is true of the righteous. However, Rabbi Yannai evidently finds this answer, or others of its nature, not to be satisfactory. We should note that the translation above reflects one explanation of this mishnah. The words “to explain the reason” do not actually appear in the mishnah itself. Without them, others explain that Rabbi Yannai is making a statement about life without a Temple in Jerusalem. In this time, we don’t have the security that the wicked often enjoy, nor do we have the afflictions that the righteous suffer. In other words, Rabbi Yannai considers his generation to be neither fully wicked, nor totally righteous. Upon meeting people, be the first to extend greetings: When relating to others we should always try to be the first to wish them well, even, and perhaps especially, to those that we consider to be below our social status. One of the praises that was told of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was that no one ever greeted him before he greeted them. And be a tail unto lions, and not a head unto foxes: It is better to attach oneself to a group of people who are above you, in wisdom and goodness and to be accounted the least among them, then to be the head of a group of people who are below you in wisdom or goodness, and to be the first among them. A person should not measure himself against a lower group of people and thereby make himself feel better about his standing. Rather he should strive to join a higher group, one where he can grow more. We could apply this saying to many situations. For example an athlete will grow more when he plays with other players better than he, than if he were to play with those of lesser talent. Midrash Shmuel makes an interesting note on this saying. A lion waves its tail above his head whereas a fox puts it between his legs. So too honorable people honor those who are lesser than them and are not concerned that their own honor will be thereby impinged; whereas dishonorable people belittle those lesser in order to (seemingly) increase their own import.

AND NOT AT THE HEAD OF FOXES. Lions seem appropriate for the first part of the parable, as they are the most honorable of and rule over all the animals, and possess great strength and courage; they appropriately stand for the great and famous men, who possess the great strength it takes to bear the yoke of the Torah. Foxes, however, do not seem as appropriate. There are certainly lesser animals, so why use them in the parable?
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Yehuda Lerma that the parable conveys that one should not be lazy and abandon the study of wisdom to the point that he must get his victories through cunning and trickery—for example, by mocking a colleague and thereby causing him to fumble his arguments and other such tricks. For such a one is like the foxes, who must be victorious over the other animals through their cunning because of their lack of strength.
I say that “at the head of foxes” is discussing people who have not yet learned enough to answer legal questions, of whom the verse says “she has felled many dead” (Proverbs 7:26).¹⁷³This is the Talmud’s reading of the verse in Avodah Zarah 19b. They are likened to foxes, for when they decide to occupy the seat of judgment and they wish for people to accept their rulings they must engage in cunning and trickery and fool people.¹⁷⁴Who would not accept them based on the true level of their learning. And the mishna says “at the head of foxes”¹⁷⁵And not just “do not be one of the foxes”. According to Tosafot Yom Tov, the mishna is warning against assuming the position of judge or decisor when one is actually not ready for it. Why, then, does it warn specifically against being “at the head of foxes”? Being one of the foxes is itself the problem. to teach that even if one sees many unqualified people issuing legal decisions and knows that he is a greater scholar than they, i.e. “at their head”, he should not be envious of these sinful people.¹⁷⁶That is, he should not be envious of them because he thinks of himself as being at their head and yet does not have a position. They are unworthy of issuing rulings and their positions were gotten by dishonest means, so he shouldn’t take them into account at all. And I say of them what King Solmon said: “Catch us the foxes, the little foxes destroying the vineyards, for our vineyard is in blossom” (Song of Songs 2:15)—the vineyard being the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts, which is the gathering of the Sages, as I write on the mishna in Eduyot 2:4 which mentions “the vineyard of Yavneh”.¹⁷⁷These were the Sages of Yavneh, called Jamnia in non-Hebrew sources. Seforno on Song of Songs comments that the foxes in question are those who pretend to be scholars.
I subsequently found that Rambam in Hilchot Talmud Torah 5:4 quotes the abovementioned reading of the verse “she has felled many dead” as referring to insufficiently learned students who decide legal questions and then adds: and of them Solomon said in his wisdom, “catch us the foxes, the little foxes destroying the vinyeards”—i.e., the vineyards of the Lord of Hosts. It pleased me that I was able to arrive at the conclusion that someone as great as he had arrived at previously.

Rabbi Mattia ben Charash says: Be the first to greet every person: And this is from the ethical path.

"They will benefit him" (Bartenura). And there are those that have the textual variant, "as it is stated (Proverbs 13: 20), 'One who walks with (et) the wise will be wizened and one who befriends (roeh) the fools will be broken (yeroah).'" And [the word,] "with (et)", [means] he is subordinate . And roeh (which can also mean to shepherd), [means] he is the master and the head.

"and be a tail to lions": [meaning] to those greater than you.

and be a tail to lions: He wants to say that one should service Torah scholars and cling to their company.

"to foxes": Even as there are lesser animals than them, he chose to make a metaphor with them, as King Shlomo, peace be upon him, compared one who has not yet reached [the level] to make legal decisions to foxes when he said, "Take for us the foxes, etc. that destroy the vineyards" - [which is referring to] the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts; about [such scholars] it is stated, "she has felled many corpses," as was stated by Rambam. And it is impossible [for him] to sit in the seat of judgment and be accepted as a decisor, unless [he will resort] to tricks and machinations to fool the people. And that is why it said, even if you see many legal decisors like this and you are the head and more important than them, do not be jealous of these sinners to be[come] like them. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"and do not be a head to foxes": [meaning] to those lesser than you.

and do not be a head to foxes: [This is] saying to you that it is better for a man to be a student to someone greater than him in wisdom, since it will come out that he will be adding to his wisdom every day; than to be the master of someone lesser than he in wisdom, as it will come out that the will continually lessen in his wisdom. [It is] as they said, "One who was the head of a lower court is made secondary to the high court." Another explanation: "and do not be a head to foxes" - that he should not be a head and a minister and an officer to the wicked. And this is what Shlomo, peace be upon him, stated (Proverbs 13:20), "He who walks with the wise becomes wise; he who consorts (roeh) with dullards will be broken." He wanted to say that the one who walks with the wise - to be lowly [towards them] - becomes wise; as he makes himself "a tail to lions." But one who consorts with dullards - that he becomes a lord over them, since a roeh (which also means shepherd) is a head - will be broken.

Rabbi Yaakov says: This world is like a hallway before the world to come. Fix yourself in the hallway so you may enter the (beautiful) traklin: A traklin is a palace. And he wants to say that this world is only in order that one should merit the world to come.

A traklin is a chamber and a prozdor is a gatehouse. And the metaphor is clear and the intention is known. As it is in this world that a man acquires the virtues through which he merits the world to come. As this world is indeed a path and a passageway to the world to come.

"Hallway (prozdor)": A gatehouse. The [Aramaic] translation of chamber is prozdora.

Introduction Rabbi Jacob was the teacher of Rabbi Judah Hanasi, who composed the mishnah. He appeared above in chapter three, mishnah seven (the printed edition of the Mishnah mistakenly reads Rabbi Shimon). In another place Rabbi Jacob was famous for stating that all heavenly punishments and rewards are meted out in the world to come. In other words, in this world there is no correlation between a person’s virtues and his fate.

"drawing room": The place where the king sits. So [too], you should fix yourself in this world so that you will merit the world to come.

Rabbi Jacob said: this world is like a vestibule before the world to come; prepare yourself in the vestibule, so that you may enter the banqueting-hall. The world in which we live is, according to Rabbi Jacob, merely a vestibule in preparation for the main meal, that is the world to come. A person must perform good deeds in this world, in order to ensure himself a place in the world to come. In a midrash on Proverbs a similar teaching appears. “In the future the wicked will ask God to give them a chance to repent. God will answer them saying ‘you fools, the world you were in was like the day before the Sabbath and this world [the world to come] is like the Sabbath. If one doesn’t prepare on the Sabbath eve, how will he have to eat on the Sabbath…[God further said], ‘the world you were in was like dry land and the world to come like sailing on the sea. If one doesn’t prepare food while on dry land, how will he have to eat while at sea.’”

ONE HOUR OF REPENTANCE AND GOOD DEEDS IN THIS WORLD IS BETTER THAN A WHOLE LIFETIME IN THE WORLD TO COME. The first part of the mishna does not contradict the second, because this world is for action and the World to Come is for reward and contentment¹⁷⁸So while this world is “better” in regard to the ability to improve and do more, which cannot be done in th next, the World to Come is better in regard to the actual pleasure that one experiences there.—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rabbenu Yonah.

He would say: One hour of repentance and good deeds in this world is better than all the time in the world to come: As in a short time in this world, a person can earn the world to come - as we find (in the Order of Kedoshim) [The editor said, I have not found it in the Order of Kedoshim, but this story does appear in Midrash Bereishit Rabbah 65:22] that story about Yosi ben Yoezer who was going out to be killed and he was met by the wicked Yokim, the man of Tsrorot, riding on a horse: [The latter] said to [the former], "Look at the horse that your Master made you ride and look at the horse that our master made us ride." He said [back] to him, "If it is thus for those that transgress His will, is it not all the more so for those that do His will?" And he [responded in turn], "Is there any one that is more of one who does His will than you?" He said [back], "If it is like this for those who do His will, even more so will it be for those who transgress His will." [This] went into his heart like fire into chaff - the explanation is that he understood from his words when he said, "If [things are] so good for the wicked who transgress His will in the this world, all the more so will it be so for the righteous in the world to come," that it will be doubly and exponentially better than the good of the wicked in this world. And [that] there, there is no peace for the wicked, as it will be twice as bad for them than for the righteous in this world. And when he heard this, he went and accepted upon himself the four death penalties of the court, etc., as it is found over there. Rabbi Yosi ben Yoezer said, "In a short time, he preceded me (passed me by) to the Garden of Eden." And about this, it is said, "Better is one hour, etc." And only about this did he praise this world. Also King Shlomo who scared [who considered vain] the world in his book Kohelet, yet in a few places he praises the living over the dead - also that praise is only about repentance and good deeds. As they raise a person up in this world, but not in the world to come - since a person is only (finally) judged at the time of his death.

We have already elucidated in the tenth chapter of Sanhedrin that there is no completion or addition after death. Instead, a person increases and completes his virtue in this world. And about this Shlomo hinted when he stated (Ecclesiastes 9:10), "for there is no action, no reasoning, no knowledge, no wisdom in the grave to where you are going." But this matter is that [the situation] to which a person goes will remain [the same] forever. And because of this a man should make efforts during this short time and not waste his time, but only [spend it] on the acquisition of virtues - as his loss would [otherwise] be great, since he has no replacement [for it] and he cannot acquire [it later]. And since the pious ones knew this, they only saw [fit] to finish their time with wisdom and the increase of virtues; and they benefited from all of their time in the true way. And they only frittered very little time on physical matters and on a thing that it is necessary and impossible without it. But others spent all of their time only in physicality and they left [the world] like they came [to it] - 'all corresponding to how it came, so will it go' - and they lost an eternal loss. And the masses all switched the truth about this question and said that the first group lost the world and that the last group profited [from] the world. And the matter is the opposite, as we have recounted. And they make darkness into light and light into darkness. And woe is it to those that destroy the truth. And Shlomo, peace be upon him, made this matter a fundamental in Ecclesiastes, in his praising the profit of the world and his disgracing its loss. And its elucidation is that there is neither gain nor [any] other acquisition of that which he refrained from here, after death. And this is all true. And when you examine that book from this perspective, the truth will be clear.

"The world to come": The beginning is not a [contradiction] to the end, as this world is for action and the world to come is for payment and enjoyment - Midrash Shmuel. And [regarding] the world to come, some explain [it] as the world of souls and some explain [it] as the world of the revival [of the dead]. And see the beginning of the chapter [entitled] Chelek.

"Better is one hour of repentance": [meaning] for the sake of repentance and good deeds.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of Rabbi Jacob’s statement from the previous mishnah.

REPENTANCE AND GOOD DEEDS. Cf. my comment on mishna 11.

And one hour of pleasure in the world to come is better than all the time in this world: As the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Shabbat 63a), "All of the prophets only prophesied with regard to the messianic era; however, with regard to the world to come it was stated. 'No eye sees, God, except You, that which He will do for he that waits for Him' (Isaiah 64:3)" - as the good of the world to come has neither measure not comparison. And this is what David, peace be upon him, said (Psalms 31:20), "How abundant is the good that You have in store for those who fear You, that You do in front of men for those who take refuge in You." May the Omnipresent let us merit it.

"pleasure (korat ruach, literally, cooling of spirit)": It is an expression [related to the usage], his mind cooled off (nitkarara daato), as his mind cools off and becomes composed due to happiness - Rashi.

"than all the time in the world to come": Because at that time, repentance and good deeds do not benefit a person, as the world to come is only for the receiving of reward for that which he observed in this world.

He used to say: more precious is one hour in repentance and good deeds in this world, than all the life of the world to come; In this world one has a chance to perform good deeds and to repent and thereby earn a greater reward in the world to come, which as we learned yesterday is where, according to Rabbi Jacob, all rewards are meted out. In the world to come, it is too late to repent. Actions are not truly categorically possible in the world to come. Note that the meaning of this statement is that one must take every opportunity to use wisely his time in this world. In the past I have heard people say that Judaism is “this-world religion”. This is true and not true. As we have seen time and time again, the rabbis firmly believed in the world to come; disbelief in it was probably one of the causes of the split between the Pharisees and Sadducees. However, a person cannot know anything about the world to come, and what counts is our actions in this world. Furthermore, one should not want to hurry his entrance into the world to come, an idea that has gained some popularity in other religions. One should desire to live as long as possible in this world, not because of its inherent, material delights, but because humans need the time in this world to perform good deeds and thereby earn themselves a greater reward in the world to come. In this sense Judaism is a religion which concentrates on this world.

THE WORLD TO COME. Abarbanel writes that this could refer to either the World of Souls or the World of Resurrection. As for the “World to Come” mentioned in Sanhedrin 10:1, Rav explains it as referring to the World of Resurrection, see his comments there. So also Maharal in Derech Chaim, see his comments on mishna 16.

And more precious is one hour of the tranquility of the world to come, than all the life of this world. Rabbi Jacob’s statement finishes by emphasizing how peaceful and tranquil is the world to come. One hour in the world to come is worth more than all of the physical pleasures one could ever find in this world.

CONTENTMENT [Heb. korat ruach]. Rashi: as in the expression “his mind was cooled” [Heb. nitkarerah da`ato], for his mind is cooled and settled because he is happy.

WHILE THE BODY LIES BEFORE HIM. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rashbatz that the mishna should read “do not comfort him while he is in mourning,” and that the versions that read “while the body lies before him” are the result of a deliberate alteration of the text to account for fact that after burial, people would make rows and comfort the mourner, as is mentioned in Avel Rabbati¹⁷⁹Known as tracte Semachot. and in the Talmud in Berachot 16b. He says that there is no reason to change the text, however, because it doesn’t say “during his days of mourning” or “during his mourning process.” The text says “while he is mourning,” i.e. while he is in mournful grief. [*I still feel that this is difficult to reconcile with the practice of making rows. According to this, if the bereaved is indeed in a state of mournful grief they shouldn’t comfort him, and we do not find the Sages making this distinction.]

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Do not assuage the anger of your friend at the time of his anger: As through this, he will come to say inappropriate things about him, as he will add anger to his anger.

This is clear and they are matters of ethics in the improvement of human society by the placement of a word in a place where it will be effective.

"Do not try to assuage the anger of your friend at the time of his anger": As it is written (Exodus 33:14), "My presence (literally, face) will go and I will give you to rest" - said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moshe, "Wait until My face of anger passes" (Berakhot 7a).

Introduction Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar was a student of Rabbi Meir and a colleague of Rabbi Judah Hanasi.

do not console him at the time when his deceased lies before him: As at the time of sadness, consolation [brings] anger to him, and he will come to say things that are not good.

"do not console him at the time when his deceased lies before him": As at the time of the [Temple's] destruction - as if it were possible - the Holy One, blessed be He, was mourning. [When] the ministering angels tried to console Him, the holy spirit answered them, "Do not rush to console Me."

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Do not try to appease your friend during his hour of anger; Nor comfort him at the hour while his dead still lies before him; Nor question him at the hour of his vow; Nor strive to see him in the hour of his disgrace. The first two statements in this mishnah are statements of sound psychological advice. Appeasing a friend while he is still angry is not going to be effective, nor will trying to offer comfort to a mourner before he has buried his dead. Nor question him at the time of his vow: this refers to something called “the undoing of vows” (we will learn this subject in greater detail when we learn tractate Nedarim (vows). If a person takes a vow not to do something, for instance see his father, but then wants to do that which he vowed not to do, he may ask a sage to “undo his vow”. The way that a sage does this is by asking him questions to see if he may have vowed not fully understanding the consequences. For instance the sage might ask him, “when you vowed not to see your father did you know that it would cause your parents such emotional pain?” Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar teaches that one should not ask these questions right at the time of his vow, for not enough time has passed for him to regret taking the vow. At this time he is still angry and he will not want to get out of his vow. Nor strive to see him in the hour of his disgrace: when a person has just done something disgraceful, he doesn’t want anyone to see him. Therefore you should avoid him during this time, for it will be embarrassing to him to be seen and may cause him to take his anger out at you.

do not question him at the time of his vow: That he should not ask him about all the openings of permission (that can be used later to annul the vow) to say, "Did you vow with this intention?" As when he is still angry and making the vow, he will come to express all of the questions that they ask him and place them into [the wording] of the vow in [such] a way that no opening will be able to be found for him. And it comes out that he causes him bad.

"do not question him at the time of his vow": to find an opening (loophole) to annul his vow. Because then, on each and every opening that you find for him, he will say, "I made the vow with that in mind [meaning that he wanted the vow to be operative in spite of the loophole]" - and then you will no longer be able to find him an opening. And we have found that when the Holy One, blessed be He, swore to Moshe that he should not enter the Land, he did not plead immediately, but rather waited and afterwards began to plead.

Questions for Further Thought:
• What do these four sayings have in common?

and do not seek to see him and to embarrass him also now at the time of his humiliation - at the time of the damage or if he did a sin and he is embarrassed about himself, you should not see him and embarrass him [more].

"at the time of his humiliation": when he is humiliated by sin, as he is embarrassed from everyone. And so [too] do you find that when Adam sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, did not reveal Himself to them until they made loincloths, as it is written (Genesis 3:7), "and they made for themselves loincloths," and afterwards, "and they heard the voice of the Lord God."

SHMUEL HAKATAN [lit. Samuel the small]. Midrash Shmuel explains in the name of the Jerusalem Talmud that he was called this because he made himself small.¹⁸⁰He was self-effacing and humble. Alternatively, this name was to distinguish him from Samuel the Prophet, for this Samuel also prophesied at the hour of his death and was worthy of having the shechina dwell with him [Talmud, Sotah 48b] if not for the unworthiness of his generation. In either case, this nickname was meant as praise.

The text in the books:

'The burning of His anger" is not stated [which is only the heat of anger], but rather "His anger"; [this] teaches that he is forgiven for all of his sins: And even though Shlomo said this command in his wisdom [first in Proverbs], this sage would teach this trait and warn about this sin.

The Younger (literally the Small): It is because he would diminish himself. And also (another explanation is) that he was (slightly) smaller than Shmuel the prophet, as [Shmuel the Younger] also prophesied at the time of his death. And he was fitting that [God's] presence should dwell upon him but the generation was not fit for it. And it comes out that this name is praise and glory for him - Yerushalmi.

"'When your enemy falls, do not be happy'": It is a verse in Proverbs, but Shmuel the Younger was accustomed to rebuking people with this attribute.

Introduction Shmuel Hakatan means “Little Samuel” (or “Little Sammy”). The Palestinian Talmud provides two reasons for such a strange nickname. The first is that he would belittle himself in front of others; in other words he was exceedingly humble. The second reason is that he was he was just a little below the level of Samuel from the Bible. Shmuel Hakatan was at Yavneh after the destruction and he conducted one of the benedictions in the Amidah, namely the benediction directed against heretics. Despite his nickname he was evidently held in great regard.

[*YOUR ENEMY [Heb. oyivcha]. This is the keri—the yud is vocalized with a chirik, and the vet is vocalized with a sheva. The ktiv, however, is oyvecha.¹⁸¹“Your enemies”, plural.

Shmuel the Younger says: "When your enemy falls, do not be happy, and when he stumbles, let your heart not rejoice" (Proverbs 24:17): And what does Shmuel come to let us hear with this - is it not a full verse that Shlomo stated? Rather, it wants to say that Shmuel was accustomed to saying this verse since it is something needed and people stumble in it. Since even when the enemy is wicked, one should not be happy in the bad [that happens to] him, except only for the sake of God. We want to say that this righteous one should not be happy in the fall of the wicked unless the intention of his joy is because his fall is [a manifestation] of God's glory, and not because of his hating him. And all the more so, one whose actions are corrupted like him - if the heart of [such a one] would rejoice in his stumbling, his evil is great. And why is he happy - behold, he is [just] like him! And about all this is it stated, "When your enemy falls, do not be happy, and when he stumbles, let your heart not rejoice." And Shmuel's intention in constantly saying it was about this. And there are those that follow the textual variant, "Lest God see and it be bad in His eyes and He turn from him [the enemy] His anger" (Proverbs 24:18) - "burning anger" is not stated [which is only the heat of anger], but rather "anger from upon him"; [this] teaches that he is forgiven for all of his sins: And now Shmuel is coming to let us hear a great novelty, as he wants to say that when God sees that this one is happy about the fall of his enemy, He forgives the enemy and rehabilitates him, and He punishes the one who is happy.

"'His anger'": In the Rashbam, it appears that his textual variant is, "'burning anger' is not stated [which is only the heat of anger], but rather 'anger,' [meaning to say, 'all of his anger' - so explained Ramah]. - [this] teaches that he is forgiven for all of his sins" - Midrash Shmuel. And this variant appears to be the main one, since now Shmuel the Younger is adding for us a precise teaching on this verse.

"'Lest God see and it be bad in His eyes'": that you have made Him in your heart as if He is your agent to fulfill your desire.

Shmuel Hakatan said: “If your enemy falls, do not exult; if he trips, let your heart not rejoice, lest the Lord see it and be displeased, and avert his wrath from you” (Proverbs 24:17). The most interesting thing about this saying is that it is only a verse from the book of Proverbs. Whereas in every other case in the Mishnah, there are words of the rabbis, this mishnah contains only a biblical verse. While there are some versions of this mishnah in which there appears a midrash, in which case Shmuel Hakatan does add his own words and does not merely quote a verse, these are probably later versions and do not reflect the original. The traditional explanation for this phenomenon is that Shmuel Hakatan regularly quoted this verse. The verse’s meaning is that one should not rejoice at the fall of one’s enemy and that if one does God’s wrath will be placed upon the one rejoicing.

AND IN HIS FALTERING [Heb. uvikashlo]. The bet is vocalized with the chirik that should have vocalized the hey which has been ellided.¹⁸²The word is properly uvhikashlo, but due to ellision is uvikashlo.]

"'and He turn from him [the enemy] His anger'": Since it did not write, "and He return (veshav) but rather, and He turn (veheshiv), it is implied that He removes it from your enemy and turns it upon you.

AND TURN BACK HIS ANGER FROM HIM. From Rambam’s commentary it seems he had the following addition to our text: it does not say “his wrath” [Heb. charon apo], but “his anger” [Heb. apo]. This teaches that G-d forgins him all his sins. Rashi also quotes this version. Midrash Shmuel explains this version in the name of R. Matitya HaYitzhari as follows: the verse does not say that G-d will remove only his charon apo, lit. the “heat of the nose,” but apo, “his nose”, i.e. his entire anger. [*This version seems to be the best one, for according to it Shmuel HaKatan has taught us this subtle point about the verse.]

ONE WHO LEARNS AS A CHILD [Heb. halomed yeled]. Rambam: what one learns as a child endures and is not easily forgotten. If so, the text means “one who learns as a child”.¹⁸³The question is whether to reat the word lomed as “learn” or “teach”. Although the word does not appear frequently with the latter meaning, Tosafot Yom Tov proceeds to quote others who understand it that way here. So also Rav. It is then clear why the mishna likens this to ink written on new parchment, as opposed to one who writes with ink on a new parchment.
Some versions have halomed leyeled, meaning “one who teaches a child”. So Midrash Shmuel, who also writes that even the versions that have halomed yeled can be read this way. Maharal in Derech Chaim explains our mishna this way, and says that the mishna does not liken this to one who writes because the teacher is not like somebody writing, for he does not inscribe the things in the memory of the student. He is like a somebody showing his friend a picture on the wall. This causes the picture to be engraved in the friend’s memory, but we cannot on account of this say that he himself engraved that picture in his friend’s memory.

Elisha ben Abuya says: One who teaches to a child is compared to what? To ink written on new parchment: As writing on new parchment cannot be erased, so [too] the Torah of his youth will not be forgotten from his heart.

He said that study during the days of childhood will be established and it will not be easily forgotten and that the matter of study in old age is the opposite. And this is clear and visible to the eye. Rabbi Yossi said that the wisdom of young men has questions and doubts that are not purified. And they have not escaped from their difficulties, as they have not had length of days to review their studies and to remove the doubts. But Rebbi says [that] you should not judge the wine by the jug. As there is a new jug with old wine in it and an old jug that is empty and has nothing in it. So [too], there are young men whose questions and wisdom are pure - there is no doubt mixed with them - like old wine, the sediments of which have been separated from it. And there are elders that have no wisdom at all, and there is no need to say that they do not have wisdom that is mixed and confused.

"Child": The language of Rambam: That the study in the days of youth, etc. And if so, its explanation is [that] the one who learns when he is a child. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"On new parchment": [upon which the writing] lasts. So [too], the memorized teaching of youth is not forgotten.

Introduction Elisha ben Abuyah was a colleague of Rabbi Akiva and a teacher of Rabbi Meir. According to legend he was one of the four sages who went into the “orchard” (perhaps a reference to metaphysical speculation). As a result he became an apostate. As a result of his apostasy, he is referred to in most places as “aher”, which means “other”. There are many fascinating legends about Elisha ben Abuya, many of which have been compiled into a novel called, As a Driven Leaf by Milton Steinberg. This is a truly remarkable book that I cannot recommend highly enough. It is both a good read and provides a setting in which the mishnah might have taken place. Another good place to look for legends about Elisha ben Abuya is Sefer Haaggadah, by Bialik and Ravnitzky. This is a compilation of many talmudic legends.

PAPER THAT HAS BEEN ERASED. For numerous thoughts and calculations having to do with worldly matters have already been engraved in his mind. When he desires to remember words of Torah he will have to erase all of those thoughts, and this is not easy to do well. This is why the mishna speakes of a paper that has been erased as opposed to an old paper, which is the opposite of a new one—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Abarbanel.

And one who teaches to an elder is compared to what? To ink written on scraped parchment: As that writing will quickly be lost. So too is the Torah of his old age quickly forgotten. And there is a metaphor about this said in Choice Pearls: "One who teaches to a child is compared to what?" To one who engraves on a stone. "And one who teaches to an elder is compared" to one who engraves on the sand. But the elder should not say, "Behold I am a dry tree" - that since the Torah does not stay preserved in his hand, why should he read, and he would toil in vain - since nonetheless, his reward is with him for having learned and exerting himself and doing a commandment. And what difference is it to him if he does not remember it - whether it is this way or that way, he is given the reward. There is a parable [relevant to this] about an employer who gave containers with holes to two workers with which to draw water, and he agreed with them that they do this work for him for a day. The silly one said, "What is the point of my work?" The clever one said, "What is it to me? He will give me the wage [regardless]." So is [it with] the elder - what is to him if he forgets, the reward will be given to him. It is the same for the one who remembers a lot and the one who remembers a little - as long as his heart is directed to the Heavens.

"scraped": As many calculations from matters of the world are already engraved in his mind. And when he wants to remember words of Torah [that are new to him], he will need to erase those calculations and he cannot do this completely. And that is why we do not learn, "old," which is the opposite of new - Rabbi Y. Abarbanel.

"unripe grapes": which have not completely ripened and [so] set the teeth on edge. So [too], the wisdom of the child is not completely ripened and [so] his words are not accepted and don't sit well with the heart.

Elisha ben Abuyah said: He who learns when a child, to what is he compared? To ink written upon a new writing sheet. And he who learns when an old man, to what is he compared? To ink written on a rubbed writing sheet. A young person is like a blank slate upon which things may be written clearly and read easily by others. However, an old person is like a piece of paper previously written upon and then erased. Subsequent writing on this paper will not be clear. This statement is not quite as negative about learning as an adult as the English saying, “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” but it is said in a similar vein.

LIKE EATING UNRIPE GRAPES AND DRINKING WINE FROM THE VAT. When one eats unripe grapes he detects their bad taste as he chews them, which corresponds to what Rav writes about the learning of a child—that it has not been thought through and is therefore unconvincing. When one drinks wine from the vat he enjoys it because it pleases the palate but it causes him stomach pains afterwards, which corresponds to the other point Rav makes about the learning of a child—that it is mixed with unclear points; ingredients in a mixture are not immediately perceived upon the first examination.
Most commentators explain that grapes refer to the simple meaning of the Torah, and wine refers to the hidden meaning of the Torah. The Sages say (Sanhedrin 38a) that the alphanumeric value of yayin, “wine” is the same as that of sod, “secret”.

Rabbi Yose ben Yehuda, man of Kfar HaBavli, says: One who learns from elders is compared to what? To one who eats ripe grapes and drinks aged wine: As by aging with the wisdom, each and every day he adds new faces to each and every thing and improves them; and he reaches the bottom of knowledge, to the point where it is easy for him to understand. As 'wisdom is with the seniors, and understanding with the long-lived.'

[It is] like [with] the eating of grapes that are not ripe, their inferiority will already be felt when they are between his teeth.

"wine from its press": in which sediment is mixed in. So [too], the wisdom of the child has a mixture of questions in it.

Rabbi Yose ben Judah a man of Kfar Ha-babli said: He who learns from the young, to what is he compared? To one who eats unripe grapes, and drinks wine from his vat; And he who learns from the old, to what is he compared? To one who eats ripe grapes, and drinks old wine. Rabbi said: don’t look at the container but at that which is in it: there is a new container full of old wine, and an old [container] in which there is not even new [wine]. This section of the mishnah refers not to the age of the student, but to the age of the teacher. Rabbi Yose says that it is preferable to learn from an older person, who is like ripe grapes and vintage wine. One who learns from the young is like one who eats unripe grapes or drinks straight from the vat. While these are edible and drinkable, they do not taste good nor are they particularly satisfying. According to Rabbi Yose a person’s teaching needs time to settle down, to “ripen” within him, before he becomes an effective teacher. If we combine this with the previous section, we see that the best situation is one in which someone learns while young and doesn’t begin to teach until much older. However, Rabbi [Judah Hanasi], in one of the most famous statements in Avoth, says that it is not the outer container that determines the nature of the wisdom but rather that which is inside. Just as with wine, an outer container can be deceiving as to the inner content, so too with wisdom. There may be young people contain mature wisdom and older people who remain immature with regards to their wisdom, and even empty. Perhaps Rabbi would disagree with the first statement as well; if one can teach while young, maybe he would hold that one can learn when old. All is determined not by one’s physical age, but by one’s inner character.

And one who learns from young ones is compared to what? To one who eats unripe grapes and drinks wine from its press: As their wisdom has still not ripened within them.

[It is] like [with] the drinking of wine from the press [which] is good for him while he is drinking it, since it is pleasant to the palate, but [when it reaches] the chambers of his stomach, he will be filled with pains. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

Rebbi says, "Do not look at the jug": Rebbi disagrees with Rabbi Yose bar Yehuda and said that just like there is a new jug full of old wine, so [too] there is a child whose reasoning is like the reasoning of the elders and there are elders who are lower in their level of wisdom than children.

Rebbi says: Do not look at the jug but rather at what is in it. For there are new jugs full of old, and old that do not have even new within them: As because of the quality of the old wine, it will not go bad in the new vessel. So [too], if the young ones have become wiser than the elders. every man should learn from the younger ones first. And this is the difference between the words of Rabbi Yose ben Yehuda and the words of our holy Rabbi, peace be upon him: As Rabbi Yose would say that if the elders and the young ones are both wise, one should learn with the elders - since (generally, the wisdom of) [that the wisdom of] the elders is ripe. And our Rabbi, peace be upon (would say [that]) with wisdom, we only go with the greater. And [so,] if it is found that the young ones are [more] understanding and their words are correct and their wisdom is greater, one should learn in front of them. And Elihou said both of these things, as it is stated (Job 32:7-8), "I said, let age speak; let advanced years declare wisdom.' But truly it is the spirit in men, the breath of the Almighty that gives them understanding." As at first, he would say like the words of Rabbi Yose ben Yehuda - that "advanced years declare wisdom." [But] after he saw that he was younger than his colleagues, the elders, he said that "it is the spirit in men." And sometimes it is the young one who is wiser than the elder and his wisdom is more ripe than [the latter]. And his words are refined and the matters are clear. Hence, it is better to go after a young one who is wise than an elder who is honored but is not like [the first] in wisdom.

ENVY, DESIRE, AND HONOR REMOVE A PERSON FROM THE WORLD. This follows the teaching of R. Yehoshua in 2:11 that an evil eye, the evil inclintion, and the hatred of the people remove a person from the world. Envy comes from having an evil eye, and desire comes from the evil inclination. Honor causes people to hate, for nobody is as hated as somebody who chases honor.¹⁸⁴“Hatred of people” is understood as the hatred that other people have for him. Even though they will honor him in his presence and wil not openly rebuke him, they inwardly hate him and discuss how much they despise him. Midrash Shmuel writes that honor causes one to hate people and reject their company when he feels they are not honoring him sufficiently.¹⁸⁵According to Midrash Shmuel, “hatred of people” is understood as the hatred that he has for other people.

Rabbi Elazar HaKapor says: Envy: The explanation regarding the matter of envy is that there are two things that have two or three matters, and two which are not harmful. The first way is envy of the good, and it is the [worst] way. And the first manner [of this] is that when his fellow sees good, it is bad in his eyes. And when [the latter] is occupied with Torah [study] and the commandments and goes in the good path, he [begrudges] him - as he hates those that love God and those that do His will. This trait drives him from the world and it is the greatest evil in envy. And his name is called the haters of God. And the second manner is that it is not bad in his eyes from the angle that he hates the path of involvement in Torah. Rather it is [that] since he does not walk in that path, he also does not want his fellow to go in it. As it is his will that no one find more good than he - not for his benefit, but for the harm of others. This one is also called the haters of God - since he does not do the acts of God, it is also hard in his eyes to see his fellows doing [them], and even if he does not hate like the first. But there is a good path in envy, even if there is a better one. That is what the sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Batra 21a), "The envy of scribes increases wisdom" - since by his seeing that his fellows are holy and wise, he also wants to be like them. And because of envy, he increases his wisdom and he toils and intensifies doing good and walking in the straight path. However, it is more valuable if he desires these without envy, as [in that case] they (are the speech of) [are the ones that fear] the Lord - and that is the work of man. And this is what King Shlomo, peace be upon, stated (Ecclesiastes 4:4), "I have seen that all labor and skillful enterprise are from men’s envy of each other; this too is vanity and broken spirit." He meant to say that even if he does an act skillfully; if he does it from envy of men, while he does good, there is [also] much bad. As one who does what is fitting from the generosity of his heart goes truthfully and with a full heart. [Such a one] is more worthwhile than the one who does it out of the envy of men when it comes to his heart. And if from this or from that, the act is done; 'but it is good for you to grasp the first without letting your hand go of [the other].' The second way is the envy of money. The first manner [of this] is the seeker of evil - and it is hard in his eyes that others have wealth, since he does not. And there is none in [this way of envy] as evil as this [one] - as he hates the good of the creatures and does not want the betterment of the world. And the second manner is one envious of his wealthy fellows; and it is hard in his eyes when they are wealthier than he. It is not from his hatred for them and for their wealth and that he desires that it be reduced. Rather, it is from his love of wealth and his desire to be very wealthy; since wealth is honor in his eyes, and he wants to more honored than they. And the third manner is the best of the bad [ones] - he loves money and is envious of it and desires that he should have great wealth. But he is not concerned if others have little or much. And this one's envy is not burning like the one that wants to be wealthier than all people. And King Shlomo, peace be upon him, grouped all of these things and stated (Proverbs 23:17), "Do not envy sinners in your heart, but only fear of the Lord all of the day." He first explained [that] the worst envy is not to be envious of the wicked that do sins, to do like them. And afterwards he stated more generally, "but only fear of the Lord" - all envies are negative except for the envy of fear [of God]. He should be envious of the 'acts of God, as He is awesome.'

He said that envy, lust and pursuit of honor drive a man form the world. And that is because these traits - or [even] one of them - perforce destroy the faith of the Torah. And [so] neither the intellectual virtues or the disopositional virtues will reach him.

"Envy, etc.": This is in the style of the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua in Mishnah 11 of Chapter 2, etc., since envy is engendered by the evil eye and lust is engendered by the evil impulse and honor is the cause of hate of the creatures, as there is nothing more hateful to the creatures than the one that runs after honor. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"And lust": One who wants to fill his lust by eating and drinking and sexual intercourse and similar things.

Introduction Rabbi Elazar Ha-kappar was one of the last of the tannaim. One interesting note is that this name was found in the Galilee written on a lintel piece dated to the mishnaic period. While we cannot be certain that this refers to the same person who is named in the mishnah, it is likely that this was from his residence.

REMOVE A PERSON FROM THE WORLD. Some versions of Rashi have the following: envy, as Korach was envious of Moses and Aaron; desire, as Gehazi desired to take the money of Na`aman; honor, from Jeroboam, as the verse says “if the people go up to Jerusalem, etc.” (1 Kings 12:27).¹⁸⁶These three people do not have a share in the World to Come according to the Talmud in Sanhedrin, 109-111. Whether or not Korach and his followers have a share is the subject of a dispute there; this approach would seem to be taking the position that they do not. The Talmud there sees Jeroboam’s refusal to let the people go to the Temple as stemming from slighted honor.

lust (desire): It is the beginning of all activities and actions and is even before thought. As when he wants something from his desire for it, he thinks about doing it. And there is much bad in all desires. There is no need to say the desire of the impulse to sins, but even the desire for much permissible laying with women is very bad. And about this Sholmo, peace be upon him, stated (Proverbs 31:3), "Do not give your strength to women." And, so too, much desire for permissible food and drink - this too is bad. And it is like the wise men of science said, that even light and good foods are harmful to the one who eats much of them. And this is what they said in Tractate Pesachim 114a, "Do not accustom yourself to eat geese, as your heart will stalk you." And there are three bad ways of desire, [just] like with envy: The first is one who desires that there should not be wealth and honor to any [other] person, and that he should have them. And that is a transgression that he [commits]. And the second one desires for wealth and wisdom, but if others [also] have it, the thing is good in his eyes - except that he should have more than them, to be greater than them. There is also much bad in this. And in the third there is a little good. [It is the one] who when he sees that his fellows have wisdom and wealth, he desires that he should also be like them. And it is very good in his eyes that they be like him and 'God should add to them from Him a thousandfold and bless him and them.' And this trait is not completely good, in that his desire is from the angle that others are wise and understanding and wealthy. As the fitting desire is to desire for wisdom from the angle that it is the foundation and root of service to the Creator, may He be blessed; and to do with the wealth that which is straight in the eyes of the Lord - and not because of [any] other thing. And this is what King David, peace be upon him, stated (Psalms 38:10), "Lord, all my desire is in front of You." He wanted to say that all of his desire is from the angle of Heaven and from envy of men. And so [too] do we find with our holy Rabbi, peace be upon him (Ketuvot 104a) that at the time of his departure (death), he raised his fingers and said, "It is revealed and known in front of You, Master of the worlds, that I have not enjoyed even [the worth of] a small finger." And even though our rabbis said about him (Bava Metzia 85a) that he was very wealthy, such that his key carrier [had] like the wealth of Shavur Malka (the king of Persia), nonetheless [Rabbi] only enjoyed for the sake of Heaven - as he did not desire the vanities of the world.

"and honor": That people should honor him.

Rabbi Elazar Ha-kappar said: envy, lust and [the desire for] honor put a man out of the world. This saying is parallel to the saying of Rabbi Joshua which we saw in mishnah 2:11, “Rabbi Joshua said: an evil eye, the evil inclination, and hatred for humankind put a person out of the world.” It may even be that Rabbi Elazar is interpreting Rabbi Joshua’s statement. An evil eye causes a person to be envious, lustfulness comes from the evil inclination and hatred for humankind stems from an overwhelming desire to rise above everyone else, hence a pursuit of honor. These things “put a man out of the world”, meaning they interfere with his ability to function in this world and they cause him to lose entrance into the world to come.

and honor: The bad honor is [practiced by] the one who gets honor from people in order to impose his fear upon them and 'he strikes terror into the land of the living.' And what is his reward? That he will descend into the depths of the pit in Gehinnom, [such] that there is no ascent form his fall for [all] generations. And because of this the prophet Yechezkel compares the fall of the kings of the nations in Gehinnom to the one who 'strikes terror into the land of the living,' to say that they have no ascent, as it is stated (Ezekiel 32:32), "I strike My terror into the land of the living; and lay among the uncircumcised those who were the casualties of the sword." And the second [way] of honor is the one who wants that people should honor him, as he thinks that he is fit for this honor - but he is not. Even if he is a Torah scholar and a master of commandments and his will is that they honor him for this, he is 'sinning with his soul' - unless his intention is for the sake of Heaven, and if it is only for the honor of the Torah that he is [seeking it] and he does not take it for himself and does not enjoy it, but it is only in order to have the Torah honored about (through) this, as we have written. However all other things regarding honor are very bad. And how much did the Torah warn and forbid it to them! As even with a king of Israel about whom it stated (Deuteronomy 17:15), "Surely place a king upon you" - that you should put his fear upon you (Ketuvot 17a) - and [so] he is fit for honor more than all of the creatures under the skies, nonetheless it still warns him that he should not raise his heart over his brothers. All the more so should commoners not desire honor at all.

drive a man from the world: As these three traits are in the category of major sins. Another explanation: "drive a man from the world" - envy, as it is stated (Proverbs 14:30), and rot to the bones is envy"; lust, as it is stated (Proverbs 21:25), "The lust of a lazy man kills him"; and honor, as we have found with Yosef who died twelve years before his brothers, because he comported himself with lordship (Berakhot 55a).

THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN BORN WILL DIE. Rav explains that they are certain to die eventually, similar to what I wrote on 3:1 on “where you are going”. “And the dead will be brought to life”—the mishna does not say “will live” because it is necessary for some other agent to cause them to live. They are not naturally disposed to this, as it is not natural to come to life after death the same way it is for all things to die.

He would say: Those that are born will die: Since their end is to die - 'and today alive and tomorrow in the grave' - they should contemplate their deeds and repent.

He said, "to know, to make known, and to become conscious". He means with this that He knows the ones that will be born in the future, those that are born now and will die and those that will [return to life] after death. And we learn from these three groups that He is the Maker, He is the Creator. And with his saying, "He is the Judge [...] and He is destined to judge," he wants [to say] that He judges everything now with life and death and all of the other matters of the world, and He is also destined to judge those that will live in the world to come, for reward and punishment. And his saying, no taking of bribes, is like it also stated in the Torah (Deuteronomy 10:17), "shows no favor and takes no bribe." And its matter is not that He does not take a bribe to sway the judgement, as this is from idiocy which is distant from God, may He be blessed - such that it cannot be designed and cannot even be imagined. As how can a bribe be designed for Him - and what will the bribe be? Rather its matter is that which we have elucidated - that He not take the good [deeds] as a bribe. Such that if a man did a thousand good [deeds] and one evil, God, may He be blessed, will not forgive the one sin for the multitude of his good [deeds] and remove one or more goods from his thousand goods. Rather, He will punish for that one evil and reward him for all of those goods. And this is the matter of "takes no bribes." And it is like, "shows no favor" - that He punishes one great in virtues for a small thing; like our teacher Moshe, peace be upon him, was punished for the sin of anger, as we explained in previous chapters, and the reward of Esav the evildoer for honoring father and mother and of Nevuchadnetzar for the honor of God, may He be blessed, as it is clarified in Sanhedrin. And that is the matter of no respect of persons. And examine the statement, against your will you were created, and that which is connected to it - that he mentioned natural matters about which a man has no choice; about which the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Berakhot 33b), "Everything is in the hands of Heaven except for the fear of Heaven." And he did not say, "Against your will you sin," or "pass" or "go" or "stand" or what is similar to this. As these are all matters that are in the control of a man and about which there is no compulsion with them, as we explained in the fifth chapter (Eight Chapters 5).

"Will be revived": And it does not say, "to live," but rather "to be revived," as they need [it to be done to them] and they are not designed for it [on their own]. Because nature does not necessitate revival after death like it necessitates death to all that live.

"Those that are born will die": Whoever is already born, he will die in the future.

He used to say: the ones who were born are to die, and the ones who have died are to be brought to life, and the ones brought to life are to be judged; So that one may know, make known and have the knowledge that He is God, He is the designer, He is the creator, He is the discerner, He is the judge, He the witness, He the complainant, and that He will summon to judgment. Blessed be He, before Whom there is no iniquity, nor forgetting, nor respect of persons, nor taking of bribes, for all is His. And know that all is according to the reckoning. And let not your impulse assure thee that the grave is a place of refuge for you; for against your will were you formed, against your will were you born, against your will you live, against your will you will die, and against your will you will give an account and reckoning before the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He. In this long mishnah, full of rhetorical speech, Rabbi Elazar Ha-kappar teaches about the certainty of the judgment day to come. In the beginning of the mishnah, Rabbi Elazar goes through the stages in human existence, from birth to death to resurrection on judgment day. A person should know, tell others and let the whole world know that there is one God responsible for all this. The same God that created us will eventually act as our judge, witness and complainant. [Today we would say that He is the judge, jury and executioner.] Next, Rabbi Elazar reminds us that God is not like human judges, who can be bribed, nor is it possible that He will forget or somehow pervert justice. Everyone will receive his fair due. There is indeed no way to bribe God, for in the end, all of the world belongs to God. All of our deeds count at the time of judgment [see above, 3:15]. One should not fool himself into thinking that the grave will be a place where one can escape the consequences of one’s life, for just as humans were created and will die without their consent, so too will they eventually be judged without their consent. The Rambam notes that the mishnah lists “natural” phenomenon as being out of a person’s control. A person cannot control where, when and into what family he is born, nor does he have a lot of control over when and where he will die. However, the mishnah does not state that a person’s moral actions are out of his control, for a person has full choice over whether he sins or does good deeds. In this way, while we have no control over whether we will be judged in the future, we do have ultimate control with regard to our sentence, because only we can control our actions.

THE LIVING WILL BE JUDGED. Rav’s text has “and live to die”, which is modifying the life after death mentioned earlier.¹⁸⁷The mishna would then read “the dead will live and they live to be judged”.

and those that are dead will be revived: As God, may He be blessed, will revive them in the future to come, as it is stated in Daniel (Daniel 12:2), "And many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake; these for eternal life, and those for reproaches, for everlasting abhorrence." Hence a man should do that [thing] such that he will be from the living and not [from those who will experience] everlasting abhorrence.

And it refers to the living after death.

"and those that are dead": will live [again] in the future and stand [trial] at the day of judgement, these to [receive] eternal life and those to [receive] disgrace and eternal shame.

HE IS THE JUDGE, HE IS THE WITNESS, AND HE IS THE LITIGANT. The mishna arranges the cases from most to least obvious, but chronologically the litigant first makes his claim, then he brings witnesses, and then the judge issues his ruling.

and the living will be judged: Those that will be revived in the future will stand in judgement in front of God, may He be blessed, and He will give them according to their activities and according to the actions of their hands.

"the Judge": He took [these items] by way of 'not only this, but also that' (going in the order of what is least obvious to what is most obvious). But according to the time order, the litigant comes first to prosecute, and afterwards he brings his witnesses, and afterwards [still] the judge judges.

"and the living to judge": They are standing to be judged on the day of judgement.

THERE IS NO PARTIALITY. Rav explains that there is no partiality even to a completely righteous person. Rambam adds: as we see from the punishment of Moses for the sin of anger. And similarly G-d does not deal unfairly even with a completely evil person, as Esau received reward for honoring his father and mother, and Nebuchadnezzar for honoring G-d, as the Talmud says in Sanhedrin 96a.

[It is necessary] to know, to make known, and to become conscious: All need to know this. To know from others that will teach him; and to make known - that he should teach others in this world; and to be conscious in the world to come from himself without a teacher, as it is stated (Jeremiah 31:34), "No longer will they teach a man his neighbor and a man say to his brother, 'Know the Lord'; for all of them shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them."

That if it is [to be understood] as to pervert justice, this is from the foolishness that is distant from God, may He be blessed, which cannot be pictured and not even be imagined; as how can [actual] bribery to Him be pictured and what would be the bribe? - Rambam. The commentaries asked [on this approach], what is [the explanation given in the mishnah,] "for all is His," as [this is] not a reason [that fits with] the bribe of [the fulfillment of] a commandment [as was understood to be the bribe according to Rambam]. And Midrash Shmuel answered that even with a commandment, it is all His; since one who wants to purify himself is helped [by God] and a commandment is only known by (given credit to) the one who finishes it. To here [are his words.] And there is no objection from [the commandment of] repentance, as it is not an independent commandment, but rather it corresponds to sin to push it away from one.

"[It is necessary] to know": from others.

AND NO TAKING OF BRIBES. Rambam explains that G-d does not take the fulfillment of a commandment as a bribe to overlook a sin, etc. For to say that G-d does not take bribes to rule unjustly is unnecessary, as it is utter foolishness and completely meaningless, for what would it mean to bribe G-d, and what could the bribe possibly be? The subsequent commentators raised the point that if so, the words “for all is His” do not provide a reason for not taking the “bribe” of a fulfilled commandment. Midrash Shmuel answers that even the doing of a commandment is included in “all is His” [*per the Talmud in Yoma 72a and Shabbat 104a], for “G-d aids one who wishes to purify Himself,” and “a commandment is only known by the name of the one who completes it” (Devarim Rabbah 8:4).¹⁸⁸As G-d made the doing of the commandment possible, he is, in a sense, the one who “finished” or “completed” it; therefire, it is His. Cf. my comments to Kiddushin 1:10.
And this is no contradiction to the idea that G-d accepts repentance, for repentance is not some separate commandment but directly deals with the sin and pushes it away. See also what Rav writes on the mishna in Yoma 8:8 [s.v. al aseh].

that He is God (El): From the usage "the strong ones (eileh) of the land" (2 Kings 24:15), meaning strong and resolute.

"against your will, etc.": And he chose this, since he is mentioning natural things about which there is no choice for man, [and] about which the sages, of blessed memory, said, "Everything is in the hands of the Heavens except for the fear of the Heavens." And he did not say, "against your will, you sin or transgress or go or stand, or that which is similar to it;" as all of them are matters that are in man's power and there is no compulsion in them - Rambam.

"to make known": to others.

TAKING [Heb. מקח]. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rabbenu Ephraim that the mem should be vocalized with a chirik.¹⁸⁹Making the word mikach. Some read makach, with a patach under the mem. Both are correct, for one is Biblical Hebrew and the other is Rabbinic Hebrew. So far his words.
He means that we find the word vocalized with a chirik in the Bible, in 2 Chronicles 19:7: וְעַתָּה יְהִי פַחַד יְהוָה עֲלֵיכֶם שִׁמְרוּ וַעֲשׂוּ כִּי אֵין עִם יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ עַוְלָה וּמַשֹּׂא פָנִים וּמִקַּח שֹׁחַד. I say that it is unnecessary to resort to the distinction between Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew, for even though we never find the word makach itself with a patach, we do find words vocalized according to this paradigm, for example the word masa` in 1 Kings 6:7: אֶבֶן שְׁלֵמָה מַסָּע and the word matan in Proverbs 18:16: מַתָּן אָדָם יַרְחִיב לוֹ.<sup>190</sup>Since the paradigm ma-X-X exists in the Bible, we may consider the spelling makach an acceptable Biblical spelling, i.e. one that would have been considered grammatical in Biblical Hebrew, even though the word never appears spelled that way.
But we never find this word or any similar word vocalized with a segol. This is because the initial mem is a prefix and the first letter of the triliteral root has been ellided,<sup>191</sup>The root of makach being l.k.ch, of masa` being n.s.`, and of matan being n.t.n. so the second letter in the word has been geminated to compensate. One may therefore only vocalize the word with a patach, but not a segol.<sup>192</sup>Gemination refers to the doubling of a consonant. Mikach, properly, is mikkach. In order for the kuf to be doubled, it must become the end of a closed syllable, i.e. it must now close the syllable that precedes in—formerly just mi, now to be mik—in addition to being the first letter in the next syllable, kach. If the vowel of the first syllable were a long vowel such as tzeireh (making the word mekkach) the consonant following it would have to be vocalized with a shva na`, making the word mek’kach. Geminated consonants, however, are not pronounced as two separate consonants with a vowel inbetween but as one long one, as in Italian libretto. Of the five short vowels, three are acceptable for vocalizing the prefixed mem: patach, chirik, and segol (the other two only appear in pariticipial prefixes, while our mem is a noun (or verbal noun) prefix). It is unclear what rule Tosafot Yom Tov is referring to when he says that segol is unacceptable here, although it is true that segol almost never appears before a geminated consonant, coming only before suffixes like -nu.

THAT SHE’OL. I.e., the grave.

He is the Maker, He is the Creator of the creatures from birth, from the womb and from inception. And making is the beginning of the act and creating is the end of the work. And it is not like the manufacturing of a vessel - as once it is finished, it does not require its manufacturer. But man requires their Creator at each instant and time, as King David, peace be upon him, said (Psalms 100:3), "Know that the Lord is God; He made us and we are His, His people, the flock He tends." He wanted to say [here] that we need him every hour and minute.

He is the Understander: He understands all of their acts.

Because [before then] it looks down from [one] end of the world to the [other] end, as it is written (Job 29:3), "When He shined his candle above my head" - Rashi.

"and to become conscious": to understand on his own.

"He is the Maker": As the whole world is in His hand like clay in the hand of the [craftsman]. And what is the reason? Because "He is the Creator" that created the whole world ex nihilo. Therefore He can do with it according to His will.

FOR YOU ARE CREATED AGAINST YOUR WILL, ETC. Rambam: take note of this, for the mishna mentions natural processes in which man’s free will plays no role, concerning which the Sages said “everything is in the hands of Heaven aside from fear of Heaven” (Berachot 33b). The mishna does not, however, say that one sins or passes or walks or stands or the like against one’s will, for these are all things that depend on a person’s decision and are not compulsory.

He is the Judge: Since He knows the truth of all matters, He is fit to judge, as He will judge the case truthfully.

"He is the Understander, He is the Judge": Since he understands all of their deeds, He brings them to judgment in front of Him.

He is the Witness: As everything is revealed in front of Him.

"He is the Litigant": as he prosecutes the sinners.

He is the Litigant: Since He is the one who makes the claim against the sinners, as David stated (Psalms 51:6), "Against You alone have I sinned, and done what is evil in Your eyes; so You are just in Your sentence, and right in Your judgment." As if a man hurt his fellow, he should not think that he has sinned to him and not to God, since He is the one that makes the claim of the damage, like a litigant - as he has also sinned to God.

"and He is destined to judge:" in the world to come.

and He is destined to judge in the future to come.

"no respect of persons, no taking of bribes": as he does not have respect of persons, even for the completely righteous; that he should not punish him for the light sin that came to his hand. And he does not take the bribe of [the fulfillment of] a commandment for the sin, but rather gives the reward for the commandment and the punishment for the sin. So explained Rambam.

who has before Him no wrong: [That He] sway the judgement.

"And know that everything is according to the reckoning": All the small amounts join together to a large sum. So when light sins are numerous, they add up to a large sum.

no forgetfulness, no respect of persons: [That He] forgive one who is great in wisdom and piety.

"because against your will you were created": As the soul does not want to exit from [behind] the curtain - the holy place where the souls repose - and to enter the innards of a woman in an impure place. And an angel comes and brings it out against its will and places it in the innards of the woman.

no taking of bribes: [That He] should deduct the reward from a commandment against the loss [for a sin]. Rather, he pays a goodly reward for the commandment and repays [separately] for the sin. And it is explained in Chronicles (2 Chronicles 6:23), that none of this is in front of Him.

"and against your will you were born": At the time of birth, [the baby] does not want to go out and the angel brings it out against its will.

And know that everything is according to the reckoning whether for good or whether for bad.

"and against your will you live": There is [the case of] a man who is suffering with afflictions and wants to die but cannot.

And do not let your [evil] impulse assure you: To say to you that there is a place of refuge in the netherworld, as it appears to you that there is a place of refuge in this world - and like the heretics say, "In the world to come , there is neither judgement nor judge." Do not think and say this, as it is not true - because against your will you were created, and against your will you were born, and against your will you live, and against your will you die, and against your will you are destined to give account and reckoning before the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He.