Commento su Pirkei Avoth 1:19

Moshe received the Torah from Sinai, etc.: (I will begin the commentary on "Avot" of our great, pious and holy rabbi, Rabbi Yonah the son of Rabbi Avraham, may he be remembered for blessing.) Our rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Kamma 30a) "One who wishes to be pious should fulfill the words of Avot (the Ethics of the Fathers), and [some] said about it, the words of Damages (Nezikin)". And since a person ascends the steps of piousness by doing one of these matters, they placed [Avot] in the Order of Damages. And even though they also said to fulfill the words of Blessings (Berakhot) which is in the order of Seeds (Zeraim); because it speaks of the blessings on seeds and fruits, they placed it in that order (Editor's note: See what Midrash Shmuel wrote about this in the name of Rabbi Yosef Nachmias, may his memory be blessed). Furthermore, since it is the teachings of the Sanhedrin, they placed it in the order of the laws (of Damages); and so [too], all the sages mentioned [here] until Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai are all from the Sanhedrin.

MOSES RECEIVED THE TORAH AT SINAI. Rav explains “at Sinai” as really meaning “from the one who was revealed at Sinai,” i.e., G-d. And when G-d revealed Himself there, Moses received the Torah, down to its particulars and subtleties, and he did not bring forth any new laws himself, as per the Sifri that Rashi quotes in his Torah commentary to parashat Behar (Leviticus 25:1). To make this point, the mishna says “at Sinai.” This is not without purpose, as it points to the truth of the religion. “It is unique unto its mother”—that being the nation of Israel, who received it, “and it is the choicest of the one who birthed it”—the students, who are children of G-d.³Based on Song of Songs, 6:9. Moses received everything, even the novel interpretations of a seasoned scholar, at Sinai, as per the verse (Deuteronomy 9:10), “And G-d gave me the two stone tablets, inscribed by the finger of the Lord, and (what was written) upon them was as all the things God had said to you on the mountain out of the fire on the day of assembly,” which the Sages expounded in Megillah 19b as follows: This teaches that G-d showed Moses even the most subtle points of the Torah [Heb. dikdukei Torah] and of the Sofrim [Heb. dikdukei Sofrim].
I explain in my introduction to the Mishna that the dikdukei Sofrim were indeed only “shown” to Moshe.⁴And not “given” or “taught” to him, which TYT understands to mean that Moses did not acquire that knowledge the same way he acquired the main body of the Torah but was given some kind of lesser familiarity with it. As such, the word “received” here must refer only to the greater part of the material. In the introduction to his commentary on the Torah, Ramban similarly explains the word “created” in the phrase “fifty levels of understanding were created in the word” as referring to most but not all of those levels, as the fiftieth was not created.

We have already explained the description of how the transmission happened in the introduction of our words in this essay. And [so] our intention here is only to explain the words of piety and ethics alone, to encourage the acquisition of certain virtues the benefit from which is great. And we will also elaborate to warn about certain vices that [bring] much damage. And [for] the rest, I will only explain the words and some of the concepts, because their concepts are [already] clear, except for a few of them.

When [the Torah] was revealed at Sinai, he received it with its general principles, its particulars and its inferences and there was no law that was to be innovated [later]. And it is as it is found in Torat Cohanim which is cited by Rashi on Leviticus 25:1 at the beginning of Parshat Behar. And to teach this, [the mishna] states "from Sinai." And 'it is not an empty thing,' since, behold, it is a sign of the religion: it is one for its nation, the congregation of Israel that received it. It is complete to its Creator - the students, they are the children of God; what an experienced student is to innovate in the future, all of it was received by Moshe. As it is stated (Deuteronomy 9:10), "and upon them, as all of the words," and as we expound it in Megillah. And see the Tosafot Yom Tov.

Moshe received the Torah from Sinai: I say: Since this tractate is not founded on the exegesis of commandments from among the Torah’s commandments, like the rest of the tractates which are in the Mishna, but is rather wholly morals and principles, and whereas the sages of the (other) nations of the world have also composed books according to the fabrication of their hearts, concerning moral paths, how a person should behave with his fellow; therefore, in this tractate the tanna began "Moshe received Torah from Sinai," to tell you that the principles and morals which are in this tractate were not fabricated by the hearts of the Mishna’s sages; rather, they too were stated at Sinai.

Moses received the torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly.
They said three things: Be patient in [the administration of] justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah.
Avoth begins by tracing the transmission of Torah and contains three sayings by the Men of the Great Assembly.
One of the most basic tenets of Judaism is related in this mishnah: that Moses received an oral as well as a written Torah and that there is an unbroken chain connecting the Rabbis with the revelation at Sinai. Therefore the oral Torah, observed and studied during the time of the Mishnah (and in subsequent generations as well) is not the creation of human beings, but is actually as divine in origin as is the written Torah. Now this an extremely significant claim, about which many, many books have been written, and indeed some fierce battles were fought (such as that between the Sadducees and Pharisees and that between the Rabbinites and Karaites). There are many sub-questions that require further resolution, most importantly what was the nature of the oral Torah received at Sinai. Did Moses receive every detail of observance and belief that any Jew would ever need to know? If so then all of the debates in the Mishnah and Talmud are attempts to recover what was originally known, and for some reason lost (this is Rav Saadiah Gaon’s position). Alternatively, were only the principles given to Moses, and perhaps rules by which later Jews could create new laws, laws that would have roots at Sinai but not have been specified at Sinai? If so, then the Mishnah and Talmud contain actual creativity in advancing and expanding the Oral Torah (this is basically the Rambam’s position).
Needless to say, we don’t have the answer to this question and it has been a great debate since the medieval period. The Talmud itself is unclear on the matter, and there are statements that support both. For instance the Talmud states that even any new innovation taught by a student was already revealed to Moses at Sinai. However, the Talmud also relates a famous story that God showed Moses what was going on in Rabbi Akiva’s study hall and Moses did not understand a word. Nevertheless, one thing is clear from this mishnah. Jewish tradition teaches that the Oral Torah (whether all of the details or just the essence) does come from Sinai and that each generation thereafter is obligated to learn that Torah and transmit it to the following generation.
The Men of the Great Assembly refers to the leaders who arose at the time of the building of the Second Temple, around 500 B.C.E (See Nehemiah 8-10). Little is actually known about this group and there are very few sayings attributed to them. They may have had judicial as well as legislative powers, but again little is known.
In our mishnah three sayings are attributed to them. The first is that judgements should not hastily be delivered. This has also been interpreted to mean that even if a case has come before a judge three or four times before, he must examine it closely perhaps he will find a new angle that he had not before noticed.
Although it may seem obvious that a teacher should seek many disciples, not all Rabbis thought so. Particularly Beth Shammai and Rabban Gamaliel were known for not allowing those whom they deemed disqualified to participate in the discussions in the study halls. This mishnah emphasizes that students should be encouraged to continue to learn, even if he is not perfect.
Making a fence around the Torah is another principle of supreme importance in Judaism. There are many laws that are not strictly obligatory upon a person from the Torah, but rather were instituted by the Rabbis to prevent a Jew from transgressing a Torah law. An example is the use of money on Shabbat. The Torah itself does not prohibit using money on Shabbat. However, the Rabbis said one should not do so, lest one write, which is prohibited by the Torah (at least the midrashic understanding of the Torah).

Moshe received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Yehoshua: Both the written Torah and the oral Torah. As the Torah was given with its explanation. As if it were not so, it would be impossible to understand [its contents]. As behold, it is written (Leviticus 19:13), "do not rob" - and all of the [laws of] damages are within this negative commandment, and they themselves are the Torah that was received by Moshe at Sinai, even though they were not written. And it is also written (Deuteronomy 17:8), "between a blood and a blood and between a judgement and a judgement and between an infection and an infection" - and many of the sightings of blood and many of the various judgments and so many of the infections are known to us by the transmission [of this information]... And they are not explained [in writing] because it is not allowed to be written. And it is written (Exodus 24:12), "and I will give you the stone tablets and the Torah and the commandment" - "Torah" is the written Torah; "and the commandment" is the oral Torah. it comes out that you say that every commandment that He gave to Moshe at Sinai, was given with its explanation. And that which is written is what is called the written Torah and the explanation is what is called the oral Torah. And Moshe learned it from the mouth of the Mighty One.

AND TRANSMITTED IT TO JOSHUA. All that he received, he transmitted to Joshua. But it cannot be said that G-d transmitted the Torah in its entirety to Moses, because not the entire Torah that G-d possessed was transmitted to him, as the fiftieth gate was not transmitted to him,⁵Transmission here is understood to mean giving all that one has. as the Sages expounded (Rosh HaShanah 21b) on the verse (Psalms 8:6) “And you have made him only slightly less than the Lord.” Therefore, in speaking of Moses the mishnah says that he “received” it, i.e. whatever he could receive, he received at Sinai. Thus do the commentaries explain it.

Be deliberate in judgment: That they should delay in reaching the verdict and not determine it quickly before they [fully] understand it. As it is possible that new matters will be revealed to their eyes that were not revealed at the beginning of [their] thought.

and he passed it on, etc.: As everything that he received, he passed on to Yehoshua. But concerning Moshe, it cannot state that it was passed on to him, since the fiftieth gate [of wisdom] was not passed on to him, as is elucidated in Tractate Rosh Hashanah 21b.

from Sinai: From the One who was revealed at Sinai.

AND THE PROPHETS TRANSMITTED IT TO THE MEN OF THE GREAT ASSEMBLY. This is to point out that although not all the members of the Great Assembly were prophets, the entire Torah was transmitted to them as it was transmitted to their predecessors. From hereon, however, the generations waned and the entire Torah could not be transmitted to them; rather, each one received as much as he was able. Even so, what Torah he did acquire was part of the tradition, having passed sage from sage and going back to Moses at Sinai.

and transmitted it to Yehoshua: As it is stated (Exodus 33:11), " but his attendant, Joshua son of Nun, a youth, would not stir out of the tent."

and make a fence for the Torah: they mean to say the decrees and ordinances that distance a man from sins. As He, may He be blessed stated (Leviticus 18:30), "And you shall guard My guarding." And it was said in its explanation (Moed Katan 5a), "Make a guarding [fence] for My guarding."

and the prophets passed it on to the men of the Great Assembly: [Meaning] to say that even though not all of the Assembly were prophets, the entire Torah was passed on to them, etc. But afterwards - as the generations declined - not the entire thing was passed on. But [rather] everyone received it according to his ability. And nonetheless, the [portion of] the Torah that was in his hand was a transmission to him, [that had been passed on] one man from another [going back] to Moshe, our teacher - peace be upon him.

to the elders: who lived long after Yehoshua, and those elders (passed it) to other elders until they reached the beginning of the prophets, who are Eli the priest and Shmuel of Ramah.

THE GREAT ASSEMBLY. Rav writes that they were called this because they “returned the crown to its former glory… Jeremiah and Daniel came, and did not say ‘the mighty and awesome one’ (Yoma 69b).” Jeremiah said, “The great and mighty one, whose name is Lord of Hosts (Jeremiah 32:18)”, but did not say “awesome”. Daniel said, “The great and awesome one (Daniel 9:4 ),” but did not say “mighty.”

and Yehoshua to the Elders: As it is stated (Joshua 24:31), and all the days of the elders who had length of days after Joshua."

"and stand up": They [used] an expression of standing, since from the days of Moshe until the days of Rabban Gamliel, they would study while standing and the teacher would sit on a chair (Megillah 21a) - Midrash Shmuel. And it appears to me that the expression, "and stand up," is [meaning to say] to stand them up in understanding the truth of the Torah [and even though there were many students], since this is [something's] standing and preservation, and falsehood has 'no feet,'

to the men of the Great Assembly: There were 120 elders, (including) Zerubavel, Seraiah, Re’elaiah, Mordekhai, Bilshan, who in the days of Ezra were the ones who emigrated from the diaspora in (the period of) the second Temple. Included among them were Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi and Nechemiah ben Chachliah and their associates. They were called the Great Assembly since they restored the crown to its original splendor (Yoma 69b), for Moses said “The great, mighty and awesome God (Deut. 10:17).” Jeremiah and Daniel came but did not say, “Mighty and awesome (Jer. 32:18) (Dan. 9:4),” but they restored it as in the beginning, since they indeed stated both his might and his awesomeness. For were it not so, how could a nation such as this be able to endure in the presence of so many nations.

THEY SAID THREE THINGS. Rav writes that of their many sayings, these three were the ones touching on the continuity of Torah. Later in Avot, 2:10, where the mishna also says “they said three things,” Rav offers as an alternate explanation that these were the dicta they constantly emphasized, as he writes on Avot 1:2.

and the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly: And that is Ezra and his group. And [some of] the prophets of the Second Temple were in that group, as they said in Yevamot 16a, "Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said, 'When Chaggai said these three things, he was sitting on this mortar.'" Hence the prophets of the Second Temple were there after the destruction, since Haggai the prophet was there. And the men of the Great Assembly transmitted it to the men of their generation. And the sages [transmitted it] to their children after them in each and every generation. And the transmission was from one sage to another, until all of the sages of Israel gathered and a suggestion was given from all of their mouths to write down the oral Torah. And [so] they wrote and sealed the Talmud, and afterwards nothing was added to it and nothing was taken away from it. And that generation also transmitted it to the Geonim and the transmission was from one Gaon to another, one rabbi to another - until this day.

they stated three things: They stated many things; rather, they said these three things because they contain within them the preservation of the Torah.

AND YOU SHOULD TRAIN [lit. stand them up] MANY STUDENTS. They used the word ha`amidu, whose root `amad means “to stand,” because from the time of Moses until the time of Rabban Gamliel the students would stand during their studies (Megillah 21a) [as Rav writes on Sotah 9:16], while the master would sit on a chair—so Midrash Shmuel, in the name of R. Yosef ibn Nahamias. While this is a good derivation of the term ha`amidu, it does not convey the thrust of the mishna, which is not that the students should stand or sit, but that they should study. So why doesn’t the mishna, in accordance with its primary intent, simply use the verb “teach”?
It seems that the mishna uses this verb, ha`amidu, to emphasize that one ought to stand them up on their feet to the point that they don’t falter, i.e. to stand them on their feet in truly understanding Torah. This is called “standing” and “enduring” [kiyum, related to Heb. kam, “arose”], just as the Rabbinic expression says of a lie that it “has no legs on which to stand,” and as the Poet says, “My feet had nearly faltered” (Psalms, 73:2). And it is because the mishna dictated that one train many students that it had to use ha`amidu, to emphasize that although one ought to train many students, their studies should still be such that they should stand upon their own feet and reach truth in their learning. Anything else cannot properly be called ha`amadah, training a student and standing him upon his feet; such students rather “lie in slumber” (Isaiah 56:10), in the sleep of foolishness.
The upshot of all this is that we do not fulfill this dictum unless we teach truth and righteousness and nothing else. Cf. my comments on mishna 6.

They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment: They said [this] to teachers of legal decisions and decisors of legal decisions and decisors of litigation; that they should not rely on the first thought, but rather upon great deliberation and incisive investigation, so that they not err in their evaluation. As a man who is quick to make a decision is called a sinner - and even though he thought he was saying the truth, it is not [considered] accidental but rather is [considered] to be close to volitional, since he did not put it into his heart to say, the quick hearts do not understand to know. As error is found in all men, as the rabbis say (Avot 4:13), " Be careful in study, for an error in study is considered an intentional transgression." And about this matter, Shlomo, peace be upon him, stated (Proverbs 26:12), "If you see a man who thinks himself wise, there is more hope for a dullard than for him." And it is as the sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Avot 4:7), "One who is nonchalant about giving legal decisions is an imbecile, wicked, and arrogant in spirit." Therefore, it is incumbent upon a man who makes legal decisions to go back and forth on the matter and let his thought ripen and to hold on to it; as the matter that they said (Sanhedrin 35a) [that] we should ripen a judgement, as through ripening and deliberation, he adds reasoning to his reasoning and sharpness to his sharpness, until he judges a completely true judgement. As he will see to say with the second thought that which he did not see with the first. And about this matter, Asaf stated (Psalms 73:21), "As my heart ripened and my kidneys were silent," which is to say [that] after my heart has ripened and been sharp with wisdom and with my kidneys, I have been silent and have refined my understanding to know. As without this, I have not known, and this is my portion. (And as) it is after it, "I was a dolt, without knowledge; I was brutish toward You." And the reason [they] said, "Be deliberate in judgment," is in order to warn about litigation more than other legal decisions, as they are fundamental in the knowledge of Him, may He be blessed and elevated; and as Yirmiyahu the prophet stated (Jeremiah 9:23), "ponder and know Me, for I am the Lord who makes kindness, justice, and equity in the world; for in these I delight, declares the Lord." And how can a man a ponder and know God, as it is not possible? However with this have we known Him, by dong judgment and justice, since God does these. And that is what is stated (Jeremiah 22:16), "He judged for the poor and needy— then all was well. That is truly knowing Me, declares the Lord." And it is written in another place (Micah 6:8), "And what does the Lord require of you? Only to do justice and to love kindness," since judgments are a pillar of the Torah. And from them the world is made firm, as is said in the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 30 3), "It is written in front of The Ten Commandments, 'and they will judge the people at all times' (Exodus 18:22). And after the Ten Commandment, it is written, 'And these are the laws' (Exodus 21 1). There is a parable [about this] concerning a matron that was walking along the way and her armed guards were walking in front of her and behind her."

"Be discerning in judgment": Where if a case comes before you one, two or three (times), do not say "This case already came before me, and (I ruled) a second and a third time." Rather, "Be discerning," which is to say deliberate before you decide the case.

raise up many disciples: As per the opinion of Beit Hillel. [This is] like the matter that we have learned (The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan 2:9), "Beit Shammai say, 'We only teach a student who is fit, modest, proper and who fears Heaven, as it is stated (Job 20:26), "All (darkness) waits for his treasured ones." And Beit Hillel say, 'We teach everyone: One hundred so that ten good ones will come out from them; and ten so that two will come out of them; and two, "since you do not know which will be proper, this one or that one or if they will both be equally good." And so was there a story of Hillel, who brought together all of his students and said to them, 'Are all of you here?' They said [back] to him, 'Yes.' One of his students said to him, 'All of them are here except the smallest one.' He said to them, 'Let the small one come, for the future generation will be conducted by him .' And they brought Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai. Behold that one should not push off the small ones for the bigger ones, since the kids will become goats." And about this matter the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Yevamot 62b), "'Sow your seed in the morning, and don’t hold back your hand in the evening' (Ecclesiastes 11:6), - if you have raised disciples in your youth, raise disciples in your old age." Behold that the multiplication of disciples is a very good thing and a merit to the teacher.

"stand up many students": (This is meant) to exclude (the words of) Rabban Gamliel, who said "Any student whose exterior is not like his interior shall not enter the Beit Midrash (Berakhot 28a)." We derive from this that we teach Torah to every person; there is no need to inquire after him. [This is the case] so long as it not be known from his way that his actions are corrupt or that he has a bad reputation. Alternately, we may derive that if he raises up disciples in his youth, he should [also] do so in his old age, as is written (Ecclesiastes 11:6), “Sow your seed in the morning, and in the evening do not hold back your hand (Yevamot 62b).”

and make a fence for the Torah: As the matter that is stated (Leviticus 18:30), "And you shall guard My guarding"; which is to say, make a guarding for my guarding. And a fence is a great thing and it is praiseworthy to make a fence for the commandments so that the one who fears the word of God not stumble in them. Hence one who observes the words of the sages, may their memory be blessed - which are the fences for the commandments of the Torah - has shown more love for [this] fear than one who does the commandment itself. As the doing of the commandments does not prove fear like the one who observes the fences, since he is careful from the start not to come to error. However, the one who does the commandment but does not observe the fence shows us that if it is good in his eyes to do the commandment, [yet] it is not bad in his eyes if he errs in it; and that he is not concerned about the fear that he will make a breach in it, and 'one who makes a breach will be bitten by a snake.' Behold that the words of the sages, may their memory be blessed, are pillars and 'trees' in the fear of Heaven; which is a foundation of the world and a fundamental principle of virtue. And all of the commandments are appetizers for it, as they said in the Midrash (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1), "'For your love is more delightful than wine' (Song of Songs 1:2) - the words of the scribes are more beloved than the wine of Torah."

"and establish a fence for the Torah": A hedge, in order that he not come into contact with a Torah prohibition, such as second degree sexual relationships or rabbinic fences to protect the Shabbat as is written (Lev. 18:30), “You shall keep my guard;” [meaning,] ‘Make a safeguard for my safeguard.’

THE WORLD STANDS. Rav understands this expression as “the world was only created for the purpose of.” Midrash Shmuel in his commentary to the last mishna in this chapter notes that he has found editions in which the text of our mishna has “for three things the world was created.”

Shimon the Righteous was from the remnants of the Great Assembly. And he was a high priest, as they said in Tractate Tamid 21 (Yoma 69a) that he had gone out dressed with the priestly garments in front of Alexander [the Great] and [Alexander] went down and bowed before him. His servants said to him, "Our master, A king like you should bow down to this Jew?" He said [back] to them, "I see the image of this one in war and I am victorious."

He is saying that with wisdom, and that is the Torah; and with enhancement of [good] traits, and that is acts of lovingkindness; and with the fulfillment of commandments, and that is the sacrifices [referred to in the mishnah as service] - there will be a continuous refinement of the world and ordering of its existence in the most complete way.

And [the explanation of Rabbi Bartenura] is difficult to me, since if so, [“on the Torah”] is not a warning at all; and [so] it is not similar to the others. And it appears to me that ["the Torah" here] is [referring to] reason and Torah study. And this is [the understanding] of that which is written, “if not for my covenant (which is studied) night and day.” [This is] as the matter is stated (Yehoshua 1), “and you shall reason in it night and day." And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

From the remnants: From those remaining, for after they had all died, the tradition remained in his possession. He was High Priest following Ezra.

Shimon the Righteous was one of the last of the men of the great assembly.
He used to say: the world stands upon three things: the Torah, the Temple service, and the practice of acts of piety.
The mishnah begins by noting that Shimon Hatzadik (the righteous) was one of the last men of the great assembly, which was the last link in the chain of the transmission of oral Torah mentioned in mishnah one. In other words, Shimon Hatzadik lived long before the time of the mishnah, and is not really part of the rabbinic period. He is one of the few people whose name is remembered from this period of Jewish history.
There are two interpretations of Shimon Hatzadik’s statement that the world could not stand without these three things. The first is that he means that the world literally could not exist without these things. These three things are the three legs upon which the world rests. Another interpretation is that it was for the sake of these three things that the world was created.
According to the rabbis, without Torah the world could not exist. Without people continuing to study Torah, God would destroy the world, for the study of Torah is one of the purposes of creation.
The word used to denote Temple service in the mishnah is “avodah”, literally worship. When the Temple stood, it was through the merit of the worship performed there, that God brought rain upon the earth (see Deut. 11:13-14). Without this worship, the world could not continue to exist. When the Temple was destroyed, prayer took its place.
There are two other interpretations to the word “avodah” in the mishnah. The first is the performance of mitzvoth in general. The second interpretation is literal work, plowing, harvesting etc. The idea behind this interpretation is that God gave the world to human beings so that they would tend to it and thereby become God’s partner in creation. If human beings were to cease acting as God’s partner, God would cease his role as well.
Gemilut hasadim, acts of loving kindness, are not merely acts of charity, but any act that helps another person in his time of need (visiting the sick, comforting the mourner, welcoming guests). The rabbis teach that these acts are even greater than giving charity, for a person gives charity with his money, but these acts are performed with money and by the person’s own body.
We should also note that according to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai, after the destruction of the Temple acts of loving kindness take the place of the Temple service that can no longer be performed. Whereas in the past a person would be atoned through sacrifices, after the destruction the way to achieve atonement was by the performance of acts of piety.

ON THE TORAH. Rav: had Israel not accepted the Torah, the heavens and the earth would not have been created, as per the verse “If not for my covenant, etc.” (Jeremiah 33:25). Rav was led to this interpretation because he was bothered by the superfluousness of “the sacrificial service, and acts of kindness” in the text, for both of these are commandments, the fulfillment of which is already included in “the Torah”; he therefore understood that the Torah must refer not to the Torah itself but to its acceptance. The verse in Jeremiah is now read as “if not for my covenant which you have accepted, I would not have established the day or the night, nor even the laws of the heavens and the earth.” See the mishna in Nedarim 3:11 for a similar interpretive turn.
The difficulty with this is that the mishna is using the expression “the world stands on three things” to convey the importance of doing those things, and in Rav’s reading “the Torah” refers not to anything that one ought to do but to a historical event, and is out of place here. It seems, therefore, that “the Torah” here refers to the study and learning of Torah as opposed to the act of following its laws. The verse in Jeremiah, then, reads “if not for the study of my covenant by day and night, etc,” as per the verse “You shall study it day and night” (Hosea 1:8).
The words “had Israel not accepted the Torah” do not appear in Rashi’s commentary, which simply reads: On the Torah, as per the verse “If not for my covenant, etc.”.

He would say, "On three things the world stands": This means to say that because of these things the world was created. As below (Avot 1:18), it states, "On three the things the world subsists," and they are not those that it mentions here. Hence, we need to explain that when they said "stands," it means that the world was created for them, since they are the will of the Holy One, blessed be He. This means to say that the world was created for His creatures that in the future would fulfill His will in front of Him through these things. And these three are a great pillar, such that on account of them, we are able to get to all of the [other] things that the sages, may their memory be blessed, said that the world stands because of them.

And in the tractate Megillah 31a, it concludes, “If not for my covenant, etc... I would not have set” - that in the covenant between the pieces, the Holy One, blessed be He, promised that even if the Jews sin, the creation of the world will be preserved in the merit of the sacrifices. And see Tosafot Yom Tom.

He would say: Which is to say that he was accustomed to say. And so too every (instance) of "Rabbi x says" (or) "He would say" which is in this tractate; their meaning is "He was accustomed to saying such a thing constantly."

AND ON THE SACRIFICIAL SERVICE. Rav: the sacrificial service, as the tannaim taught in tractate Ta`anit, “if not for the shifts of priests offering sacrifices, etc.” So also Rashi. They used the term shaninu<sup>6</sup>Lit. “we have learnt,” a term used to indicate a tannaitic as opposed to amoraic text. loosely, however, for this text does not appear in a mishna or baraita, and is actually an amoraic memra in the Talmud, Ta`anit 27b: Rabbi Yaakov bar Acha said in the name of Rav Assi etc.
To be precise, the language of that memra is “if not for the shifts of priests offering sacrifices, the heavens and earth would not continue to exist”, and as such we cannot deduce therefrom that it is for the sake of these shifts that the heavens and earth were created. Granted, now that the heavens and earth have been created their continued existence is through the shifts of priests, but perhaps the shifts would not have been sufficient reason to have brought them into existence; for it is a greater feat to create something ex nihilo than to continue the existence of that which has already been created. So how does this memra show that the sacrificial service is so essential that the world was created and brought into being on account of it?
This memra also appears in Megillah 31b, and the passage there reads as follows: It was said: Rabbi Ami said, if not for the shifts of priests offering sacrifices, the heavens and the earth would not continue to exist, as per the verse “If not for my covenant, I would not have established the day or night, nor even the laws of the heavens and the earth (Jeremiah 33:25)”, and the verse “And he said, Lord, G-d, how can I know that I will inherit it? (Genesis 15:8)”. Our father Abraham said, Master of the world! Perhaps, G-d forbid, Israel will sin before you, and you will do to them as you did to the generation of the flood and the generation of the dispersion? G-d said to him, I shall not. Abraham said, “how can I know (Genesis 15:8)?” G-d said, “Take for me three calves, etc. (Genesis 15:9).”⁷The “covenant made between the pieces,” which itself was a sacrifice, is understood to represent all sacrificial service. This passage understands the “covenant” in Jeremiah as referring to the “covenant made between the pieces” in Genesis 15, and therefore the verse reads “If not for my covenant, i.e. the covenant made between the pieces…” And the end of the verse says “I would not have established,” so the sacrificial service must be sufficient reason for the establishment and creation of the world.
Should one object that this is all very well for as long as the Temple is standing, but what of when is has been destroyed? One answer is that it was the period of the Temple’s existence that G-d foresaw and which itself sufficed for him to create the world. Additionally, the passage there concludes: Abraham said, Master of the world! This is all very well for as long as the Temple is standing. What will be with them when the Temple is no longer standing? G-d said to him, I have already arranged the passages dealing with sacrificial law for them. Whenever they read these passages, I will consider it as if they had brought the sacrifices before me and I will forgive all their sins. Rashi’s commentary on Ta`anit ad loc., however, says, “This is a corrupted passage, for how do they see this?”

"On the Torah": As it stated about it (as it is stated) (Proverbs 11:27), "He who seeks what is good pursues what is pleasing." And good is only Torah, and because of it the world was created, as it is stated (Jeremiah 33:25), "Were it not for My covenant, night and day[, etc.]. And this is what Shlomo, peace be upon him, said, (Proverbs 8:22), "The Lord created me at the beginning of His course, as the first of His works of old" - I was created before the whole world and because of me, all of the creations were created - in order to observe me.

"The world stands": The world was only created for the sake of these three things.

"on the service": As the Holy One, blessed be He, chose Israel from all of the nations and the Land of Israel from all of the lands, and He chose Jerusalem from all of the Land of Israel and He chose Zion from Jerusalem, as it is stated (Psalms 132:13), "As the Lord chose Zion, He desired it for His habitation." And He chose the House of Choice from everything for the sake of the service, about which it is written, "desire" - as it states (Leviticus 1:3), "desirous in front of God." Behold that because of the service the whole world was created. Then, due to our sins, the Temple was destroyed and the service was annulled. And prayer is now for us in its place, as the sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Taanit 2a), "'And to serve him with all your hearts' (Deuteronomy 11:13) - what service is there in the heart, one should say this is prayer." And this is what it states (Psalms 51:17), "Lord, open my lips," as King David said this verse about the sin of Batsheva which was volitional, and one cannot bring a sacrifice for volitional sins. And about this he stated (Psalms 51:18), "Since You do not want me to bring sacrifices; You do not desire burnt offerings." Had I been able to bring a sacrifice to atone for myself, I would have brought [it]. Now that I cannot, 'Lord, open my lips and let my mouth say your praise,' and accept my prayer in place of a sacrifice and let it atone me for my sin. Also for us that do not have a sacrifice to atone for us - not accidental sins and not volitional sins - 'Lord, open my lips' and accept our prayers in place of the sacrifices.

"on the Torah": Had Israel not received Torah, the heavens and the earth would not have been created, as is written (Jeremiah 33:25), "Were it not for my covenant day and night, also the laws of the heavens and the earth I would not have set." (Shabbat 88a)

"and on acts of lovingkindness" As the matter that they said (Sukkah 49b), "Acts of lovingkindness are greater than charity (tsedekah); since lovingkindness is both with the poor and with the wealthy but charity is only with the poor. Great is lovingkindness since it is both with one's body and with one's money, but charity is only with one's money." And this is what they said, (Bava Batra 9a), "One who gives a small coin to a poor man is blessed in six ways and one who comforts him with words is blessed in eleven." And pertinent to acts of lovingkindness is to inspect the poor and to make a distinction between the good and the bad and to give preference to the modest and those that fear God over others who are not like them (even if we must give charity to all). And it is like Yirmiyahu, peace be upon him, stated (Jeremiah 18:23), "let them be made to stumble before You; act against them in Your hour of wrath!" - even in the time that they do charity, make them stumble that they should give it in the incorrect place. And acts of lovingkindness are even to the wealthy, to lend them money at a time when it is not found in their hand and to give them advice, as King Shlomo said, (Proverbs 27:9), "Oil and incense gladden the heart, but the sweetness of a friend is better than one’s own counsel." [This] is to say, just like oil and incense gladden the heart, so [too] does one 's friend become delighted by personal advice; and when he gives him good advice, he is gladdened by it. And this trait of kindness brings God's satisfaction in front of Him, and for it was the world created - in order to do it. And about it Shlomo said in his wisdom (Proverbs 14:34), "Righteousness exalts a nation; Sin is a reproach to any people" - and adjacent to it, "The king favors a capable servant" - the will of the Holy One, blessed be He is only for Israel, who investigate [how] to do the things that are desirable in front of Him.

"on the [Temple] service": The service of the sacrifices. For such have we taught in tractate Taanit, "Were it not for the groupings [involved in the sacrifices] the heavens and the earth would not have endured (Taanit 27b)." And we have found that on account of the sacrifices that Noah brought, the Holy One, blessed be He, swore that He would never bring a flood. So it is that the world stands upon the sacrifices.

"and on acts of lovingkindness": As it is written (Ps. 89:3), “The world is built up by your kindness." And lovingkindness is to regale grooms and to comfort mourners, to visit the sick and inter the dead, and the like.

"Antigonus received the Torah from Simon the Just. He would say," viz. "He was wont to say this."

THE MAN [Heb. ish] OF SOCHO. He was the lord of a place called Socho. Ish here means “lord,” as in the mishna (Yoma 1:3) “Ishi, High Priest!” Rav, in his commentary there, explains Ishi as “my lord.” [*Cf. the mishna in Challah 4:10, s.v. Ish Teko`a.]

Antigonos, man of Sokho, etc., "Do not be as servants who are serving the master in order to receive a reward": As this is not complete service, as he is not doing it for his master, but [rather] in order to receive a reward.

A reward (pras) is what one calls a benefit that is granted to a person by someone who does not gain from him, but [rather] does it by way of kindness and grace. [It is] like when a man tells his servant or his young son or his wife, "Do such and such and I will give you a dinar or two." That is the difference between a reward and a wage (sachar), since a wage is that which is given by [way of an] obligation. And this pious one said that you should not serve God, may He be blessed, in order that He will do good to you and benefit you with kindness and that you should hope for the benefit and serve Him for its sake. Indeed, serve Him like servants that are not hoping for endowment or the giving of kindness. He meant with this that they should serve Him from love, as we said in Chapter Ten of Sanhedrin. And nonetheless, he did not exempt us from fear [of God]. And [so] he said, "Even as you serve from love, do not discard fear completely, 'and may the fear of Heaven be upon you.'" As the commandment of fear has already come in the Torah, and that is its stating (Deuteronomy 6:13), "Fear the Lord, your God." And the sages said (Yerushalmi Berakhot 9:7), "Serve from love, serve from fear," and they said that the one who loves will not forget a thing from that which he was commanded to do, and the one who fears will not do what he was warned from doing - as fear is a great pathway with the negative commandments, and all the more so, with the arational commandments. And this sage had two students - one whose name was Tsadok and one whose name was Beitos. And when they heard him say this statement, they went out from in front of him and one said to his fellow, "Behold, the teacher said explicitly that there is no benefit and punishment for a person and there is no hope at all" - as they did not understand his intention. And one strengthened the hand of his friend and they exited the group and left the Torah. One group connected itself to one and another group to his fellow. And the sages called them Sadducees and Boethusians. But when they could not gather congregations due to that which follows from this belief - as this evil belief disengages the united, all the more so will it not unite the disengaged - they leaned towards belief in the thing which they could not deny among the masses. As if they would put this out of their mouths, [the masses] would have killed them. I mean to say [that this thing is] the words of Torah. And [so] each one said to his party that he believes in the Torah, but disagrees with the transmission [of its oral explanation] - that it is not true. And this was to exempt themselves from the accepted commandments and ordinances and decrees. Since they could not push off everything - the written [Torah] and the received [explanation]. And also [this way], the way of interpretation was broadened for them. Since once the explanation was given to their choice, he was able to be lenient in what he wanted and to be strict in what he wanted. [This is] since he did not believe in the fundamentals at all, yet he sought things that would still be accepted by some people. And these evil groups came out from then. And they are called Karaites in these lands - I mean to say, Egypt. And their names among the sages are Sadducees and Boethusians. And they are the ones that began to question the transmission and to explain all of the verse according to what appears to them without listening to the sage at all, [which is] the opposite of what He, may He be blessed, stated (Deuteronomy 17:11), "You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left."

The man of Sokho: He was the master of the place that was called Sokho. [This is related to] the expression, "my man, [the] High Priest."

"Reward (peras)": is a term of valuation. “For your valuation,” we have translated "For his poreis." It is what a person gives to someone who served him, when he is not legally obligated to give him anything, such as what a man would give to his minor son or to his wife or to his servant, because of the satisfaction they have given him. A person should not serve his Creator even for the hope of a reward such as this, but rather out of love alone.

Introduction Antigonus (certainly a Greek name) was from the city of Socho, which was in Judea. He received the oral tradition from Shimon the Righteous, mentioned above in mishnah two.

BE NOT LIKE SERVANTS SERVING THE MASTER FOR PAY. Rav: rather, out of love alone. In other words, the mishna enjoins that the service be out of love alone, for this is the truest kind of service. It does not mean to say, however, that that service for pay is forbidden, as in either case he is serving G-d; for this reason our perfect Torah did not see unfit to mention rewards and punishments. One who serves in the hopes of earning reward or avoiding pain is simply not on the level of the one who serves out of love alone, whose service has no secondary intention whatsoever.
And the tanna wished to enjoin us to be among those who serve out of love alone, but not to exclude one who serves in the hopes of earning reward from the category of those who serve! This is not the case, as the Sages say in Bava Batra 10b: One who says, “I give this sela to charity that my son should live!” or “...that I should have a share in the world to come!” is perfectly righteous. Furthermore, if one takes the opposite position, one cuts the very legs out from under the nation of Israel!⁸In rabbinic literature, in order to avoid making a damning or frightening statement about some party, one refers to said party by a name that usually denotes its opposite. Here, in order to avoid saying “one cuts the legs out from under Israel” in Hebrew, the author actually writes “one cuts the legs out from under the haters of Israel.” Cf. Sanhedrin 106a. For “where is the weigher, where is the counter” (Isaiah 33:18) who shall say that so-and-so is one who truly serves out of love alone?⁹This is a societal problem, for Jewish law prescribes respect and reverence for those who are considered servants of G-d. Once only those who serve out of love alone are considered servants of God, it is impossible to determine who is and isn’t such a one, and the category has lost any legal or cultural relevance. And can it be good in G-d’s eyes that anyone who serves Him with the intent that the rewards promised by the Torah itself be fulfilled—that same Torah which has been communicated to us from His mouth—that such a one not receive his good lot on account of this? It pleases not their Master that people should say thus!
Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi says as much in Avot 2:1: Consider the loss incurred in doing a mitzvah against the reward for doing it, per my explanation there. Similarly, in 2:16: And you have a faithful taskmaster, who shall pay your wages. Cf. what I’ve written there on And you should know what reward awaits the righteous in the future. And we further see that there can be nothing wrong with this from the story of Azariah the brother of Simon, related in the mishna in Zevachim 1:2.¹⁰Azariah provided for his brother Simon in order that he should have a portion of the reward for Simon’s Torah studies.
As mentioned above, the tanna of our mishna does not prohibit this, and I say that his own words prove it, which he chose with care in order that we shouldn’t misunderstand them. For why would he say “be not like servants serving the master for pay” when he could simply have said “do not serve for pay,” which would have gotten the point across to his students more succinctly? By saying “be not like servants who serve the master for pay” he taught that even those who serve for pay are servants at any rate, just that one should not be like them but greater than they, and should serve out of love alone.
I saw that our master Maharal, in his commentary on Avot, Derech Chaim, deals with the question of why the mishna continues and says “but rather be like servants who serve the master without thought of pay” and doesn’t simply stop at “be not like servants serving the master for pay”. He writes that had the tanna said only “be not like servants serving the master for pay” the implication would have been that he prohibits being like servants serving the master for pay, while in fact there is no such prohibition and one who does so is even completely righteous. He means only that there is a level and grade above that one, which is serving out of love alone. It is for this reason that he goes back and explicitly says “rather, be like servants etc.”, to explain that he means only that one should aspire to be a servant serving without thought of pay. All this is the opinion of Maharal.
Now you can see how this tanna has, in his wisdom and perfection, very cleverly worded his teaching. For with the first phrase he taught that one should not deny the value of those who serve for pay and that they are still called servants, and he then further clarified this by saying “rather be etc.”, i.e. I mean only that you should rather be thus, but not that it is forbidden to serve for pay; the main point is to show you the utmost level of perfection, in which you should be serving out of love alone, not to prohibit the other kind of service.
At this point, there is certainly no way to misunderstand the words of the tanna the way Tzadok and Baitos did, who claimed that he meant to say that there is no pay to be received at all, as Rav mentions in his commentary to mishna 11. Still, he should have made it completely clear to the point that whosever was listening would have understood this.
[*I saw that the Tosafot in Rosh HaShana, at the beginning of page 4a, write that our mishna discusses the case of gentiles, who tend to regret the good deed they have done if they are not rewarded for it. I find this quite odd—can it be that the tanna has decided to discuss idolaters? All the more so in tractate Avot, which collects the dicta the Sages constantly emphasized, at least according to one opinion mentioned by Rav above in mishna 2. And certainly Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi shouldn’t have set it down in the mishna, if these words are only concerning idolaters!
But I was put at ease when I saw their words in Pesachim, at the top of 8b, where they write that our mishna is discussing a case of one who will have anguish and regret over the charity he has given if whatever good thing he is hoping for doesn’t come to pass, but one who has no anguish and regret is completely righteous, and the Talmud in Rosh HaShana 4a and Bava Batra 10b seems to say as much. Accordingly, when the Tosafot say our mishna is discussing an idolater, they mean that simply as an example of someone who regrets having done a good deed, as the Talmud there says. But our mishna is discussing a Jew having this regret. And what they mean to say is that our mishna is discussing the case of, for example, an idolater, etc., which is to say a Jew who regrets it, just like the average idolater who regrets it.]

"Rather be as servants who are serving the master in order not to receive a reward": (Editor's note: In my opinion, here there should be the words, "And it is difficult according to this textual variant.") Since a person should not do the commandment with the understanding that he will not receive a reward for them. But rather the [correct] textual variant is "not in order to receive a reward" - that he should not do the commandments for the sake of the reward, even though he should think that there will be recompense for his service. However, it appears to me that the variant of the books is the main one [that we should follow]: As we find such service among people, such that a purchased slave is obligated to do service without receiving reward. So too, a man must serve God in order not to receive a reward, but rather because of the kindness that He has already performed for him. And also due to the greatness of the Master, that He is fitting for this, and this is the service of God - may He be blessed and elevated - from love, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 6:5), "And you shall love the Lord." And what is complete service among people? One who wants to serve his friend because of his love for him from earlier days, and even if he knows that he will not give him a reward. And [with] this type of love should a person love the service of God. And therefore, [the Mishnah] placed it adjacent to the matter of fear and stated,

"as servants, etc.": He stated it with a [Hebrew letter], kaf that indicates a comparison, and he also repeated his words, "but rather be, etc." and he was precise in his expression and did not say only, "be, etc." and he also called those that serve in order, etc., 'servants;' so that we not err in any way to say that it is forbidden to serve in order, etc., as this is not [so]. Since one who serves thus is also completely righteous and is called a servant of God. (And for naught did Tsadok and Beitos err, but he should have explained it explicitly, that it be explicit for all that hear [it].) But he came to teach that there is a level and status that is greater and that is the one who serves from love. And he came to warn us to also be from those that serve from love. And see Tosafot Yom Tom who wrote about this at length.

"and may the fear of Heaven be upon you": Even though you serve out of love, also serve out of fear. For the one who serves out of love is quick concerning positive commandment, and the one who serves out of fear is careful concerning negative commandments, resulting in his service being complete. So said our sages, may their memory be blessed, (Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 25a:3), "Serve out of love, serve out of fear: Serve out of love, so if you verge on hating, know that you are a person who loves, for one that loves does not hate. Serve out of fear, for if you verge on rejecting, know that you fearful, for one who is fearful does not reject."

Antigonus a man of Socho received [the oral tradition] from Shimon the Righteous. He used to say: do not be like servants who serve the master in the expectation of receiving a reward, but be like servants who serve the master without the expectation of receiving a reward, and let the fear of Heaven be upon you. This mishnah contains an important basic concept in Judaism, one which the Rambam viewed as perhaps the most important concept. Although the Torah promises rewards for those who fulfill the commandments, one who constantly performs mitzvoth in order to receive a reward is not acting in an ideal manner. The reward is for the person who cannot see the innate wisdom in performing a mitzvah totally out of love (ahavah). Like a servant who only works for an allowance, this person has a shallow relationship with his master. One who performs the mitzvoth out of love can achieve a much greater closeness to God, for he expects nothing in return. In essence his performance of the mitzvoth is a statement that the mitzvoth are good in an of themselves, regardless of the reward that they might bring. The Rabbis teach that the reward for performing a mitzvah is the ability to perform another mitzvah. As a person improves himself, he will be given more and more opportunities to do so, to live a good life, and draw closer to God. Despite the fact that Antigonus emphasizes that one should serve God out of love, he finishes his statement by reminding us of the commandment to fear God. There are times when love will not suffice as a motivating factor for the performance of the mitzvoth. The Rabbis teach that love is a strong motivator for the performance of positive commandments but that fear is a stronger motivator for negative commandments. Antigonus’s balanced statement reminds us that we need to have both love and fear of God.

PAY [Heb. p’ras]. Rav: this [p’ras] is what one gives someone who has served him, but whom he is not legally obligated to pay anything, and by this he means to distinguish p’ras from sachar, for sachar is what one must pay by law. So also Rambam.

"and may the fear of Heaven be upon you": To serve God from fear and from love, like a servant that serves his master because of his greatness and [also] keeps in mind that he can punish him. And it comes out that he serves him from fear - not because of his fear from the punishment, but [rather] because of the greatness of the master, whereby he has the ability to punish.

And meaning to say that this is the distinction between a reward and payment. Since payment is what must legally be given.

WITHOUT THOUGHT OF RECEIVING PAY. A different version of our mishna has the text “intending not to receive pay”. I cannot understand that version, for it is impossible that one should serve only on condition that he not receive pay, for the implication is that should he receive pay, he will not serve. Midrash Shmuel writes that the case in the first version is one who serves without declaring that he is doing so specificaly to receive pay; he is still aware that the pay will come, and does have hopes of reward. On the other hand, one who serves intending not to receive pay is one who explicitly serves not in order to receive pay but out of love alone. While this is improves matters exegetically, it doesn’t fit the language of that other version well.
As for his criticism of the first version, that even one who serves out of love alone still knows that the reward will eventually come, I would not call such a one someone who serves out of love; in fact, he is the archetypal servant who serves for reward! One who serves out of love alone is he who constantly finds his service insufficient and, because of his great love of G-d, feels that he has not served properly. As Hillel says in mishna 14, “And I for myself, what am I?”, according to Rav's commentary ad loc.¹¹Rav there: even if I have accrued merit for myself, what is this merit and what is it worth when considered against what I am truly obligated to do? Not only does he hold no anticipation of reward, he fears for his soul lest he sin by falling short in his service, which is what the tanna intends by his last words, “and the fear of heaven should be upon you”, as I will explain.
This was the way of the patriarchs. Although our father Abraham was promised seed he afterwards said, “and I remain childless” (Genesis 15:2).¹²The author is most likely recalling Ramban’s commentary on that verse, which points out that although Abraham had already been promised offspring, he feared that his sins might have annulled the promise. This is why G-d was called “the fear of Isaac” (Genesis 31: 42),¹³I.e., the one before whom Isaac feared the consequences of his sins. and Jacob likewise feared that perhaps he had been sullied by sin.¹⁴As per the Talmud’s exegesis in Berachot 4a on Genesis 32:8. This is the portion and these are the thoughts of the servants of G-d who serve out of love alone; there is no anticipation of reward whatsoever. And so the version before us is correct—so it seems to me.

"not, etc.": And a different version of the text is, "in order not, etc." And I did not understand this version, as it is not applicable to say that he should serve in order and on condition that if He would give him a reward, he would not serve Him. And it is not difficult [that] behold also one who serves not in order, etc., knows that in the end the reward will come, and behold he hopes for the reward; [since] this is not [so.] As the one who [truly] serves from love is always coming short in [his] service in his [own] eyes. And he thinks to himself that he has not served as is fitting to Him, due to his great love for Him, may He be blessed. And just the opposite, he fears for his soul lest he has sinned in his shortcomings in his service and has been guilty. And that [this Mishnah] ends, "and may the fear of Heaven, etc.," [and] called Him with the name, "Heaven," is to say that the fear should not be be a fear of punishment, God forbid, but [rather] a fear (awe) of His greatness, may He be blessed. [This is as] it appears to me - Tosafot Yom Tov.

AND THE FEAR OF HEAVEN SHOULD BE UPON YOU. Rav: one who serves out of fear will take care not to transgress a negative commandment. So also Rambam. But according to what I wrote above, this is a part of service out of love.¹⁵Tosafot Yom Tov writes above that one who serves out of love is always afraid that he has not served properly.
The euphemism “heaven” for “G-d” is to indicate that this fear should not be a fear of punishment, which would yield a superficial kind of service with a hint of personal interest. The “fear” referred to here is awe of His greatness, and this is conveyed by the use of “heaven” because the heavens are where His greatness can be seen, i.e. in the creations of the heavens and all their hosts and ceaseless motions—so it seems to me.

YOSSI BEN YO`EZER. Rav: all of the tannaim menioned in this chapter are pairs—so-and-so and so-and-so received the tradition from so-and-so and so-and-so—the first one in the pair was the Nassi<sup>16</sup>The supervisor of the Sanhedrin and leader of the Jews recognized by the Roman government. and the second was the Av Beit Din<sup>17</sup>The highest-ranking member of the Sanhedrin., per the mishna in Chagiga 2:2.
Tosafot, commenting on the Talmud ad loc. (s.v. Yossi), write in the name of the Jerusalem Talmud that the period of Yossi ben Yo`ezer and Yossi ben Yochanan saw the first unresolved legal dispute in Israel. Based on this, I say that no pairs preceding them are mentioned because there was one head in each generation and he had no competing peer, whereas starting with them the “rope was unraveled” and there were two leaders.
Even so the Torah of each was authentic, as they had each received the tradition, and the disputes arose only concerning decisions that depended on reasoning or that had to be resolved through one of the thirteen rules of interpretation,¹⁸The thirteen rules of R. Yishmael found at the beginning of the Sifra. as Rambam writes at length in his introuction to the Mishna.

Yose ben Yoezer, man of Tsreida, and Yose ben Yochanan, man of Jerusalem, received from him: From Shimon the Righteous and Antigonos, man of Sokho

"A meeting house": A house of meeting, meaning to say that you should make your house always available for the gathering of sages, like in synagogues and houses of study (batei midrash); such that if a man says to his fellow, "Where can I meet with you, where can I confer with you," he will [answer] him, "In the house of x."

They received from them: The explanation [of "from them"] is from Shimon and Antigonos - Rama. And there are books that have the textual variant, "from him." And Midrash Shmuel wrote that it is a [more] exact version, if it is substantiated. And see the Tosafot Yom Tov.

Yose ben Yoezer, man of Tsreida and Yose ben Yochanan, man of Jerusalem: All the Tannaim (early teachers) mentioned in this chapter by pairs, ‘(Rabbi) x and (Rabbi) y, who received from (Rabbi) a and (Rabbi) b,’ the first of them is nassi, and the second is the head of the court.

Introduction After the teaching of Antigonus from Socho, the mishnah begins with a period in Jewish history known as the period of the “pairs”. There are five “pairs” of Sages that are mentioned in our chapter, beginning in this mishnah and continuing through mishnah fifteen. The final pair are Hillel and Shammai. We should note how important the concept of the Sage and learning from the Sage is in this mishnah and in the entire chapter. The “pairs” lived in the period between the Maccabean revolt (167 B.C.E.) until about two generations before the destruction of the Temple, which was in 70 C.E. This was a time when many Jews became greatly influenced by Helenistic culture. It was also the formative period of many of the sects, including the Sadducees and probably the Essenes (as well as the Dead Sea sect, who were probably Essenes). It was probably also the formative period for the Pharisees, the predecessors of the Rabbis of the Mishnah and Talmud. Against this historical backdrop it is easy to understand why these Sages were so concerned with the authority and influence that they would have on the general public.

RECEIVED THE TRADITION FROM THEM. Ramah explains “them” as referring to Simon and Antigonos. R. Yosef ibn Nahmias, quoted in Midrash Shmuel, writes that they first studied under Simon the Righteous, who died before they had completed their studies; they then went and studied under Antigonos, who held the post of Simon the Righteous until his death. They in turn filled his position.
But what Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Yehuda Lerma, that it was actually their contemporaries who “received the tradition from them,” and that this is how one might read each instance of “receiving” in this chapter—this seems quite dubious. For even though there is some slight support for this reading from the fact that the mishna does not explicitly say “they received the tradition from Simon and Antigonos” the way it says earlier of Antigonos that he “received the tradition from Simon,” on the whole this interpretation is quite unlikely.
First of all, it would be strange to mention that others received the tradition from them while not mentioning that they received the tradition themselves. Secondly, the tanna’s main point in mentioning the tradition is to show that the chain of tradition starts at Sinai and passes from scholar to scholar down to this author, whose work is a compilation of their dicta. And there are versions that have “from him” in the text. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of the Rashbatz that this version is the most accurate, provided its authenticity can be established.

Yose ben Yoezer says, "May your house be a meeting house for Sages": It means to say, a house that the sages will gather there when they need to speak, one with the other. And this can only be in the house of a great and important man. As were it in the house of a lesser man, when they would say to the sage to go there, perhaps he would not want, since [for] him, 'a base one is disgraceful in his eyes; and he does not honor those that fear the Lord.'

"May your house be a meeting place for the sages": When the sages wish to gather together or to meet, let your house be ready for this purpose, so that they will become accustomed to saying "Let us gather at so and so’s house." For it is not possible that you will not learn some bit of wisdom from them. They stated allegorically," To what can this be compared? To one who entered a perfumer’s shop; though he did not purchase anything, in any case he soaked up a good scent and brought it out with him. "

Yose ben Yoezer (a man) of Zeredah and Yose ben Yohanan [a man] of Jerusalem received [the oral tradition] from them [i.e. Shimon the Righteous and Antigonus]. Yose ben Yoezer used to say: let thy house be a house of meeting for the Sages and sit in the very dust of their feet, and drink in their words with thirst. Yose ben Yoezer encourages Jews to make their own homes into a place for the gathering of Sages. One should sit at the dust of their feet, which reflects the custom of the day whereby the Sage would sit on a chair and the disciple would sit at his feet. At this time period in history fixed study halls such existed in later times, especially in Babylonia during the late Talmudic period, did not yet exist. Learning the Oral Torah was performed (recited and not read) in small “disciple circles”, usually centered around a charismatic leader who would be the teacher. When the leader passed away the center of learning often moved to wherever the new leader was located. Yose ben Yoezer is encouraging people to make their homes open to the Sages, to turn them into places of learning, so that these disciple circles can exist there. When Yose ben Yoezer says “drink in their words with thirst” he is comparing the Torah to water, a common comparison in rabbinic literature. Just as water can eventually wear down rock, Torah learning eventually can seep into the hardened minds of human beings, even those who have never before learned.

AND SEAT YOURSELF IN THE DUST AT THEIR FEET. Rav writes, in the alternate explanation he offers: that you should sit on the earth at their feet, as their custom was that the master would sit on a bench and the students would sit at his feet on the ground. This does not contradict his comments on the mishna in Sotah 9:15 that until the death of Rabban Gamliel they would study Torah standing,¹⁹Rabban Gamliel came much later, as is clear from later in this chapter. for here the mishna simply means to say that if they chose to sit, the custom was that the master would sit on a bench and the students would sit on the earth at his feet. Neither does the mishna in Sotah mean that it was forbidden for them to sit and that they would only study standing, only that there was great vigor then and that they would learn while standing in honor of the Torah. And the mishna here delineates what the custom was should it happen that they would sit, as for instance when they spent long hours in the study hall.
Or, alternatively, we can answer using Rava’s approach to the contradiction between the verse “And I sat on the mountain” (Deut. 9:9) and the verse “And I stood on the mountain” (Deut. 10:10) in Megillah 21a. Rava there explains that for things that were easier to grasp, Moses would stand, and for things that were harder to grasp, Moses would sit. And these students are certainly no better than Moses learning from the Almighty.

"become dirty in the dust of their feet": That he treat them with honor, as it was their way to stand in front of the sage. And some of them would sit on benches in the house of study and some of them would sit in front of them on the floor at the dust of their feet, as they said (Chullin 54a), "All the days that that student apprenticed in sitting, I apprenticed in standing." And this is what he stated: Be honored among all of the creatures, but honor the sages.

"and become dirty in the dust of their feet": Which is to say that you should walk behind them, for one who walks about raises dust with his feet, and one who walks behind him is filled with the dust which [the former] raises with his feet. Another explanation: That you should sit at their feet on the ground. For so were they accustomed, that the master sits on a bench and the students sit at his feet on the ground.

THIRSTILY. Rav: like a thirsty man drinking to sate himself, not like a sated man who has no desire for food and turns down even delicacies and sweets. So also Rashi. It seems that their version read ketzamei, “like a thirsty man,” with a kaf,²⁰Meaning “like a thirsty man,” as opposed to betzama, with a beit, which would mean “with thirst.” The words tzama, “thirst,” and tzamei, “thirsty man, one who is thirsting” have the same consonontal spelling: צמא. As the texts were all written without vowels, the word is ambiguous without a prefix. If the prefix is beit, which is adverbial and would mean “with” in this case, the word is בצמא and must be vocalized betzama, “with thirst.” If the prefix is kaf, which means “like,” then the word is כצמא and must be vocalized ketzamei, “as a thirsty man.” The confusion among the texts arose because of the similarity of the letters beit ב and kaf כ. and in fact Midrash Shmuel quotes R. Yosef ibn Nahmias saying: in a Jerusalemite edition of the entire Mishna the text reads ketzamei with a kaf; both versions mean the same thing: that you should drink up their words with the same desire a thirsty man has to drink water.

"and drink their words thirstily": And this is like it is stated (Proverbs 27:7), "A sated person disdains honey, but to a hungry man anything bitter seems sweet." The soul of one who is sated from words of Torah and does not desire them will disdain them - even if they tell him pearls of Torah. But one who is hungry for them, and desires to hear them, will find them sweet in his mouth and will be happy about it - even if he is told something without an explanation - since he knows that it is true, as his teacher said it.

"and drink their words thirstily": Like a thirsty person who drinks to his fill, and not like a satiated person who abhors his food, who loathes even pleasing and good things.

THEY WERE SPEAKING OF A MAN’S OWN WIFE. These are the words of Yossi ben Yochanan. For the dictum attributed to him was what he constantly emphasized, but he had learned it from his teachers,²¹And thus he could note that “they,” i.e. his teachers, whom he was quoting, were speaking of a man’s own wife. for all the dicta in this tractate are traditions going back to Sinai, as Rav writes at the beginning of this chapter. This is why Rav explains that the phrase “the Sages, basing themselves on this, said” was added by Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi,²²Who came after R. Yossi ben Yochanan, and was commenting on the whole of the dictum, which was attributed to him. but does not say so about this phrase.²³Which he must have understood as the words of R. Yossi ben Yochanan himself.
Midrash Shmuel writes that Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi was the one who said “they were speaking of a man’s own wife,” and cites Rabbenu Ephraim as agreeing. He also writes that “the Sages said based on this” is something that sages coming after him added. We do find in Sotah 9:15 that the sages after Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi added to the mishna, for it says there “from the death of Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi onwards, etc.” What I find difficult with this is the words “they were speaking,” for were it Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi who was commenting on Rabbi Yossi ben Yochanan, he should have used the singular, “he was speaking,” and not the plural.

Yose ben Yochanan, man of Jerusalem, says, "May your home be open wide": Some say that [this means that] there be largess found in his house for needy people. Or the explanation is that his house be like the house of our father Avraham, peace be upon him - such that his house be on the road in a tight spot so that passers by should come in to there; and that it should be open on four sides, so that from all sides that they come, they will find an open door and they will turn into it, as Job stated (Job 31:32), "I opened my doors to the road."

"Open": That you should have a gate open to the path of wayfarers, such that every wayfarer that need something or is hungry or thirsty will enter the house immediately.

"any time, etc.": Whether when she is impure, since the speech brings to desire and the desire brings to action - and you can have no greater evil than this that he causes to himself; or whether she is pure, as it would have been better that during this time, he would be involved in words of Torah. And that is what it states, "and neglects the words of Torah" - Midrash Shmuel. And there is another precise textual variant [that reads], "Anyone who increases."

"May your home be open wide": Like the home of Avraham, our father, may peace be upon him, which was open to the world’s four directions, so that guests would not need to go around to find the entrance.

Introduction This mishnah contains the teaching of Yose ben Yochanan, the second Sage of the first “pair”. Midrash Shmuel makes an interesting note on the order of the chapter so far. Shimon the Righteous (mishnah two) stated that the world depends on three things: 1) Torah; 2) Worship (which is the same word as servitude); 3) acts of piety. Antigonus (mishnah three) spoke of servitude, Yose ben Yoezer (mishnah four) spoke of Torah and now Yose ben Yochanan will speak of acts of piety, namely helping the poor.

ALL THE MORE SO CONCERNING ANOTHER MAN’S WIFE. Because of what people will suspect. So Rashi, according to Rav’s second explanation of “they were speaking of a man’s own wife”.²⁴Rav’s second explanation understands “a man’s own wife” as referring to his wife when she is premitted him, i.e. not menstruating. The concern then is that one not spend so much time speaking to her as to be considered abandoning Torah study, not that one might commit a sexual transgression. If so, the concern over “another man’s wife” should be of a similar nature, i.e. not a sexual transgression, but gossip.

"may the poor be members of your household": This is expounded in two ways. Instead of buying slaves and supporting them, he should use poor people and support them and he will not need to expend money. So that it comes out that he will profit and do a commandment (good deed). Another explanation: And also that the poor will be accustomed to his house and stay there without embarrassment, as a result of his showing them a happy face and giving them permission to everything that is his, like a man would give to his children and to the people of his home.

"may the poor be members of your household": He is saying that it is necessary that the servants be the poor and the indigent. And this is more fit than purchasing slaves. And so would the sages condemn the purchase of slaves and praise one whose servants and members of his household were the poor.

"may the poor be members of your household": And he should not acquire slaves to serve him. It is better that a Jew should benefit from his assets, and not the seed of the accursed Canaan.

Yose ben Yochanan (a of Jerusalem used to say:
Let thy house be wide open, and let the poor be members of thy household. If in the previous mishnah we learned that one should open his house to Sages, in this mishnah we learn that one should open his house to the poor.

WHENEVER ONE SPENDS TOO MUCH TIME SPEAKING WITH A WOMAN HE BRINGS EVIL UPON HIMSELF. Midrash Shmuel: “Whenever,” whether she be menstruating or not, one should not speak with her excessively. If she is menstruating, speaking to her causes him to desire her and the desire translates into deed, and there is no greater evil one can bring upon himself than this. If she is not menstruating, then better to use the time one spends idling in idle talk to engage in Torah study. This is what they meant by and he abandons Torah study, when one spends too much time speaking to his wife even when she is not menstruating. This is what Rav means when he writes that from the words of the mishna it seems they meant even when his wife is not menstruating. And Rashi, when he writes that the mishna means even when his wife is not menstruating, concludes because he abandons Torah study.²⁵ Rashi, as well as Rav (in his second explanation) and Midrash Shmuel, read the mishna as discussing a man’s wife even when she is not menstruating, and the problem with excessive speech as abandoning Torah study during the time of that speech itself. It is therefore essential that they read “whenever” in the text of the mishna, which will then read as “whenever one does this, he is unnecessarily desisting from Torah study.” The author will adduce a variant reading which will challenge this.
But I was brought a copy of the Mishna from the Land of Israel, containing the sections Zera`im, Kodashim, Taharot, and this tractate, and the text there had been corrected to read one who spends too much time speaking with a woman.²⁶This makes the above interpretations more difficut, beause according to this variant it is not during the time one spends speaking to the woman that one abandons Torah study. Rather, one who does so will eventually abandon Torah study altogether.

"and do not increase conversation with the woman": As conversation with women brings one to thoughts of sin and neglect of Torah [study].

They so stated with his wife: It is known that the majority of talk with women is about matters of sex. Because of this, he said that increasing conversation with them is forbidden, since he "causes evil to himself." He means to say that he acquires lowly traits for his soul, and that is the abundance of desire.

They so stated with his wife: Since he said "with the woman" and did not say "with a woman," we learn that they so stated concerning his wife. Some explain, "With his menstruating wife only, so that he should not come to be accustomed to transgression." But from the words of the Mishnah, it appears that [this applies] even when his wife is ritually pure. So too have our sages, may their memory be blessed, stated, "[God] tells a man what his conversation is, even light conversation between a man and his wife is told to him at the time of judgment," unless he needs to appease her for the sake of the commandment, such as Rav, who conversed and jested and fulfilled his needs (Hag. 5b).

Engage not in too much conversation with women. They said this with regard to one’s own wife, how much more [does the rule apply] with regard to another man’s wife. From here the Sages said: as long as a man engages in too much conversation with women, he causes evil to himself, he neglects the study of the Torah, and in the end he will inherit gehinnom. This section strikes a strongly misogynistic note. This Mishnah’s opinions on women does not (and in my humble opinion, should not) agree with our modern sensibilities. In our society women are treated as equals to men (or they should be treated as equals to men). Needless to say, women were not seen as equal to men two thousand years ago (or even 50 years ago!). We should keep in mind that women did not receive the education that men received, and in general were not considered to be as intelligent as men. Therefore it is not surprising that Yose ben Yochanan warns men to avoid talking to women. Talking to women was considered the antithesis of Torah learning, because they assumed that women could not talk Torah. If we were to translate the advice in this section to our situation, the advice is not to waste one’s time away with idle chat, for such chat limits the time that one has to learn Torah. Note that sections 2a-b are not from Yose ben Yochanan himself but rather are the words of later Sages appended to his statement. They both explain the statement and expand upon it.

They so stated with his wife; all the more so with the wife of his friend. (Our master and teacher [Rashi] wrote, "As it is written in the Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan), "They said [this] about his menstruant wife, all the more so regarding the wife of his fellow." It means to say, that he not increase words with his menstruant wife, lest his impulse overcomes him and he comes to a mishap; and all the more so with the wife of his fellow, about whom his impulse pressures him even more. As if they said it with the one that will be permissible for him tomorrow - and it appears to him like 'bread in his basket' - all the more so with another woman, whom the impulse desires, as the matter that it stated (Proverbs 9:17), "stolen waters are sweet." But it appears to be explained according to its simple meaning, "They so stated with his wife," not to ever accustom her to [many] words, so that she not be found with him every day. As a man should not be with his wife for his pleasure, but [rather] to fulfill the commandment; so as to distinguish between man and beast, as they said in Tractate Berakhot 22a concerning a man with a nocturnal emission, "So that they not be with their wives like chickens." And that is the trait of separation which brings one to the highest levels, as we say (Avodah Zarah 20b), "Separation brings to purity."

"and neglects the words of Torah": It is understood that he wastes time with other occupations.

from this, the sages said: Our holy master (Rabbi), who arranged the mishnahs, wrote [this]: From the words of this sage, who said, "Do not increase conversation with the woman," the sages learned to say, "Every time that a man increases conversation with the woman he causes evil for himself." I have found written, "When a man says to his wife his doings, ‘Such and such befell me with so and so,’ she teaches him to stir up trouble, like Korah, who told his wife what Moshe did, when he waved the Levites as a wave-offering, and her words brought him to an argument." And also (another possibility is) when he tells her that his colleagues insulted him and shamed him, she too despises him in her heart, and this causes evil for himself.

From this, the sages said, "Any time that a man increases conversation with the woman, he causes evil to himself": [This] is to say, he causes the impulse that is called evil to overpower him, as we say (Kiddushin 30b), "Great is the evil impulse, that its Creator calls it evil, as it is stated (Genesis 8:21), 'since the devisings of man’s mind are evil from his youth.'" And this man caused evil to himself, as he gave it a place and an invitation to cling to himself, by way of conversation [with women]. And he went beyond the traits of other men, as the impulse sometimes overpowers them [also]; but without them doing something to cause [it], and it is not their own doing that brought the evil to begin with them.

"and, in his end, he inherits Geihinam": because of this conversation of rebellion, and he obligates himself in the punishment.

"and neglects the words of Torah": As he is drawn after idle matters and does not occupy himself with Torah.

"and neglects the words of Torah:" As the thought of Torah is not firm in his eyes so long as his heart is focused on the woman and upon her conversation, as they are two thoughts that the heart does not tolerate together.

"and, in his end, he inherits Geihinam": As in the end, he comes to sin: Since he follows the whims of his heart and increases words, certainly (Editor's note: It appears that instead of "al panim" (certainly?), [it should be] with the woman - see Midrash Shmuel) he will sin and descend to the pit. And this is what Shlomo - peace be upon him - stated (Ecclesiastes 7:26), "I find woman more bitter than death; she is all traps, her heart is snares and her hands are fetters." This means to say that death removes him from the world - from the small life of the world - but woman destroys his soul for ever and ever. Behold, 'she is more bitter than death.' "She is all traps and snares": When a man observes a woman, he is caught in her net, which is her trap, and he cannot escape from her. As the man sees that which his heart desires and he does not see what will happen to him from her in the end of days. As the lyricist (R. Yehudah HaLevi) said, "The seduced dove travels in the wilderness; it sees the grain but it does not see the trap." "Her heart is snares" - when she desires a man in her heart, even if he does not desire her and it is [just] the bad fortune of this man that caused her to desire him. "Her hands are fetters" - because if she grabs him with her hands, he is already taken into the 'prison' and he no longer has a way to fix it. "He who is pleasing to God escapes her, and he who is displeasing is caught by her" (Ecclesiastes 7:26) as the Holy One, blessed be He, protects the righteous and does not present them something through which they might stumble; but the sinner, who does not distance himself from evil paths and whose heart is not complete, chances upon a matter like this.

...And judge every person as meritorious. On everything that you hear about a person, say that they intended for good, until you know with certainty that it is not so. If you judge thus, they will judge you from heaven as meritorious, as is explained in the 18th chapter of Masechet Shabbat ("Perek Mefanin").

ACQUIRE A COLLEAGUE [Heb. chaver] (or FRIEND). Rav: even if you must purchase him at great cost and spend exhorbitant sums to acquire his friendship. But one cannot say of a teacher of Torah “acquire a teacher,” for the teacher must teach without charge. He was not sufficiently careful with what he wrote, for if he understood chaver to mean a colleague for Torah study—as would seem from his writing “but one cannot say of a teacher of Torah…”—then he shouldn’t have written “to acquire his friendship,” but “to acquire him as a colleague.” What happened is that Rav copied the first sentence from Rambam, who did not understand chaver as a colleague for Torah study, for he writes: “Acquire a chaver”—the mishna uses the language of acquisition… because a person most acquire a friend who will help him in properly arranging all of his affairs, as the Sages said (Ta`anit 23a), “friendship or death!” … And one should make efforts… to win his friendship…
Midrash Shmuel reports that R. Yehuda Lerma asked why the mishna does not enjoin one to acquire students, considering that the Sages said (Ta’anit 7a): I have learned much from my teachers… and from my students most of all! He explained this by noting that a student’s sole desire is to learn. Students therefore study only where their hearts desire and under the teachers from whom they feel they will gain the most. So if a person cannot find anyone who wishes to study under him, the tanna does not enjoin him to. Our master, Maharal, writes in Derech Chaim that the mishna does not say “acquire a student for yourself” because it isn’t proper for a person to appoint himself a master and create honor for himself by saying “come study under me,” as people do in these lands.<sup>27</sup>I.e., around Prague, where the Maharal was the Chief Rabbi.
Although what they say is certainly true, I don’t think the question is a good one to begin with,because this tanna’s ancient predecessors, the men of the Great Assembly, had already preceeded him in this when they said “train many students” (Avot 1:1). Now they had in mind only students interested in the teacher in question, as it is impossible to train a student against his will, and they likewise didn’t have in mind a teacher unqualified to train students, for they said ha`amidu, which means to stand them on their feet in truly understanding Torah, as I wrote there, and only one actually possessing truth could do this. They certainly were not speaking of arrogant individuals trying to rise to positions of power, declaring that they will rule and be powerful leaders of the people and make great academies of students, for all of their words here are words of righteousness and humility. But they did enjoin someone who is able to train many students to do so.
This is similar to the passage (Avodah Zarah 19b): “And numerous are her slain” (Proverbs 7:26)—this refers to a student who has matured to the point of deciding legal questions and does not do so. But one who has not arrived at that point and lords himself over others as mentioned earlier is included in “she has felled many dead” (Proverbs 7:26; Talmud ibid.). And if this is true of an inept legal decision, which usually only has consequences for the moment and only happens periodically and with relatively few people, all the more so in the case of a teacher who instructs numerous students every day, especially as the students then absorb the erroneous material for good. Of him it is most certainly said “she has felled many dead.”
And there is nothing objectionable about phrasing their teaching as “train many students,” with no added specifications of quality about student or teacher, for this and cases like this are an example of the verse: Straight are the ways of G-d; the righteous walk in them and sinners stumble over them (Hosea 14:10).²⁸I.e., righteous people will understand on their own that the teacher and student must possess certain requisite qualities.
What Rav writes, that the teacher must teach without charge, is clear from Nedarim, 4:3. And although it is evident from that very mishna that one may, in fact, charge for teaching just Bible verses,²⁹See the Rav ad loc., s.v. But not. the tanna was mainly enjoining one to get a teacher of Mishna and Talmud for himself, because while it is good to learn Bible verses, it is not always the most commendable thing, as the Talmud says in Bava Metzia, 33a.

Yehoshua ben Perachiah and Nitai of Arbel received from them: From Yose ben Yoezer and Yosef ben Yochanan.

"Make for yourself a mentor": He means to say even if he is not fit to be your mentor; still place him upon you as a mentor, so that you can give and take (discuss and argue) with him, and as a result of this the study of wisdom will come to your hand. As the study of a man on his own is good, but his study from someone else will be better established in his hand and it will be more clear - and even if he is like him in wisdom or below him. And so did they elucidate the explanation of this commandment. And he said, "acquire for yourself a friend". He said it with an expression of acquisition and he did not say, "Make for yourself a friend," or "Befriend others." The intention of this is that a person must acquire a friend for himself, so that all of his deeds and all of his matters be refined through him, as they said (Taanit 23a), "Either a friend or death." And if he does not find him, he must make efforts for it with all his heart, and even if he must lead him to his friendship, until he becomes a friend. And [then] he must never let off from following [his friend's] will, until his friendship is firmed up. [It is] as the masters of ethics say, "When you love, do not love according to your traits; but rather love according to the trait of your friend." And when each of the friends has the intention to fulfill the will of his friend, the intention of both of them will be one without a doubt. And how good is the statement of Aristotle, "The friend is one." And there are three types of friends: a friend for benefit, a friend for enjoyment and a friend for virtue. Indeed, a friend for benefit is like the friendship of two [business] partners and the friendship of a king and his retinue; whereas the friendship for enjoyment is of two types - the friend for pleasure and the friend for confidence. Indeed, the friend for pleasure is like the friendship of males and females and similar to it; whereas the friend for confidence is when a man has a friend to whom he can confide his soul. He will not keep [anything] from him - not in action and not in speech. And he will make him know all of his affairs - the good ones and the disgraceful - without fearing from him that any loss will come to him with all of this, not from him and not from another. As when a person has such a level of confidence in a man, he finds great enjoyment in his words and in his great friendship. And a friend for virtue is when the desire of both of them and their intention is for one thing, and that is the good. And each one wants to be helped by his friend in reaching this good for both of them together. And this is the friend which he commanded to acquire; and it is like the love of the master for the student and of the student for the master.

"Acquire, etc.": And he did not say, "acquire for yourself a student," as it is not fitting to do this thing; for a man to make himself into a mentor and to say, "learn from me," as they do in these lands - Derekh Chaim. And to me it appears that it is not a question at all, as it is written, "and stand up many students." And see the Tosafot Yom Tov.

"Make for yourself a (Torah) mentor": Rambam explained, “Even though he is not fit to be your teacher, make him into your teacher and do not learn on your own.” And I heard, “'Make for yourself a teacher,' [meaning] that he should take on one teacher from which always to learn – and not learn from one today and from another one tomorrow." And even though they stated in tractate Avodah Zara 19, “One who learns from [only] one teacher will not see a sign of blessing;” they have already explained and said, “this applies to reasoning” - as it is good for him to hear the reasoning of the many - “but with concern to [memorization of traditional teachings], it is better from one teacher, so that [the student's] elocution not be damaged."

Introduction This mishnah begins the teachings of the second “pair”. Note again the heavy concentration on learning and the continuation of the tradition, points which we noted in previous mishnayoth.

Yehoshua ben Perachia says, "Make for yourself a mentor, acquire for yourself a friend": As even if you know [as much] as him, make him a mentor upon you, since a person remembers better what he learned from his mentor than what a person learned on his own. And also because sometimes he will understand a thing better and it will come out that he will teach him - even as they are both equal in wisdom.

"and judge every person as meritorious:" Its subject is when there is a person whom you do not about him if he is righteous or if he is wicked and you see him doing an act or saying something and if you interpret it one way it will be good and if you interpret in another way it will be bad - [in this case,] take it to the good and do not think bad about it. But if the man is known to be famously righteous and of good deeds; and an action of his is seen that all of its aspects indicate that it is a bad deed and a person can only determine it to be good with great stretching and a distant possibility, it is fit that you take it that it is good, since there is some aspect of a possibility that it is good. And it is not permissible for you to suspect him; and about this did they say (Shabbat 97a), "The body of anyone who suspects proper ones will be struck." And so [too] when it is an evildoer and his deeds are famous, and afterwords we see him that he does a deed, all of the indications about which are that it is good but there is an aspect of a distant possibility that it is bad; it is fit to guard oneself from him and not to believe that it is good, since there is a possibility for the bad. And about this is it stated (Proverbs 26:25), (Also) "Though he be fair-spoken do not trust him, etc." But when he is not known and the deed is indeterminate towards one of the two extremes; according to the ways of piety, one must judge a person as meritorious towards whichever extreme of the two extremes [would be the case].

[Rabbi Bartenura] should have said, ["in order to acquire] his association." But [rather] the beginning of his words are taken form the words of Rambam, and [Rambam] did not state them about an association of study. As he wrote that "a man must acquire for himself a confidant for his actions and all of his affairs to be bettered, as they said (Taanit 23a), 'either a friend or death, etc.' And he needs to make efforts, etc... so that he brings him to his love, etc."

"acquire for yourself a friend": And even if you need to acquire him for a large sum and to spend money upon him in order to acquire his love. But with a mentor, it is not applicable to say, "Acquire for yourself a mentor," as a [teacher of Torah] must teach for free.

Joshua ben Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite received [the oral tradition] from them. Joshua ben Perahiah used to say: appoint for thyself a teacher, and acquire for thyself a companion and judge all men with the scale weighted in his favor. Joshua ben Perahiah’s three pieces of advice have one common factor: they are concerned with a person properly socializing himself with other human beings. A person should not isolate himself for that may lead to moral problems and to feelings of despair. In order to accomplish this he must do three things: 1) find himself a teacher to teach him Torah; 2) find himself a friend; 3) have a positive attitude in his dealings with others. 1) When the mishnah states that one is supposed to find for himself a teacher, it means a fixed teacher with whom he can have a long lasting relationship. This teacher is ideally supposed to teach him all that there is to know. Avoth de Rabbi Nathan, which is a later expansion on Mishnah Avoth teaches an interesting parable. “Rabbi Meir used to say: He that studies Torah with a single teacher, to whom may he be likened? To one who had a single field, part of which he sowed with wheat and part with barley, and planted part with olives and part with oak trees. Now that man is full of good and blessing. But when one studies with two or three teachers he is like him who has many fields: one he sows with wheat and one he sows with barley, and plants one with olives and one with oak trees. Now this man’s attention is divided between may pieces of land without good or blessing.” 2) One of the main purposes of having a friend is to study with that friend. When a person learns alone, there is no one to correct his mistakes, no one to compliment him on his insight and no one whom he can bounce his ideas off. Traditionally Jewish learning has always been done in “hevrutot” which literally means “social circles”. Usually this is two people sitting together and learning a Jewish text. From personal experience, this is a much more effective means of learning than sitting by oneself, a more common way of learning in modern universities. 3) Judging every person with favor is perhaps some of the sagest advice the mishnah can give in teaching a person to succeed in society. One who is constantly skeptical of others’ actions and motives will certainly not be able to have the friends or teachers mentioned in the previous two clauses of the mishnah. We saw this ideal in Mishnah Sanhedrin when the Rabbis actually legislated that a court is obligated to search for means to exonerate the accused.

"acquire for yourself a friend": A person needs three things from a good friend. One is for words of Torah, as it stated (Taanit 7a), "I have learned much from my teachers and more from my friends than from my teachers." And the second is for commandments. As even if his friend is not more pious than he and there are times that he does what is not in order. [Yet it is only] when he derives pleasure from something that he does the sin, but it is not his desire and his will that his friend do it - as he derives no enjoyment from this. And it is like they said (Kiddushin 63b), "And a man will not sin if it is not for himself." It comes out that both of them will repent, each one according to the word of his friend. And the third is regarding advice that he can take, that he be 'one who arouses (a counselor) for help' in all of his affairs and to take good counsel from him and to be his confidant. Since he is his ally, he will not reveal [his secrets] to others so as not to confound his plan - and not even to those that appear to him to be friends; for is the appearance of love evident on their faces? And about this Shlomo, peace be upon him, stated (Proverbs 15:22), "Plans are foiled for want of counsel, but they succeed through many advisers." And that which he said, "acquire for yourself a friend" with an expression of [acquisition] (euphemism) is [to say] that if he does not find him for free, he should acquire him with his money and expend his assets in order to get to a good friend; or that he should acquire him with words of appeasement and with a soft way of talking. And [so] he should not be exacting about his words and he should tolerate the words of his mouth; even when he says something against him, he should not return a response. As without this, he will not keep [the friendship], since the opinions [of people] are different. And sometimes he will seek something, [but] his friend who is like himself will say, "See, I do not [consider] this to be fit." And if he doesn't [listen to his friend] (he will certainly pass him up), the [friendship] will unravel. And this is what Shlomo, peace be upon him, stated (Proverbs 17:9), "He who seeks love covers errors, but he who harps on a matter alienates a leader." He meant to say, one who covers when his friend errs, seeks love - as through this, their love is preserved, as he tolerates his errors. But if he harps about the matter with his friend, he speaks against him and repeats it and says, "See what this one said; what he said about me, he 'alienates the leader' - he(certainly) alienates his leader from him, meaning to say, his friend.

"and judge every person as meritorious": when the matter is hanging in the balance and there is no way to decide it in this way or that way. For example, a man from whose actions we do not know if he is righteous or wicked, who preforms an act that is possible to judge favorably and possible to judge unfavorably, it is pious to judge him favorably. But it is permissible to judge a man who is established to be evil unfavorably. As they only stated (Shabbat 97), “one who suspects righteous people is afflicted on his body” - [and so] it is implied [from this] that one who suspects evildoers is not afflicted.

"and judge every person as meritorious": This is speaking about a person about whom we do not know if he is righteous or if he is evil; or if we know that he is a moderate person, sometimes doing evil and sometimes doing good. And if he does something that can make us judge him unfavorably and [also] judge him favorably in our understanding - or even if, (towards) according to what appears, it leans more towards the side of guilt - if he can judge him favorably from one aspect of the matter, he should say, "His intentions were good." But these words are not [applicable] to the completely righteous or the completely evil. As with the righteous person, even with an action that is completely evil and leans toward guilt in every aspect, we should judge him favorably and say, "'It was a mistake that came out from the hand of the ruler,' and behold he regretted and observed [it] and [already] requested forgiveness." And it is like the sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Berakhot 19a), "If you see a Torah scholar who sinned at night, do not ruminate about him during the day, lest he has repented. 'Lest' comes into your mind? But rather, I will say he certainly repented." The explanation of "'Lest' comes into your mind?" is that since he is a Torah scholar and up until now, no corrupt thing has come to his hand; he certainly repented right away. You behold [from here that] one should never judge the perfectly righteous person unfavorably. And about him there is no reason to say, "judge every person as meritorious." And he also did not speak about the completely evil person. Even if his actions are completely good and it is not evident to be concerned about him regarding an angle of iniquity, a person should judge him unfavorably and say, "He did it on the surface 'and his inside is not like his outside.'" And it is like it is stated (Proverbs 26:25), "Though he be fair-spoken do not trust him, for seven abominations are in his heart." And so [too] wrote Rambam, may his memory be blessed. And about this Shlomo stated in his wisdom (Proverbs 21:12), "The righteous one observes the house of the wicked man; he subverts the wicked to the bad." He meant to say, people think that because the righteous do not know how to do evil, [hence] they do not recognize they ways of the evil - as they do not understand those that do it. And the matter is not like this, as 'the righteous one observes the house of the wicked,' and knows and recognizes and monitors the evil of his ways more than other people who know [about it], but don't pay attention to it. "He subverts the wicked to the bad" - when the righteous person sees the action of the evildoers which appear to be in a good path, he subverts it and pushes it towards his judgment to say that he has done wrong - since he did not intend [to do] a commandment, but rather to place himself among those assumed to be good.

DISTANCE YOURSELF [Heb. harchek] FROM A BAD [Heb. ra] NEIGHBOR, AND DO NOT KEEP COMPANY [Heb. titchaber] WITH A WICKED PERSON [Heb. rasha]. The mishna says to “distance yourself” from a bad neighbor because a neighbor lives close by, whereas one need not distance oneself from an evil person who is not a neighbor, as it is sufficient not to keep his company.
The mishna uses ra, “bad”, to describe the neighbour, whereas the one who is not a neighbor is called rasha, “wicked”, even though both of them are resha`im, because having a rasha as a neighbor brings a person much ra`ah, harm, and his presence does great damage, but a rasha who does not live close by, though he be wicked in the eyes of Heaven, might cause no harm to a person unless he keeps his company—so Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan the Pious.
He also writes that R. Yehuda Lerma asks why the mishna uses the verb harchek, which is in binyan hif`il,<sup>30</sup>A verb form in Hebrew, usually with the causative sense. If it is causitive here it is a transitive verb meaning “to distance another.” and not hitrachek, which is in binyan hitpa``el,<sup>31</sup>A verb form in Hebrew, usually with the reflexive sense. It would mean “to distance oneself,” and would seem to be more appropriate here. and answers that should someone new come to the neighborhood and make his residence near that bad neighbor whom he doesn’t know, one ought to distance and warn the newcomer about his neighbor.
I feel that the tanna uses both the verbs harchek and titchaber the way they are used in the Bible. For while hitrachek, which is in hitpa``el, never appears in the Bible, harchek in hif`il appears in “Keep your path distant [Heb. harchek] from her” (Proverbs 5:8). Hitchaber, in hitpa``el, appears in “On account of your joining [Heb. behitchabercha] with Ahaziahu, G-d will destoy what you have made” (2 Chronicles 20:37). Echoing this verse, the tanna then concludes and don’t despair, because punishment will come.³²The verse in Chronicles reads in full: Eliezer son of Dodavahu of Mareshah prophesied against Jehoshaphat, saying, “On account of your joining with Ahaziah, G-d will destroy what you have made.” The ships were wrecked and were not able to set sail to trade. The tanna puts together the two parts of the mishna on the basis of the verse: do not join with an evil person (“on account of your joining…”), and don’t despair, because punishment will come (“the ships were wrecked…”) It is possible that the author is understanding the mishna as saying: do not join with an evil person, and, should you do so, don’t despair—i.e., you won’t have to wait long—because punishment will come. In this case, the parallel to the verse in Chronicles is exact.

Nitai of Arbel says: "Distance [yourself] from a bad neighbor": He said it to renters of houses and purchasers of slaves. As when a person first asks about the house and the tightness of the place, he should ask about the neighbors - if they are evil, he should distance himself from them, and he should come close to the good ones.

"Do not befriend an evildoer": in [any] type of friendship and companionship, so that you will not learn from his deeds. And we have already elucidated in the previous chapters that a man learns from the vices [found] in the company of evildoers. And he said [further] if you sin or you see that one sin, do not be confident and say that God, may He be blessed, will only punish him in the world to come; and do not despair of quick vengeance from Him for this sin.

"Distance, etc.": With his neighbor who is close to him, it stated an expression of distancing. And it was not necessary with an evildoer who is not his neighbor, since he is not close. [Rather,] it only warned him not to befriend him. And it said about the neighbor, "bad," and not, "evildoer," since his being neighbors with an evildoer is bad for [the latter's] neighbor, and his proximity is very harmful. [And] this is not the case when he is not his neighbor: his evil does not cause that person any bad - even though he is an evildoer to the Heavens - unless he befriends him - R. Y. Ibn Shoshan. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"Distance [yourself] from a bad neighbor": That you not learn from his actions. And also, that you should not be struck with him in his downfall, for 'woe is to the evildoer, woe is to his neighbor.'

Introduction Mishnah seven contains the teaching of Nitai who was from Arbel, a settlement in the lower Galilee.

AND DON’T DESPAIR [Heb. titya’esh], BECAUSE PUNISHMENT WILL COME. The mishna does not say that one should worry about being punished, for it is a shameful thing for one to worry about being punished. Rather, he should not despair of punishment³³I.e. one should not think it won’t come. as Haman did, who relied on his great wealth, and whose great successes were, in the blink of an eye, entirely overturned. This is what the word titya’esh means—Maharal in Derech Chaim.

"do not befriend an evildoer": As it [brings] a great punishment, which has nothing like it. Since if he transgress a great sin, he did one sin; but this one has a portion in all of the sins that the evildoer does. And it comes out that he does many great and huge sins. And [even] if his hands are tied and he does not benefit from them, woe to the evildoer and woe to his neighbor - as 'he sins and his neighbor is flogged.' As so is it explained in The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan 30:3, "Anyone who clings to evildoers - even though he does not do like their deeds - takes recompense like them; and one who clings to the righteous - even though he does not do like their deeds - takes recompense like them." And about this it is stated (II Chronicles 20:37), "“As you have made a partnership, etc., the Lord will break up your work.”

"and do not, etc.": And it does not say that he should worry about punishment, since such a thing is a bad trait - the one who worries about punishment; but [rather], "do not despair, etc." Which is what Haman did when he relied upon his great wealth, and in the blink of an eye, his success reversed itself upon him. And this is [the meaning] of the expression, 'do not despair' - Derekh Chaim.

"do not befriend an evildoer": As thus stated the sages, "Anyone who clings to evildoers - even though he does not act like them - gets retribution similar to them. To what is this matter like? To one who enters the house of a tanner - even though he doesn't take anything with him, nonetheless, he absorbed the foul smell and brings it out with him."

Nittai the Arbelite used to say: keep a distance from an evil neighbor, do not become attached to the wicked, and do not abandon faith in [divine] retribution. In the previous mishnah Joshua ben Perahiah taught that one should judge others with the scale weighted in their favor. Nittai the Arbelite balances this advice by adding that there may nevertheless be objective differences between different people. The fact that one should judge everyone favorably does not mean that one should not stay away from the wicked. In many places the rabbis teach that one who associates with evil people, even if he himself is not wicked, will have some of their ways rub off on him. Forming a just and righteous society means that each individual must be careful with whom he/she associates. The third statement of Nittai the Arbelite, although seemingly unconnected, is connected to the previous statements. If one sees many wicked people, he should not abandon his faith that someday these people will be punished by God, be it in this world or in the world to come. Abandoning faith in retribution could lead to a person losing faith in any objective difference between good and evil, at least in God’s eyes. In other words, belief in a God that cares about human actions and takes them into account is a basic tenet of a just society, especially a just society that cannot always enforce its ideals. Another interpretation of this last line is that a person, no matter how rich, should not feel totally secure in his wealth, for if he does not act in a righteous manner, divine retribution will eventually come. The flip side of this is also true. One who is poor and struggles in life, but acts in a righteous manner, should not despair of better days, for just as divine retribution is promised, so too is divine reward.

"and do not despair": He made these two things adjacent and said, "do not befriend an evildoer," because you need not despair from punishment. And do not say in your heart, "He is still standing in tranquility and times [are good] for him - I will befriend him and when his good fortune changes, I will distance myself from him." And you cannot [do this], as you will not know what [each new] day will bring, and his time will come in an instant, and you will be taken with him; when he begins to fall, he and all of his friends will fall. And also do not say, "I will show him love outwardly, but I will not love him in my heart." As it is also evil for you to flatter him, since it is a sin to flatter evildoers in this world. And about this matter Shlomo stated (Proverbs 24:21-22), "Fear the Lord, my son, and the king, and do not mix with changers. For their time comes suddenly; the doom of both, who can foreknow?" The explanation is that he made adjacent the fear of the Lord (my son, and the king) to the fear of a flesh and blood king as a metaphor relating the fear of the body [from] that which is perceived by the eye with the fear of the soul [from] that which is invisible. And he said when you see that the king hates all those who love his enemies and that he metes out bad to him, asks who is it that filled his heart to love the enemy of the king, and does to him [the same thing] that he does to his enemy; [know that] so [too] the Holy One, blessed be He, does to all those who mix with the changers - that is to say, those that change the Torah and the commandments. As [the word] 'change' here is transitive, as in (Job 29:22), "After my word, [things] were not changed." And when the changers are struck, their friends will also be collected with them - 'Should one give aid to the wicked and befriend those who hate the Lord? For this, it shall be upon you.' "As his time comes suddenly" and you will not be able to escape for your life. "And the doom of both, who can foreknow," meaning to say, the doom of the king's hater and the doom of the hater of the Holy One, blessed be He. Who knows when it will come to them, and [so] no man can be careful to befriend them and to save his [own] life.

"and do not despair of punishment": That you should not say, "the actions of this evildoer are succeeding - I will go and cling to him, since fortune is smiling at him." Therefore, it states, "do not despair of punishment," meaning to say, know that punishment will come upon him quickly, as his calamity will come suddenly.

DO NOT ACT [lit. “make yourself”] LIKE `ORCHEI DAYANIM. Rav: like those people who put together and present the arguments of the litigants before the judges, as one is forbidden to offer legal advice of the type “do such-and-such in order to secure the judgment.” It seems from the beginning of his comment that he understands `orchei dayanim as themseles presenting these arguments before the judges, and this is indeed how Rashi explains a passage in Sotah 47b, commenting on the term “whisperers of whispers”: they whisper back and forth with the judges, finding them a legal opening to rule in favor of one party and against another. And so Rashi on page Ketubot 52b (s.v. Ke`orchei hadayanim).
But from the end of Rav’s comment it is clear that even at the beginning, where he writes “who put together and present the arguments of the litigants before the judges,” he does not mean that they themselves argue these points before the judges, but that in revealing these arguments to the litigant and saying “do such-and-such” it is as though they themselves were arguing before the judges. And this is how Rashi explains it in his commentary here and on Shabbat 139a (s.v. ‘Orchei hadayanim).
Now Rambam writes: “`Orchei hadayanim”—these are individuals who study legal arguments so that people should be familiar with them. They write textbooks in question-and-answer format: “When the judge says such-and-such, answer such and such,” and “when the opposing party says such-and-such, your answer should be such-and-such,” as if the litigants are before them and they are presenting [Heb. `orchei] the arguments. This is why they are called `orchei hadayanim, for it is as if they have presented [Heb. `archu] the arguments before them. According to this reading, the word `orchei, “those who present,” has a hidden object, for it really means “those who present arguments before the judges.”³⁴Some clarification is in order. The phrase `orchei hadayanim is in what is known as the construct state, a feature of Hebrew grammar in which two words x y are read as “the x of y.” Accordingly, `orchei hadayanim should be read as “the `orchim (non-construct plural of the singular `orech) of the dayanim.” Two interpretive questions present themselves: how to understand `orchim, and how to understand the sense in which these `orchim are “of” the dayanim. Rashi in the first approach quoted by the author understands `orchim as a noun meaning “laywers,” more or less, and they are “of” the dayanim, judges, in the sense that they stand before them. The phrase then reads “lawyers arguing before judges.” Rashi and Rav in the second approach quoted by the author differ from the first approach only in that they do not see the `orchei hadayanim as actually present in the courtroom. In what sense, then, are they “of the judges?” To answer this, the author explains that it is as if they have actually presented the arguments before the judges, and for this reason they are called “lawyers arguing before the judges.” Rambam quoted in the third approach sees `orchei as a participle meaning “presenting.” The Hebrew verb here is strictly transitive and as such the participle requires an object, which the Rambam explains as “legal arguments.” The author notes that this object must be supplied by the reader and is therefore a “hidden object,” i.e. not present in the actual phrase `orchei hadayanim, which is now read as “[those who are] presenting (the arguments) before the judges.”
Lev Avot writes that he heard the following explanation: it is as if he has arranged [Heb. `arach] the judges themselves, for when the judges rule in one party’s favor it is because he has presented that party’s arguments, in which sense he has set up [Heb. `arach] the judges to issue this ruling.³⁵I have been translating the verb `arach thusfar as “present.” Although it has the literal meaning “to arrange,” the equivalent English idiom has the lawyers “presenting arguments” rather than “arranging arguments.” The approach of Lev Avot takes the construct `orchei hadayanim to mean “those who arrange the judges” (see above note) or, in more idiomatic English, those who “set up” the judges.
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Matityah HaYitzhari: the mishna is certainly not discussing one who aids the litigant in presenting deceitful arguments, for such a one is a completely evil person. Rather, it refers even to presenting true arguments that will change the course of the proceedings, as per the passage in Ketubot 52b concerning the law of indefinite medical expenses, which are considered “sustenance” and are paid from the estate of the husband. Rabbi Yochanan advised the heirs to pay a fixed sum to a doctor, making them definite medical expenses.³⁶By Jewish law, before marriage the husband signs a kind of pre-nuptial agreement called a ketubah, which specifies the husband’s obligations to the wife both during marriage and in case of divorce or death. The law dictates that a widow be allowed to choose between collecting the sum specified in her ketubah or receiving basic sustenance from the heirs, which she can do indefinitely until she chooses to collect the ketubah. Some needs, however, are not considered “sustenance” and are deducted from the sum of the ketubah. The question in Ketubot revolves around medical treatment. There, it is the opinion of R. Shimon ben Gamliel that indefinite medical treatment (i.e. for a chronic illness) is considered “sustenance” and must be paid out of the husband’s estate without being deducted from the sum of the ketubah, while definite medical treatment is not considered “sustenance” and is deducted from the sum in the ketubah. Some relatives of Rabbi Yochanan asked for advice concerning a case of indefinite medical treatment. He advised them to find a doctor who would be willing to care for the widow indefinitely for a fixed sum, making the treatment legally definite and therefore deductable from the sum of the ketubah. Rabbi Yochanan afterwards declared that he had erroneously acted like the `orchei hadayanim, in violation of our mishna. Using this commentary, I have arrived at an understanding of what Rav meant when he wrote that the `orchei dayanim offer advice of the type “do such-and-such”. For had he meant, as Rambam means, that they instruct a person in which arguments to put forth, he ought to have written that they advise the person to “argue such-and-such”. I think, rather, that according to Rav, the prohibition is to advise him to act in some way, as in the case of Rabbi Yochanan and the widow, and the case of Rav Nachman, who advised a woman to forgo her ketubah in Ketubot 86a. Rav might agree, however, that one need not be overly pious and avoid even instruction in wording and presenting arguments. Of course, Rambam forbids even wording and presenting arguments.
Midrash Shmuel quoting Rabbenu Yonah: the mishna is not discussing a case of teaching one to use false arguments, for one who would do so is completely evil and this thing is a great sin, and our tractate is devoted to people interested in matters of piety. It is rather discussing a case of improving the strength and order of arguments that the litigant is already planning on using, going through how they will be received in court and showing him the anticipated outcome. The mishna says one should not do this because it will arouse suspicion.
One thing, at least, is clear according to all the commentaries, and that is the reason for the mishna’s use of the word “like” in “do not act like `orchei dayanim”. Had the mishna simply said “do not be `orchei dayanim” it would have sounded like it is actually forbidden to be an `orech dayanim, and it is not.<sup>37</sup>Rather, it does not befit a pious person to act like they do.
I also think that the wording al ta`as atzmecha, literally “do not make yourself,”³⁸Which we have rendered idiomatically as “do not act like.” as opposed to simply lo tihyeh, “do not be,” is meant to reflect the point made in the abovementioned case of Rabbi Yochanan. There, the Talmud says that he offered his advice because it was his relative that consulted him, and he felt this was a case of “do not turn away from your own flesh and blood” (Isaiah 58:7). He afterwards regretted it and said “we have made ourselves like the `orchei dayanim” because he held that prominent rabbinic figures should not do so. The implication is that were he not a prominent rabbinic figure, he would’ve been correct in doing what he did on account of “do not turn away from your own flesh and blood.” The language of our mishna, “do not make yourself,” is making this point: because of “yourself,” i.e. because you are a prominent rabbinic figure, do not make yourself into an `orech dayanim; otherwise, one may do so. If this is the issue, then it follows that anyone who is not a prominent rabbinic figure may do so even for someone who isn’t a relative, and Rabbi Yochanan only quoted the verse “do not turn away from your own flesh and blood” because otherwise he simply would’ve had no reason to help one party over another, as “who can say whose blood is redder.”³⁹A play on a Talmudic phrase in Sanhedrin 74a.
To sum up, the tanna’s injunction only concerns a prominent rabinic figure, for which reason he used the language “do not make yourself.” One who is not a prominent rabbinic figure need not avoid this even as a matter of piousness, as he is not giving instruction in how to present false arguments. What we learn from the incident with Rabbi Yochanan, who had to quote the verse “do not turn away from your own flesh and blood,” is that otherwise he wouldn’t have gotten involved, not as a matter of piousness but because he had no reason to act to the benefit of one party and loss of another; whereas for a relative, as long as one is not a prominent rabbinic figure, one should act in order to uphold the verse “do not turn away from your own flesh and blood.”
Rashi, however, writes ad loc.: a prominent rabbinic figure is different, because people will learn from his actions and some of them will do this even for non-relatives. If so, the injunction of our mishna would apply to any case involving non-relatives.

Yehuda ben Tabai and Shimon ben Shetach received from them: From Yehoshua ben Perachiah and Nitai of Arbel.

"The judges' advisers (literally, organizers)": They are people that study the arguments and the laws until the people become experts in their cases. As they compose questions and answers: when the judge says this, answer him that; and when the litigant argues this, so should be your answer - as if they are organizing the case, and the litigant is [coming] in front of them. And that is why they are called the judges' organizers - it is as if they organize the cases in front of them. And they warned them from being similar to them; meaning to say to teach one of the litigants an argument that will benefit him and to say to him, "Say this," or "Refute [an opposing claim] in such and such a way." And even if he knew about him that he was the victim and that his fellow's claim against him is false according to what he truly thinks, nonetheless, it is not permissible for him to teach him an argument that will save him or benefit him at all.

And that which [Rabbi Bartenura] wrote at the beginning of his words, "That they arrange, etc." - not that they themselves give reasons in front of the judges, but rather that by their revealing [them] to the litigant - by saying to him, "Do this;" behold, it is as if they are making claims in front of the judges. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"Do not make yourself like the judges' advisers": like those people that set up and arrange the claims of a litigant before the judges. As it is forbidden for a person to reveal the judgment to one of the litigants and to say to him, “Do the following so that you will win your case” - even though he knows that [this litigant] should win the case. Another explanation: “Like the judges' advisers” [meaning] like the great judges. And it is referring to a student sitting in front of his teacher – that he should not make himself like the great judges, to speak in front of his teacher as [if he were] someone who is deciding the case. (Orkhei) is an expression [like that used in the term], tribunals (arkaot) of the gentiles (Gittin 9b, 10b), and tribunals of the House of David. And from others, I have heard, “Do not make yourself like the great judges, to force the litigants to come in front of you.”

Introduction This mishnah contains the teachings of Judah ben Tabbai, the first sage of the third “pair”. The subject of his teaching is the proper attitude of the judge to the litigants who come before him.

YOU SHOULD IMAGINE THEM TO BE WICKED. But do not imagine the two of them to be righteous people, because then you will not thoroughly examine their claims and will charitably interpret everything they say without investigating the case in depth. When one imagines them both to be wicked, one thoroughly examines each one’s claims and considers possible avenues of deception, thereby getting to the truth of the matter.
Another possible interpretation. One of the parties has certainly acted unlawfully, and the Talmud considers the other party similarly implicated, as per the passage discussing oaths in court (Shavuot 39a): those standing there then say to one another, “Step away from the tents of these evil men!” (Numbers 16:26), and there also (ibid. 39b): “The oath of G-d will be taken between them” (Exodus 20:10), this teaches that the oath falls on both of them, i.e., even the party in the right, all because he is involved in a case with the criminal party. They are thus both called “wicked.” When they accept the court’s ruling, however, they are both called “righteous,” because accepting a ruling after their quarrel with one another is an act of righteousness on their part—Maharal in Derech Chaim.

Yehuda ben Tabai says, "Do not make yourself like the judges' advisers (orkhei)": He means to say a head, as it is stated in Bereshit Rabbah 23:10, "'And Efron was sitting among the children of Chet' (Genesis 23:10) - on that very day, they appointed him arkhi," meaning to say the head of the judges. And also in the section of "Yaakov sent messengers" (Parshat Vayishlach, Bereshit Rabbah 75:3), "arkhi" is the head of the thieves. And also in Arukh, you will find that arkhi is explained like this there. And the explanation of this is, do not make yourself like the judge's advisers, that [people] should ask you and you tell them the laws; and after they hear it from you, they go to other judges for judgment and they say to them, "The head of the judges has already told us that this is the law." Do not make yourself like them. And from Rambam there is another explanation: "Do not make yourself like the judges' advisers" - He did (not) speak here about someone who teaches false claims to his friend and how to present them, since such a person is completely evil. And it is not necessary to say that a person not do this on account that they will suspect him and speak badly about him, as this is a great sin [and nothing more need be said about it]. Rather, [it is one] that organizes the claims [of someone] and arranges the laws and reveals the verdict [of a case] to an individual - as it is not fitting to do this since they will suspect him and speak badly about him. This [is] like that story of Rabbi Yochanan in Tractate Ketuvot 52b, wherein at the beginning he reasoned, "do not ignore your flesh" (Isaiah 58:7), and at the end he reasoned, it is different with an important man.

And he did not say, "You should claim the following," but rather he wanted to say [by this] that he brings up advice for [the litigant] to do an act like that [case] of Rabbi Yochanan in Chapter 4 of Ketuvot 52b in the case of [the payment for] healing [a man's widow] that has no limits [and so] is payed from the estate of the husband, [wherein] Rabbi Yochanan advised them, "Set a fixed amount [with a physician] for the healing so that it will be something that has a limit." But it should not enter your mind, that he will make as a claim for the litigant words of iniquity and trickery, as such ones are complete evildoers. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"they should be like evildoers in your eyes": so that your heart not incline to one of them, saying, “Such and such a one is important, he is; and he would not make a false claim.” Since if you say this, you cannot see him as guilty.

Judah ben Tabbai and Shimon ben Shetach received [the oral tradition] from them. Judah ben Tabbai said: do not [as a judge] play the part of an advocate; and when the litigants are standing before you, look upon them as if they were [both] guilty; and when they leave your presence, look upon them as if they were [both] innocent, when they have accepted the judgement. Judah ben Tabbai teaches three things concerning the attitude of the judge. The first is that the judge should not be an advocate for either side. If a litigant does not make the best claim that he could make, the judge is not allowed to make such a claim on his behalf. In other words the judge cannot act the part of the lawyer, but he must judge based on the claims actually made. We should note that lawyers were not usual participants in trials in the time of the mishnah. Another version of this teaching is that the judge should not make himself like “the chief of the judges” (in Hebrew there is only a one letter difference between “chief of the judges” and “advocate”, the former beginning with an aleph and the latter with an ayin. The reading “chief of judges” is found in the better manuscripts of the mishnah). This means that a judge should not make himself like the chief justice who does not actually look into the details of the case. Rather the judge has the responsibility to carefully check all of the facts before he makes his ruling. The second two teachings are basically the flip side of the coin of each other. Before the judgement is delivered the judge must examine both parties as if both are guilty. Even if he thinks that one side is telling the truth, he must examine both impartially and with a skeptical eye, for if he favors one side before the trial, justice will not be served. However, when the sides accept the judgement, he must look at both sides as innocent. This may be for two reasons: first of all, the fact that the one found guilty accepts his judgement means that in the end he was willing to do the right thing. His acceptance of the judgement is a form of repentance. Second, the judge can never be one hundred per cent of the correctness of his sentence.

"and when the litigants are before you, they should be like evildoers in your eyes": That your heart should not lean towards one of them, and that you not think that he is (righteous) in his case. As if so, you will never judge a case truthfully, since your heart is unfettered towards this one, and you will not be able to see his guilt. Rather they should be in your eyes as if they were both evil and making false claims. And let not your heart lean to one of them, so that the matter come under the correct light.

"like evildoers": But not [that] both of them be like righteous ones. As, if so, he will not search out their claims and he will judge each one as meritorious and not get down to the truth of the case. But when both of them are like evildoers in his eyes, he will search out the claims of each one, etc., and because of that, he will get down to the truth of the case - Derekh Chaim. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"when they received the judgment": such that you should not suspect the guilty party saying, “This one was a robber.” But [rather] say, “maybe he was mistaken and did not intend to rob." And also (another possibility is) if one of them became obligated to make an oath [as a result of testimony], do not say, "He made a false oath."

"and when they are excused from before you, they should be meritorious in your eyes - when they have accepted the judgment": This is a measure of piety, since you know that one of them made a false claim. [Still,] he should not be in your eyes (ever) assumed to be a liar and a difficult litigant. And it is not fitting to suspect him, since he accepted the verdict upon himself and left the court guilty. And one should think that he repented and he doesn't have in mind to do this [again] all the days of his life.

As I would have thought, "Since there is [a reason] to suspect [here], this one is not included in, 'and judge, etc... as meritorious.'" [Hence,] it is necessary [to write this in the Mishnah].

AND BE CAREFUL WITH YOUR WORDS, THAT THEY DON’T DISCERN HOW BEST TO LIE THEREFROM. Rav writes, in explaining “they”: the litigants or the witnesses. Although the beginning of the mishna only mentions witnesses, the idea is that they should not discern how best to lie, and that would apply equally to witnesses or litigants. Also, “be careful, etc. ” is an independent sentence unconnected to the beginning of the mishna, and as such the “they” in “that they don’t discern how best to lie” applies to anyone who can so discern, whether witness or litigant.

Shimon ben Shatach says, "Examine the witnesses thoroughly": To examine and cross-examine them many times. And through this you will reveal the secret, since 'with many words sin will not be averted' and he will learn from their words if they are testifying falsely.

"But be careful with your words": That the judge not say, "Maybe the act was like so and so;" or "If the matter had been like so, x would be innocent" - and from these words, the litigant or the witnesses learn to say something that did not [happen].

Introduction This mishnah contains the teaching of Shimon ben Shetach, the second of the third pair. Shimon ben Shetach lived during the rule of Alexander Janneus and his wife Shelomith. Shimon was Shelomith’s brother. According to a legend found in both Josephus and the Babylonian Talmud (with some differences) the king killed many of the Pharisaic sages, but Shimon ben Shetach managed to escape. Through the aid of his sister he was able to return to Jerusalem and rejoin the Sanhedrin, which had been filled in the meanwhile with Sadducees. Along with Judah ben Tabbai, who had escaped to Egypt, they were successful in restoring the Pharisees to their place in the Sanhedrin. That may be why both of these pairs are so concerned with the behavior of judges.

"but be careful with your words, lest from them they learn to lie": As when you examine them about a matter, you can speak your words [in such a way] that they will understand in what way they will be found guilty in their trial and learn from your words what lies they need to make to win [the case].

Shimon ben Shetach used to say: be thorough in the interrogation of witnesses, and be careful with your words, lest from them they learn to lie. Shimon ben Shetach continues to give instructions to the judges. The first statement is self-explanatory. The second statement means that the judge should be careful while examining the witnesses, lest he inadvertently teach them how to help one side win the case.

SHEMAYA AND AVTALION. Rav writes that they were converts. So also Rambam in the introduction to his Mishneh Torah. Both make it sound like Shemaya and Avtalion were themselves converts, and this cannot be, as they were the nasi and av beit din, as Rav writes on mishna 4; a convert cannot adjudicate capital cases, as Rav writes in Sanhedrin 4:2, and certainly cannot be an av beit din, per the mishna in Horayot 1:4.
Maharal writes in Derech Chaim: It is said that Shemaya and Avtalion were descended from converts, and this can be proven from the Talmud in Gittin 57b and Yoma 71b. But they themselves cannot have been converts, for then how could they have been appointed nasi and av beit din? Rather, they descended from converts, but their mothers were certainly Jewish and they were therefore legitimate candidates for nasi and av beit din. But there are those who say that they themselves were converts, which is completely mistaken.

Shemayah and Avtalyon received from them. Shemayah says, "Love work": So that a man not be idle from work, since idleness brings a person to ennui (Ketuvot 59b); and that is a trait of illness, as it is stated about it (Proverbs 21:25), "The craving of a lazy man kills him, for his hands refuse to do." It means to say, when he accustoms his limbs to be idle from work, his hands refuse, since habit rules over them. And it also states about it (Proverbs 20:4), "From the winter the lazy man does not plow; at harvest time he seeks, and there is nothing." As he thinks when he is idle from work that it is rest for him, but it is the opposite; as [it is] with exertion [that] he will have rest. As with the winter he will rest and stay in his house and not plow and seek to reap and gather the grain [when] there is none and die of hunger. But the one who plows in the winter - 'he who tills his land will be sated with bread,' as a man cannot reach rest without exertion first. 'But he who pursues vanities' and pursues the ones that sit in the corners idle from work 'will be sated with poverty.'

This 'government' (rishut) is the authorities. And in these three traits there is refinement of faithfulness and of the world. As with the absence of work, things will be tight for him and he will rob and be unfaithful. And with the pursuit of lordship, he will have challenges in the world and bad things; as since people will be jealous of him and disagree with him, he will lose his faithfulness. [It is] as they said (Sanhedrin 103b), "Once a man is appointed an officer over the community below, he becomes an evildoer above." And so [too, regarding] familiarity with the government in the early days and coming close to it, it was very unusual to escape from [the damage caused by] it in this world. As he will not pay attention to anything except that which brings him close to it. And you know the matter with Doeg - and even though the authority with which Doeg became close was the anointed of God and a prophet and God's chosen one, may He be blessed.

It should not be explained that they themselves were converts - since, if so, how was it possible to appoint them as nassi and head of the court? Rather, they [were only descended] from converts but their mother was certainly Jewish, and therefore they were permissible to appoint as Nassi and Head of the court. Derekh Chaim

Shamaya and Avtalyon: were righteous converts and were from the descendants of Sancheriv. And I have heard that it is because Avtalyon was the head (av) of the court that he was called by this name, as its meaning is 'father (head - av) to the small ones.' As talya in Aramaic is small, like (Megillah 5b), “Rabbi Yochanan said, 'When I was talya'” - when I was small; (Yevamot 114a) “let them bring a talya and a talyatta” - let them bring a small male and a small female. Here too, Avtalyon was the father of small orphans.

Introduction Shemaiah and Abtalion, the fourth pair, lived at the end of the period of Hasmonean rule and towards the beginning of Herod’s reign. According to the Talmud both were converts. Mishnah nine contains Shemaiah’s teachings.

LOVE LABOR. Rav: even if he has a living, he must engage in some kind of labor. In such a case, one works not for the pay but for love of labor itself, which fits the mishna’s choice of words: “love labor” as opposed to “do labor.”
Rav: because idleness leads to listlessness, which is per the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel in the mishna in Ketubot 5:5 concerning a wife who does not need to work. I find this odd, because the law follows Rabbi Eliezer there, who says that idleness leads to impropriety. A point of difference between the two opinions would be the case of a woman who entertains herself all day, which does not lead to listlessness but can still lead to impropriety, as Rav explains there in Ketubot.
It is possible that Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is restricted to the case of a wife, for women are easily seduced. We do find in Avot 2:7 that keeping many maidservants is said to lead to impropriety, whereas keeping many servants is said to lead to theft.

"hate lordship": He made this adjacent to the activity of work, as they are one topic - that he hate lordship and the advantage of the idle ones, as their end is to come to the trait of poverty. But [rather] he should be involved in his work the whole day, as it said (Pesachim 113a), "Flay a carcass in the marketplace and eat [from] your wage, and do not say, 'I am a priest, I am an important man.'" And about this Shlomo, peace be upon him, stated (Proverbs 12:9), "Better to be a lowly one and a servant to himself than to be honored and have no food." And the explanation of "lowly one" is not like its literal understanding, but rather it is the opposite of honored lordship.

Since now he is not doing work for its reward but for its own love. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"Love work": Even if he has from what to sustain himself, he is obligated to work, as idleness leads to distraction (Ketuvot 59b)

Shemaiah and Abtalion received [the oral tradition] from them. Shemaiah used to say: love work, hate acting the superior, and do not attempt to draw near to the ruling authority. In many places we see that the rabbis considered work to be important to proper moral behavior. This is learned from Exodus 20:9, “six days shall you work… and on the seventh day you shall rest.” Just as on the seventh day it is a commandment not to work, so too on the first six days it is a commandment to work. Even the wealthy should work, for idleness may lead a person into depression and perhaps even into licentiousness. A person should not seek positions of superiority over others. Although society does need leaders, such leadership can take its toll on a person. It is also dangerous to the person’s own proper behavior, for often times people in leadership abuse their positions. This statement also connects to the previous statement. No person should consider himself so important as not to engage in work. Shemaiah certainly lived at a time when avoiding close contact with the government was good advice. Although one may be able to gain some benefit from having good contacts with powerful people, in the end rulers do only what is good for themselves. Furthermore, when the tides turn, those who were too close to the ruling parties are often the first to suffer. This is has been demonstrated throughout history in dictatorships and other tyrannical forms of government. A person who is closely identified with one ruler, is often killed or jailed when the next ruler takes power.

AND DESPISE POSITIONS OF POWER. Rav writes in his second interpretation that positions of power bury those who occupy them. This is per the passage in Sotah 13b: why did Joseph die before his brothers? Because he occupied a position of power—Rashi. [He should distance himsef out of contempt for it, which is the opposite of loving labor, as Tosafot Yom Tov explained.⁴⁰This comment was inserted by the printers of the Vilna edition of the Mishna.]

"and do not become familiar with the government": As service for the government is very difficult. And regardless, once he accepts the yoke of the king, his end is to break the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven and to refrain from this commandment. Since he will be afraid of the government and his work will be extensive, he will make the service of God a farce in the face of this work. And also at the end, they will strip him of his assets without gain, as they only bring someone close for their own purpose. And regardless, once he accepts the yoke of a king of flesh and blood at one time, he can not [longer] do that which the Master requires.

"hate lordship": and do not say, “I am a great man and it is a disgrace for me to work" - since Rav said to Rav Kahana (Pesachim 113a), "Flay a carcass in the market and take your pay, and do not say, 'I am a priest, I am a great man and the matter is a disgrace to me.'" Another explanation: “hate lordship,” [meaning] distance yourself from the taking of authority over the public, as lordship buries those that have it.

AND DO NOT GET CLOSE TO THE AUTHORITIES. Rav: in order to use them to get a powerful position. Rashi adds: because they only bring a person close for their own purposes. If so, this is the same as the mishna in 3:1 later.

"and do not become familiar with the government": in order to receive lordship through it. And also (another possibility is) “do not become familiar with the government” so that they will not make you transgress the doctrine of your Maker, as happened with Doeg the Edomite. "with the government" (rishut which literally means permission): Dominion is called permission, as the government has permission in its hand to do according to its will.

SAGES, BE CAREFUL WITH YOUR WORDS. The mishna does not restrict its warning to the sages because other people are not included in it, but because if one of the sages says something ambiguous, those who listen will draw erronous conclusions, whereas nobody listens to the words of a commoner; the mishna therefore emphasizes the sages—Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan the Pious.

Avtalyon says, "Sages, be careful with your words, lest you become obligated in an obligation of exile Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote in a correct way in his commentary on Avot: "Be careful with your words," to explain your words so that you not leave room for [heresy], "lest you become obligated in an obligation of exile and are exiled to the place of evil waters" - the place of heretics that reveal the faces of Torah that are not appropriate, and extract from your words, things that are not so.

"Evil waters" is a nickname for heresy. And they said, "Be careful with your words" among the masses, and there should not be in in your words [something] that can support a different interpretation [than what you mean]. As if there are heretical men there, they will interpret them according to their beliefs. And the students will have already heard them from them and they will turn to heresy. And they will think that these were your beliefs and there will be a desecration of God, as happened to Antigonos with Tsadok and Beitos.

"Sages": The intention is not that other people are not warned about this; but rather if a doubt arises about the words of the Sages, the listeners will come to a general mistake, which is not the case with the words of a commoner, to whose words we are not attentive. Therefore, he warned the Sages more - Rabbi Y. Ibn Shoshan.

"Be careful with your words": such that you don't leave room for the heretics to make a mistake about your words.

Introduction Abtalion is the second sage of the fourth “pair”.

TO A PLACE OF BAD WATER. Rav: where they offer skewed interpretations of the Torah, and these are a euphemism for bad water. The sentence is out of order: it is the bad water which is a euphemism for skewed interpretations of Torah. Rambam writes that “bad water” is a euphemism for heresy.

"and the students who follow after you will drink" As they will hear your words and not understand and rely upon the words of the heretics who explain your words according to their opinions, and they will reason that this was your opinion, "and thus the name of Heaven is profaned."

And the language [of Rabbi Bartenura] is cut up (inverted), since evil waters is a term for faces of the Torah that are not like the law.

"lest you will be punished with exile": which is to say that even though in the place that you are, there are no heretics, one must be concerned lest sin will bring about that you will be obligated to be exiled. And you will be exiled to a place where there are people that show sides of the Torah that are not like the law (halakha), and this is a term for 'evil waters.' And they will understand improper things from your words and the students that come after them will drink words of heresy from these words and they will die from their sins.

Abtalion used to say: Sages be careful with your words, lest you incur the penalty of exile, and be carried off to a place of evil waters, and the disciples who follow you drink and die, and thus the name of heaven becomes profaned. Abtalion’s teaching deals with the accountability of the Sage, one who is responsible for continuing the tradition and teaching the world the proper interpretation of Scripture. Abtalion warns the Sages to be careful with their words, to make them clear so that their students will not misunderstand their intention. In many places the rabbis teach how dangerous the words of Torah can be if not understood in the right contexts, by people with the correct intentions in their application. A teacher has a responsibility not only to teach by reciting what he knows, but he must make sure that it is understood by the listener as well. Improper teaching will eventually force the teacher to leave his place in exile and go to a place of “evil waters”. This is probably a euphemism for heretical beliefs. If a teacher is not careful with his words, his students may end up as heretics. This certainly occurred in the times of Abtalyon, when many students left the path of the Sages and joined other sects, such as the Sadducees or Essenes. A disciple of a Sage leaving the path of Torah and joining other sects is not just a loss for the disciple himself, but it is a profaning of God’s name, and may lead to even worse consequences. People are very conscious of where people learned. For instance in Israel a person who grew up in a secular home and considers himself an atheist is not news. However, when, as has happened on occasion, a person who grew up in a Hasidic or ultra-orthodox home, and perhaps was even related to a famous rabbi, becomes an atheist and is politically active for a secular party that is news. The fact that the person knows the tradition and rejects it makes his rejection more consequential than that of one who rejects the tradition out of ignorance. His rejection reflects badly on the tradition and its source as well, God. It will lead others to think that if one who knew the Torah so well, said that it was not true, than why should we even bother to learn. For this reason teachers must be very careful that students do not misinterpret their words. I might add that this is especially difficult with learning over the internet, in situations where the teacher has no idea of who is reading what s/he writes. When sitting face to face with students, a teacher can directly answer their questions, and clarify misunderstood points. When these words which I write on a computer in my home in Israel, go up on the internet, billions of people, none of whom I know, will have access to them. I guess the advantages of having such a large potential audience are also balanced by some of the inherent dangers.

AND THE STUDENTS THAT COME AFTER YOU WILL DRINK OF THEM. Rav: as happened to Antigonos of Socho with Tzadok and Baitos his students. He said to them, “be not like servants serving the master for pay.” They said, Can it be that a worker labors and exerts himself all day and receives no pay towards evening? They, along with their followers, became heretics, and their sects are called Tzedukim and Baitusim till this very day. He writes in his commentary to the mishna in Yadaim, 4:6, along the same lines: groups of Jews then joined them, etc.
This is not quite what the tanna had in mind, as he is discussing only the scholars that will come after these sages.⁴¹And not their own students. The upshot is that the sages should take care that their words be clear enough to be properly understood by a generation of scholars that have no personal contact with them. A teaching that is not phrased clearly, even if it can be properly explained by the sage himself to his own students, is dangerous when presented without the opportunity for this clarification. I found that Rashbam writes in his commentary to Bava Batra 115b, in the name of the Avot deRabbi Natan, that the incident of Tzadok and Baitos was that they would teach their own students the words of Antigonos, “be not like servants serving the master for pay,” and the students erred. I saw the same in Avot deRabbi Natan, 5:2.

And [the explanation of Rabbi Bartenura] is not exactly the same as the words of the teacher, who is only teaching because of "the students that come after you." And Rashbam wrote in the name of Avot DeRabbi Natan that Tsadok and Beitos were teaching their students the words of Antigonos and the students erred.

"and thus the name of the Heavens will be profaned": such that these idle opinions will remain in the world, as happened to Antigonos, the man of Socho, with his students, Tsadok and Beitos. Since he told them, “Do not be like slaves that serve the master for the sake of receiving a reward.” And they said, “Is it possible that a laborer works the whole day and toils and in the evening he does not get a reward?” And they and their students became heretics, and they are called Saducees (tsedukim) and Boethusians (beitusim) to this day.

CHASING AFTER PEACE. As the verse says, “Seek out peace and chase after it” (Psalms 34:15).

Hillel and Shammai received from them: From Shemayah and Avtalyon.

"Of the disciples of Aharon": They said (The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan 12) that when Aharon, peace be upon him, sensed that the insides of a person were bad or they told him that his insides were bad or that he had a sin in his hand, he would greet him first and would be friendly towards him and would speak much with him. And that man would become embarrassed about himself and say, "Woe is to me! If Aharon knew what is hidden in my heart and the evil of my actions, he would not permit himself to [even] look at me, all the more so to speak to me. And yet he treats me with the presumption that I am a proper man. [Hence] I will confirm his words and his thought and I will return to the good." And he would become from his students who learn from him. And the Holy One, blessed be He, stated when He described him with this trait (Malachi 2:6), "He walked with Me in peace and righteousness, and brought many back from iniquity." And it is this famous matter about him that Hillel had in mind. And he also said when a man's name spreads for greatness, its termination will be announced. And he would also say, that God, may He be blessed, kills the one who doesn't read [the Bible] much, but the one who does not learn at all is fitting to be killed [now]. And [he also said] that one who "uses the crown" will die, meaning to say one who earns a livelihood from Torah and receives [tangible] benefit from it. And this was his intention in this statement, as will be explained in this tractate (Rambam on Pirkei Avot 4:5). And it is stated by way of mnemonic, "Student (yes), another man (no)," meaning to say that it is not permissible for a Torah scholar to receive service from any man except for his students.

"Pursuing peace": As the matter is stated (Psalms 34:15), "seek peace and pursue it."

"Be of the disciples of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace": They explained in Avot DeRabbi Natan how Aharon loved peace: When he would see two people quarreling, he would go to each one of them without the knowledge of his fellow and say to him, “Behold how your fellow is regretting and afflicting himself that he sinned against you; and he told me that I should come to you so that you will forgive him. And as a result of this, when they bumped into each other, they would kiss each other. And how would he bring people closer to the Torah? When he would know about someone that he committed a sin, he would befriend him and show him a friendly demeanor; and that man would be embarrassed and say [to himself], “If that righteous man would know my evil deeds, how much would he distance himself from me? And as a result of this, [that man] would change for the better. And this is what the prophet testifies about [Aharon] (Malachi 2), “In peace and in straightness did he walk with Me and he brought back many from sinning."

Introduction Hillel and Shammai, the fifth “pair” are probably familiar to many of you, for they were the founders of that two great schools, Beth Shammai (the House of Shammai) and Beth Hillel (the House of Hillel), that truly begin a new era in Jewish history. Hillel and Shammai lived during Herod’s rule, which began in 37 B.C.E. and lasted until 4 C.E. Hillel was actually an immigrant from Babylonia. He is known for his kindness and love of fellow human being. Many legends exist about Hillel, most of them are about his great humility and love.

LOVING [THE PEOPLE,] HIS CREATIONS. Because they are creations of the Holy One, you should love them; further, the love should be for this reason, and not for other reasons, such as the use you might derive from them. Midrash Shmuel explains similarly.

Hillel says, "Be of the disciples of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving the creatures and bringing them closer to Torah." He means to say that he loves truth and peace in his heart and pursues it with the actions of his hands. As there are people that love it in their hearts that don't trouble themselves to bring peace to the world and don't walk in the paths of peace. But those that do actions and bring peace between a man and his friend and love to do this work - as it is stated (Psalms 34:15), "seek peace and pursue it" - those are from the students of Aharon, who would act like this.

"loving, etc.": Because they are the creatures of the Holy One, blessed be He. And therefore it is fitting that you should love them. And [it is] also [fitting] that the love should be from this side and not from any other side - for example, because of the benefit that comes to you from them.

Hillel and Shammai received [the oral tradition] from them. Hillel used to say: be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and drawing them close to the Torah. According to a legend in Avoth de Rabbi Nathan, when two men had quarreled with each other, Aaron would go and sit down with one of them and say to him: “My son, mark what your fellow is saying! He beats his breast and tears his clothing, saying, ‘Woe unto me! How shall I lift my eyes and look upon my fellow! I am ashamed before him, for I it is who treated him badly.’” He would sit with him until he had removed all anger from his heart, and then Aaron would go and sit with the other one and say to him the same thing that he had said to the first. And when the two men met each other they embraced and kissed one another. Aaron brought peace between Jews. A lesson that Jews have learned throughout history, and that they continue to learn today, is that when peace reigns between them, even if they worship idols, they can have their independence. And when Jews fight with one another, no matter how many commandments they keep, they are easily conquered. Hillel also teaches that one should love other people. Hillel taught that it was much easier to influence people with love than with fear, for love is truly the best motivation in life. By acting in such a manner, Aaron was able to draw people closer to Torah. According to another story about Aaron, he would make a habit of associating with evil people until they grew embarrassed and thought, “Woe unto us! If Aaron knew what we are like, what our life is like, he would resolve never again to set eye upon us. He must think we are worthy people. We ought at least to try to make our conduct correspond to his thinking.” In that way they would be drawn to association with him and learning Torah from him.

AND DRAWING THEM CLOSE TO TORAH. Rav: when Aaron knew that someone had sinned, he would keep company with him, etc. There might be a difficulty here, as this seems to oppose the words of Nitai the Arbelite, who said “do not keep the company of a wicked person” (Avot 1:7). I saw in Avot deRabbi Natan, 12:3: what is the meaning of “He has brought many back from sin” (Malachi 2:6)? When Aaron would walk down the road and meet a wicked person he would greet him. The next day, that wicked person would desire to do some sin and say, Woe is me! How shall I raise up my eyes afterwards and see Aaron? I feel such shame; he even greeted me! And that person would end up desisting from sin. So also Rambam: he would begin greeting him, become friendly with him, and speak with him more often. The man would be ashamed of himself, etc.⁴²Thus, Aaron did not keep their company; he merely greeted them and was friendly.

"loving the creatures and bringing them closer to Torah": When Aharon would sense that a person had sinned in private, he would go to him and befriend him and make him into his friend. And the sinner would put in his heart that if Aharon would know the hidden matters in my heart, would he ever want my friendship? Rather, it is that I am assumed by him to be a proper man and one who does the commandments. However if he knew my bad thought, he would distance himself from me - from befriending an evildoer like me today. And [so] he would regret his evil and contemplate repentance. And this is very effective and beneficial for him in undoing his evil thought, as is is stated (Malachi 2:6), "He walked with Me in peace and righteousness, and brought many back from iniquity."

Seemingly, [Rabbi Bartneura's explanation] contradicts the statement, "Do not befriend an evildoer." And this is the language of [Rambam]: "He would greet him first and he would become beloved to him and he would increase his talking with him."

THE NAME THAT SPREADS [Aram. n’gad sh’ma] IS THE NAME THAT PERISHES [Aram. avad sh’meh]. Rav: the name that spreads far on account of power and position will soon perish, for power buries its own. Maharal points out in Derech Chaim that the the mishna first uses the word sh’ma, “the name,” and then the words sh’meh, “his/its name” and explains the mishna as follows: n’gad shma—the word used for a position of power in Aramaic is n’gad, which denotes spreading and continuity. But the word for a position of power really ought to be avad, “perishes,” as the name of the person in power perishes, because “power buries its own.”⁴³Accordingly, the mishna should be read as “the word n’gad, its proper name is avad.” Although there are editions that read n’gad sh’ma avad sh’ma, both with an alef.⁴⁴ Sh’ma is spelled with an alef at the end, whereas sh’meh is spelled with a yud hey.
Midrash Shmuel: “n’gad sh’ma”—one who attempts to spread out his name to get fame for himself as one of the greats, “avad sh’meh” loses whatever name he had previously and ends up bereft of both. In the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan the Pious he writes that the correct text is shin mem alef, i.e. sh’ma.
See my comments on 5:22 for why this mishna uses Aramaic.

He would say, "Spread a name, lose his name:" He means to say, a man that is proud and his name goes out in the world due to his pride and his greatness and he makes for himself a name 'like the names of the world's greats' in opposition to the great Name that is permanent in pride; this way, will he lose his name in a great loss and he will not be remembered and he will not be counted.

"His name": that he had before. And he ends up 'bald' (lacking a name) from this and from that" - Midrash Shmuel. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"Spread (Negad) a name, lose his name": He who extends his name far by way of authority and lordship will quickly lose his name, since lordship buries those that have it. Negad is a term for extension. The [Aramaic] translation of 'they extended' is 'nagidu.'

Introduction This mishnah contains more statements from Hillel. All of the sayings in this mishnah are in Aramaic. Although almost all of the Mishnah is in Hebrew, it is unclear what the common spoken language of the Jews was at the time of the Mishnah. These sayings are folksy, that is they are pithy and easy to remember. The fact that they are in Aramaic may mean that many of the “folk” spoke Aramaic, but that the language of study was Hebrew. By the time of the Talmud it is clear that Aramaic was the dominant language in the land of Israel, at least amongst the Jews (many non-Jews would have spoken Greek).

AND HE WHO DOES NOT ADD, SHALL MEET HIS END. Kesef Mishneh explains in his commentary to Rambam’s Mishne Torah, Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:10, that this phrase should be read as a development of the previous phrase, which he understands as n’gad sh’ma—one who studies Torah in order to spread his name, avad sh’meh—his name shall perish. One might then say, I will no longer study, because perhaps my study will be for the sake of fame and then my name will perish! To counter that, the mishna says “and he who does not add, will met his end.” Now certainly the worst case is that of one who has previously studied Torah and then quits his studies. Addressing one who has not previously studied and decides that he will not study, the mishna says “and he who does not learn, deserves death,” because “deserves death” is not as severe as “will meet his end.” For though he deserves death, perhaps he has some merit that will protect him. [*This runs counter to Rav, who says that one who has not studied at all is worse than one who no longer studies.]

And one who does not increase [knowledge] ceases (yasef)" One who is wise but does not want to add wisdom to his wisdom and says in his heart, "I have already learned all of the Torah entirely and I have seen its ways and its paths. What is there for me in this pain to trouble myself in my fleeting days and what [more] is there for me to understand that I have not understood?" May it be His will that this man should die and be gathered (yeasef) to his people. And why should he live [any] more, since he has already gotten up from studying?

"and one who does not, etc.": Since he says, 'spread a name' - meaning to say, one who learns in order to enhance his name (fame) - [will] 'lose his name;' lest you say in your heart, 'I will no longer learn - as maybe my learning will be for my name, and it will be lost, etc.,' or if I heard this statement before I would learn, I will not learn. To this he said, 'and one who does not add, will cease' certainly - since one who learns and stops is more difficult than everything, etc. - Kessef Mishneh. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"And one who does not add": He who does not add to his study.

He [also] used to say: one who makes his name great causes his name to be destroyed; one who does not add [to his knowledge] causes [it] to cease; one who does not study [the Torah] deserves death; on who makes [unworthy] use of the crown [of learning] shall away. Although there are four separate statements in this mishnah, they can all be summarized as saying two things: a person must always study, but he should be careful not to use his learning for his own grandeur. A person who tries to make his name, meaning his reputation great, will eventually lose his good name. One who seeks his own honor, will have honor elude his grip. This statement has also been taken as a warning to a person to avoid the attention of the ruling power, for their attention can only lead to danger. This is a lesson already mentioned in mishnah ten. One must constantly be seeking to increase his knowledge, never satisfied with the learning he has already done (this could be contrasted with what we learn later, that a rich man is one who is happy with his portion). In Judaism learning is a life long project, and not relegated to children. One who does not learn Torah deserves to die. I don’t believe that this harsh statement is not meant to be taken literally; it is certainly not a directive to a court to execute the unlearned. Rather Hillel may mean to say that without the spirituality of the Torah, a person’s life is empty. One commentator states that one who has not studied Torah is like a beast, for human beings were only created different from animals for them to learn and study Torah. One who only fills his base needs of food and sex, has not truly differentiated himself from an animal. Although Hillel urges people to study Torah, he warns them not to make use of this Torah study for their own advancement. One who does so will not receive any reward for his Torah study. In ancient times it was forbidden for Rabbis to take a salary, or receive any material benefit from their work. While this demand became impractical already a long time ago, I do believe that at least part of the ideal must be preserved. A Rabbi or any teacher of Torah, must not have his own personal advance or profit in mind when he teaches, for that is a corruption of Torah. Note how the first and last clauses of the mishnah are similar (warnings to those who use Torah for their own ends), and the two middle clauses are similar (statements about what happens to those who don’t learn Torah). This type of order is known as “chiastic” order, and is very common in rabbinic literature.

AND HE WHO MAKES USE OF THE CROWN. Rav explains this as the crown of Torah. The mishna says simply “crown,” without qualifying it as the crown of Torah, because “crown” by default refers to the crown of Torah, as all other crowns are worthless—Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan.

"And one who does not study is liable to die": One who has not studied at all is compared to a beast. As why was he created in the world? To understand and give ruling of the Torah, whose 'ways are ways of pleasantness. And it is not fitting that the one that never learned Torah and continues to maintain his evil [this way] live even one day and even one hour.

And that which [the Mishanh] stated plain, 'crown,' and did not explain, 'of the Torah' is because all of the crowns besides it are nothing - R. Y. Ibn Shoshan.

"ceases": What he already learned will cease from his mouth and he will forget his learning. And there are those that have the textual variant, “will be gathered,” meaning to say he will be gathered to his people and die before his time.

"And one who makes use of the crown [of learning] passes away": Behold the one who gets honor from the crown of Torah and benefits from its honor and makes it like a means to accomplish his needs, perishes, as it is learned later (Avot 4:5), "Do not make it [the Torah] into a crown with which to aggrandize yourself, and not into a spade with which to dig into them. And thus Hillel used to say: And one who makes use of the crown [of learning] passes away."

"And one who does not learn": is worse than one who does not add, Therefore he is liable for death; which is to say that it would be fitting that they kill him, as it is stated (Pesachim 49b), “It is permissible to tear apart an ignoramus like a fish – and from the back."

"And one uses the taga (crown)": One who makes use of the crown of Torah in the way a man uses his tools, passes and leaves the world. And there are those that explain taga to be the initials of talmid gavra acharina (the student of another man), as it is forbidden to take service from students that are not his students. And I have heard, "'And one uses the taga,' meaning to say one who makes use of [God's] explicit name passes and is lost, as he does not have a share in the world to come."

He [Hillel] used to say: If I am not for me, who will be for me? If I don't rebuke myself to be assiduous about the commandments, who is there to rebuke me and make me assiduous? Since the prompting of others is [only] good on a temporary basis. But when the person motivates himself each and every day, he increases to think of thoughts in order to do the work of God. And there is no forgetting before him, when his heart desires [it], and it is a straight path in front of a person.

He said, "If I myself will not be the one that arouses my soul to virtue, who will arouse me, as I have no one to stimulate me from outside," like we have elucidated in the second chapter (Eight Chapters 2). "And since it is in my power to incline my soul to any side that I want, what deed have I done from the good deeds." It is as if he is [questioning] himself and saying, "What am I?" [This is] to say, "What is [becoming of] me? I am not complete, even if I did this matter." And afterwards he went back and said, "If I do not acquire these traits now in the days of my youth, when will I acquire them? Not in the days of old age, as it is difficult to veer from [one's] characteristics at that time because the acquisitions and the traits have hardened and settled - whether they are virtues or whether they are vices." And the wise one said (Proverbs 22:6), "Educate a youth according to his way, and he will also not veer from it when he gets old."

”If I am not for myself”: If I do not merit for myself, who will merit for me?

Introduction This mishnah contains one of the most famous statements of Hillel. Its poetry and its succinct message still make this, in my mind, one of the most memorable of rabbinic sayings.

And when I am for myself alone, what am I? I still cannot reach one thousandth of what I am obligated to do. And they made a parable [about this]: To what is the thing similar? To a king that gave his field to his servants and agreed with them [that his portion would be] thirty kor. They toiled and they brought him five kor. The king said to them, "But didn't I agree with you that it be thirty kor?" They said to him, "Our master, the king, the field that you gave us was of low quality. We toiled greatly on it and we were not able to get out from it more than five kor." So did they say in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, "It is the evil impulse that you have given us from our youth, as it is stated (Genesis 8:21), 'the impulse of man’s heart is evil from his youth.' And even when a man toils greatly to do what is straight in the eyes of God, a man only accomplishes a small part of what he is obligated to do." And this is what is stated (Psalms 103:14), "For He knows our impulse; He is mindful that we are dust." Since were it not that He made the evil impulse [powerful] in man - even without his working hard and pursuing the commandments - he would do many of them. [It would be] like in a high quality field - even if they did not toil in the work of his land - something would come out of it. But now that he knows that even if he toils greatly, he will only attain a small amount because of the evil impulse that corrupts his body; [then] all the more so if he does not toil, his soul will remain empty of the commandments, like a poor quality field if one does not toil in it. And if he does not fertilize it and plow it, nothing will come out of it. And about this is it stated (Proverbs 24:30-31), "I passed by the field of a lazy man, by the vineyard of a man lacking sense. It was all overgrown with thorns; its surface was covered with chickweed, and its stone fence lay in ruins." And for this reason he made the motivation of others adjacent to the motivation of himself and said, " If I am not for me, who will be for me," but if I don't toil and motivate myself to pursue the commandments, I will stay devoid of them - since, even "when I am for myself" and toil in them, I only reach a small portion of the many portions and what do I reach (mah ani can mean both "what am I" and what do I) if I don't toil at all?

”And if I am for myself”: And even if have merited for myself, what is this merit and what is it worth compared to what it is that I am obligated to do?

He [also] used to say: If I am not for myself, who is for me? But if I am for my own self [only], what am I? And if not now, when? This first statement of Hillel’s is not a statement lauding selfishness, but rather a statement which places a person’s character and qualities squarely on his own two shoulders. A person must work in this world to acquire his own merits, for no one else can do this on his behalf. The second statement balances out the first. Although a person must be concerned for himself, his responsibilities do not end there. One who does only for himself does not contribute to his people and to the world. He is not important, for when he passes away, no one else will be effected. Finally, if a person puts off his responsibilities, when will he find time to carry them out. As we say in English, “now is as good a time as ever”.

And if not now, then when? Such that he not say, I will occupy myself with my work today and tomorrow I will turn to and occupy myself with self-improvement. Since maybe he will not turn to [it]. And even if he does turn to [it], that day went, left and he removed it from the work of God. And he will not be able to make it up all the days of his life, since he is obligated to improve himself and to be occupied by the commandment all of the days that he is living upon the [earth], and he does not have the right to avoid this work - not even for a moment. And there is also included in this expression, "If not now," in the days of my youth, "then when?" If I leave it until my old age and hoariness, I will not be able to do it. And about this matter, David, peace be upon him, stated (Psalms 144:12), "For our sons are like saplings, well-tended in their youth." He meant to say that when the sapling is small, a person can grow it to be a straight tree and not be crooked. However after it grows crooked, it is very difficult to fix. And so [too] when a person is still young, it is easy for him to be on a good path and to turn from evil, but when he grows old with his evil, it is difficult in his eyes to leave it, as it is written (Proverbs 22:6), "Teach a lad according to his way; also when he will grow old, he not swerve from it." And it is [also] written (Deuteronomy 20:19), "since a man is a tree of the field." And also because repentance in old age is not full repentance. Since at that time, the impulse is not strong and desire is benign and the soul does not enjoy - and he does not desire - sinful pleasures. And this is the reason for his repentance. And about this matter is it stated (Ecclesiastes 12:1), "And remember your Creator in the days of your youth, before those days of bad come and those years arrive of which you will say, 'I have no desire in them.'"

”And if not now": in this world.

”when?”: Since after death, it is impossible to merit any more. Another explanation: “If not now” in the days of youth, “when,” lest in the days of old age, I will not succeed.

[*KEEP YOUR TORAH FIXED. Rav: do not rule stringently for yourself and leniently for others or stringently for others and leniently for yourself. This runs counter to the opinion of the house of Rabban Gamliel, who were descendants of Hillel, as will be made clear later on. They used to rule stringently for themelves and leniently for others, as in the mishna in Beitzah, 2:6 and in Eduyot 10:3.]

Shammai says, "Make your Torah fixed": As they said in The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan 28:10, "Anyone who makes his Torah [study] primary and his work secondary is made primary in the world to come. And anyone that makes his Torah [study] secondary and his work primary will be made secondary in the world to come. This means to say, even though he did not do a sin, but he did not make Torah primary - even if he was (fit) to be in the Garden of Eden, he will be secondary there.

He said to make Torah study the center and the main thing and your other affairs secondary to it - whether they turn up or whether they not turn up, since there is no damage [from their] absence. And they said (Bava Metzia 87a), "The righteous say little and do much" - like our father, Avraham, who designated one loaf of bread and brought "curds and milk and a calf" (Genesis 18:8) and three seah of fine flour. "And evildoers say much and do not do even a little" - like Efron who gave everything [away] in his words, but in practice did not even leave one small coin from the [purchase price].

And [the explanation of Rabbi Bartenura] is not like the opinion of House of the father of Rabban Gamliel, who was from the House of Hillel, as per later. Since behold, they were strict, etc.

”Make your Torah fixed”: such that your main occupation during the day and the night be Torah [study] and when you are weary from study, do work. And not that your main occupation be work and when you are free from work, you involve yourself in Torah. And I have found it written, “'Make your Torah fixed' such that you are not strict on yourself and lenient on others or strict on others and lenient on yourself, but [rather] your Torah should be fixed, for yourself like for others. And so is it stated in Ezra 7:10, 'Since Ezra prepared his heart to expound the Torah of the Lord and to do [it] and to teach the Children of Israel; as he prepared his heart to do, so too did he teach the Children of Israel.'"

Introduction This mishnah contains Shammai’s teaching. Note that the mishnah contained several teachings of Hillel and only one of Shammai. This demonstrates how much more dominant Hillel and his school were in the world of the rabbis.

AND GREET. See Rav’s commentary to 3:12 and my commentary there.

"say little and do much": When you promise your friend to do something for him, tell him a little and do much for him, and that is in the way of ethics and piety. And we have learned [it] from our father Avraham, peace be upon him, as it is written (Genesis 18:5), "And let me fetch a morsel of bread"; and afterwards (Genesis 18:8), "And he took curds and milk and the calf, etc." Another explanation: "say little and do much" - and that is a lofty virtue. And our rabbis, may their memory be blessed, learned it from the blessed Holy One, blessed be He, who only promised with two letters, as it is stated (Genesis 15:14), "I will judge (dan, a word which is written with only two letters); and delivered them with twenty seven words, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 30:14), "Or has any god ventured to go and take for himself one nation from the midst of another, etc." And about this Rabbi Saadia Gaon, my his memory be blessed, said, "If in promising our fathers with two letters, he did for them many miracles and wonders; [with] the salvation in the future to come about which have been written many pages and many manuscripts and many books of promises and many consolations in Jeremiah in the Prophets, how much the more so will it be that His actions will be more wondrous than that which He promised - 'our soul knows this well.' And a person should know and consider the matter and to put into his heart that there will be a great reward for him because of the promises" (HaEmunot veHaDeot 8:1).

"a pleasant countenance": That is when he interacts with the creatures calmly and with pleasant and welcome words.

”say little and do much”: as we find by Avraham, our father, peace be upon him, who first said (Genesis 18), “and I will get a morsel of bread,” and in the end, “and he took a tender and good young cow."

Shammai used to say: make your [study of the] Torah a fixed practice; speak little, but do much; and receive all men with a pleasant countenance. Shammai had a reputation for being severe, perhaps even irritable. This is exemplified in the famous story of a non-Jew who came before him and asked him to teach him the whole Torah on one foot. Shammai promptly threw him out of the study hall, whereas Hillel eloquently told the non-Jew, “‘love your neighbor as yourself’, the rest is all commentary, go and learn.” Despite Shammai’s reputation, his teaching does not laud such qualities, but rather Shammai emphasizes that one should act pleasantly to others. Shammai’s first statement is that a person should make his Torah learning a fixed practice. In other words, he should not study only in his spare time, when he finds a free moment, but set aside fixed times to learn, and make them the focal point of his life. Another interpretation of this line is that when someone learns something new, he should make it a fixed part of his consciousness and not allow himself to forget what he has learned, so that he could teach it to others. The second statement is that one should speak little and do much. This is learned through the example set by Abraham, who told his guests that he would bring them “a morsel of bread” (Genesis 18:5). In the end, Abraham brought them much more than a morsel of bread; he brought them butter and milk and a calf which he had prepared (vs. 8). The third statement teaches that when one helps others he must do so cheerfully. Visiting the sick, giving charity to the poor, welcoming guests into one’s home and giving presents to friends must all be done with joy, for if he does so with a downcast face, his good deed will be spoiled.

"and receive every person with a pleasant countenance": That he show them a happy face, so that 'the spirit of creations find pleasure from him.' Another explanation: "and receive" - that he should distance himself from the trait of anger which is a very bad trait and conduct himself with the trait of good will, in such a way that people will be satisfied with him. [This is] proper and well-accepted. About this our sages, may their memory be blessed, said in the way of ethical teachings, "Do you want to be liked? Like that which you don't like." As a person cannot accomplish that the people of the world will like him if he does not forego his traits. And if he does not forego his wants for the sake of their wants, he must negate his will for the sake of the will of others. And with this, he will have many friends and guard himself from the injuries of people. As they will hate and seek to hurt one who shows them an angry face.

"and receive every person with a pleasant countenance": When you bring in guests to your home, do not give to them while 'your face is buried in the ground;' as anyone who gives and 'his face is buried in the ground' - even if he gave all of the gifts in the world - it is counted for him as if he did not give anything. Shammai gave three warnings, corresponding to three virtues that Yirmiyahu mentioned: wise, strong and wealthy. Corresponding to wise, he said, ”Make your Torah fixed;” corresponding to wealthy, he said, ”say little and do much;” and corresponding to strong, he said, "receive every person with a pleasant countenance" - that he should conquer his inclination [to do bad] and fight against his wicked heart. And we have learned, "Who is a mighty one? The one who conquers his inclination."

RABBAN GAMLIEL SAID. He was the grandson of Hillel, as the Talmud says in Shabbat 15a: Hillel, Simon, Gamliel, and Simon were the nesi’im for the last hundred years that the second temple stood. The commentators explain that the reason the mishna no longer introduces each tanna with the phrase “he received the tradition from so-and-so” is that starting from the students of Hillel and Shammai, numerous unresolved legal disputes arose in Israel, and the Torah became as two Torahs. It is therefore no longer possible to say they “received” the Torah, because the Torah of each sage could no longer be said to have been definite, received and transmitted as was the Torah of the earlier sages.
But I feel that for this reason alone the tanna would not have rejected the term “received,” for they did indeed receive the main foundations of Torah, where there was no disagreement whatsoever, as Rambam writes at length in the introduction to his commentary on the Mishna. And in point of fact the question is moot, because in 2:8 the mishna says “Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai received the tradition from Hillel and Shammai.”

Rabban Gamliel says, "Make for yourself a mentor, remove yourself from doubt": He means to say that he should take his colleague as his mentor - even though he is not more wise than he, and even if he has not even reached [the first one's] wisdom - in order that he remove himself from doubt. And in Talmud Yerushalmi Moed Katan 1:10, it states, "Go and bring me an elder from the marketplace and I will rely upon him and permit [it] to you." As there are times when a sage will be in doubt about a ruling and he will not know what to say: If he permits, maybe it is forbidden and a mishap will occur through him; and if he forbids what is permitted, it will come out that he will cause a loss of money to Israel, whereas the Torah is concerned about it. Therefore, he should make his colleague a mentor and ask him about his questions. And he will make the ruling upon his mouth, even if the matter is simple to him and even if it is a permissive ruling, even when he is not as great as he in wisdom. And thus did the Geonim say, "In anything where it is a doubt to one and clear to the other, the law is like the one to whom it is clear, even [if it is] a student before his mentor."

Rabban Gamliel says, "Make for yourself a mentor, remove yourself from doubt and do not frequently tithe by estimation." That which he commanded here to make a mentor is not regarding study, but rather legal decisions: place for yourself a mentor, that you can rely upon in the forbidden and the permissible, and you can remove yourself from doubt. [It is] as they say in Talmud Yerushalmi Moed Katan 1:10, "Go and bring me an elder from the marketplace and I will rely upon him and permit [it] to you." And so [too] did he command to flee from putting out tithes by estimation, because it is from the doubts.

Rabban Gamliel: And he was the grandson of Hillel. And therefore was there no expression of receiving written from here on – since disagreement increased in Israel from the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel, etc. [and the Torah] was not defined and received and transmitted as it was with the earlier ones. So did the commentators explain. And this is not indisputable, as in Chapter 2, Mishnah 8, we learned, “Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai received, etc... from Hillel and Shammai, etc."

”Make for yourself a mentor:”: It is now speaking concerning the matter of jurisdiction. If a case comes in front of you and you are in doubt about it, make for yourself a mentor, and remove yourself from doubt. And do not decide upon it by yourself; as it was with Rava: when a possibly unfit animal was brought to him, he would gather all of the slaughterers of Mata Machsia – he would say, “So that we will [all only] receive a chip of the beam."

Introduction After completing the teachings of the “pairs” Mishnah Avoth turns to the teachings of the patriarchs, the leaders of the Jewish people who were from the family of Hillel. Rabban Gamaliel of our mishnah is Rabban Gamaliel the elder, who was the grandson of Hillel. He was the patriarch during the final years of the Second Temple. He is also the first who is called by the title “Rabban” a title reserved (with one exception) for the patriarchs from Hillel’s family. Another interesting thing to note is that almost all of the remainder of Avoth does not use the terminology “received from him/them”. While this change in terminology in the mishnah is certainly significant, it is hard to know exactly what the significance is. One thing is clear: Rabban Gamaliel, the first person to be called Rabban, and the first person in Avoth not to “receive”, opens a new era in the history of the Oral Torah.

AND DO NOT FREQUENTLY TAKE OFF MA`ASER BY ESTIMATE. Rav writes: because when one takes off ma`aser by estimating, he cannot escape wrongdoing. If he takes off less than he should, then his ma`aser is valid but the rest of the produce is unfit, and if he takes off more than he should, the rest of his produce is fine but the ma`aser is unfit. Rambam explains in Hilchot Ma`aser 1:14 that the ma`aser is unfit because it is mixed with tevel. So also Rashi in his commentary to the second chapter of tractate Kiddushin, on page 51a (s.v. hamarbeh). And in his commentary to the fourth chapter of tractate Eruvin, on page 50a (s.v. perotav), he adds “unlike terumah, which has no set amount.” See also Rav's commentary to the mishna in Terumot 4:6.
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan the Pious: it seems odd that the mishna does not simply say “do not take off ma`aser by estimate” and entirely forbid taking of ma`aser without a proper measure. I say, then, that the mishna means that even one who wishes to take off more than the required amount shouldn’t do so because he might err in his estimate.⁴⁵Midrash Shmuel (and Tosafot mentioned after) will then read the verb in the mishna, al tarbeh, as “do not take off more,” as opposed to “do not frequently take off,” which has been the meaning assumed until this point. And Tosafot in their commentary to Gittin 31a (s.v. nitelet) conclude that the mishna only forbids intentionally taking off more than the required amount, based on the mishna in Terumot 4:6: he who takes off by weight is more praiseworthy than the three of them, which implies that there are three legitimate ways to take off ma`aser, one of which must be by estimate.<sup>46</sup>The mishna there only lists two other ways: by count and by measure. Tosafot conclude that there must be a third way that was not mentioned, which they say is by estimate. So also Rav in his commentary there: we see that even the Sages did not forbid taking off by estimate when one doesn’t intentionally take off more. But according to Rambam, as I mentioned earlier, it would be forbidden even without this intention, and Rash in his commentary on Terumot agrees.
The Maharal in his Derech Chaim explains the mishna as following the opinion of Abba Eliezer ben Gomel, who holds that even terumat ma`aser, which has a set amount, may be taken off by estimate; he would certainly say the same about ma`aser [and the Talmud in fact says as much in Bechorot 59a, as Rav notes in his commentary to Bechorot 9:7]. For this reason the mishna says “do not frequently etc.”, which is to say even though the Torah allows taking off ma`aser by estimate, do not do so often, in order to save yourself from doubt. And the word ma`asarot in the mishna does not exclude terumat ma`aser, because ma`asarot here is a general name for all types of priestly gifts taken from the produce of the earth, as I have shown from the Jerusalem Talmud in my commentary to Ma`asarot 2:4. See also my comments on Demai 4:1.
But I see that Rash writes in his commentary to Terumot 1:7 that it seems that Abba Eliezer ben Gomel does not hold of the injunction “do not often take off ma`aser by estimate,” and this is the opinion of Tosafot on the abovementoined passages in Gittin and Bechorot.

"and do not frequently tithe by estimation": That he not tithe his fruits by estimation. If he wants to tithe what he has measured out generously [to be] more than the tenth, it comes out that [that which is beyond the tenth] is [still] tevel (a forbidden mixture that requires separation to render it permissible) that is not tithed until he puts his eyes to it to tithe it, and it comes out that there is a corruption of this tithe. And this matter is a metaphor for the matter of reasoning, in which a person should not do it by estimation, but rather in the way of principles and to come to full knowledge. And this is not the case with all reasonings. As there is one that is nuanced and the sage - even though his reasoning leans to the side that he understands - recognizes that another sage can [see] it in a different way. It is just that [his way] looks more [correct] in his eyes. And there is [another] reasoning that a sage innovates and recognizes and knows that it is logically correct and necessary, has no other angles and that no other sage would disagree. And the one who understands will understand [this]. And for this [reason] was this matter made adjacent to [the teaching], "Make for yourself a mentor, remove yourself from doubt" - as [the two teachings] are [based on] almost the same rationale.

Since untithed produce is mixed in with them - [Rambam] and Rashi. And the pious Rabbi Y. Ibn Shoshan wondered why he did not completely forbid to tithe except by measuring: "And let it say, 'Do not tithe by estimation.' What is [meant by] 'do not frequently (literally, increase)?' And therefore I say that the intention is that even if you intend to increase the tithes and to give more than the measure [it it forbidden], lest you err in your estimate." And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"and do not frequently tithe by estimation": as the one who separates his tithes by estimation is not spared from disarray: if he reduces from what needs to be given, his tithes are made adequate but his fruit are disarrayed; if he adds upon what is fitting to give, his fruits are rendered adequate and his tithes are disarrayed.

Rabban Gamaliel used to say: appoint for thyself a teacher, avoid doubt, and do not make a habit of tithing by guesswork. The first statement of Rabban Gamaliel is the same statement taught by Rabbi Joshua ben Perahiah, in mishnah six. “Avoid doubt” means that if a person should be confronted by a doubtful halachic case, for instance he doesn’t know whether something is pure or impure, he should not decide for himself, but rather he should ask a higher authority, a rabbi whose knowledge is greater. For if the person says that something is impure and it was really pure, he will cause a financial loss to the owner. And if he says it was pure and it was really impure, he will cause someone to transgress. Note how this statement connects to the previous one. In order to avoid doubt a person must have a teacher. Before one eats his produce he must give two tithes. The first tithe goes to the Levite and the second tithe must either be consumed in Jerusalem (during the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th years of a Sabbatical cycle) or be given to the poor (during the 3rd and 6th years). Rabban Gamaliel teaches that one should not tithe by estimate, but rather should make sure that his tithes are precise. This also connects with the previous statement, that one should avoid doubt. If one tithes by estimate, his food is considered “doubtfully tithed produce”, which is forbidden. This final statement is also understood by commentators as meaning that a person should not make any halachic decisions by guesswork. Rather he should carefully check his sources to make sure that his decision is not only reasonable, but correct.

SHIMON, HIS SON. He was one of those martyred by Rome. The Talmud says in Keritot 8a: Once, the price of a pair of birds brought as sacrifices went up to a gold dinar in Jerusalem. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, “By this dwelling! I will not go to sleep for the night until the price is in silver dinars!” The Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel of the passage in Keritot cannot be the one mentioned at the end of this chapter in mishna 18, because that one did not live when the temple stood, and the chain of nesi’im in the first chapter of Shabbat⁴⁷See the beginning of the commentary to mishna 16. ends at the second Shimon⁴⁸The chain there is Hillel, Hillel’s son Shimon, Shimon’s son Gamliel, Gamliel’s son Shimon. Mishna 16 started with Gamliel, Hillel’s grandson; Hillel’s son, Shimon, evidently receives no mention in Pirkei Avot. Mishna 17, which continues in chronological order, must then be referring to Gamliel’s son Shimon, who was the second Shimon mentioned in the chain of nesi’im who lived while the second temple stood. Mishna 18, which mentions a different Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, must thus be referring to a third Shimon, who was presumably the second Shimon’s grandson, and cannot have been nasi when the temple stood. As such, he cannot be identified with the Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the first chapter of Keritot, because it is evident from the incident quoted there that the Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel of Keritot indeed lived when the temple stood. The Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel of Keritot must then have been the second Shimon in the chain mentioned in Shabbat 15a, who is the Shimon of our mishna. . He must therefore be the Shimon of our mishna.⁴⁹Tosafot Yom Tov now answers the implied question: why, then, does the mishna here refer to him simply as Shimon while the Talmud in Keritot calls him Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? Perhaps he promulgated this dictum before he rose to such prominence as to be called Rabban,⁵⁰“Our master,” reserved for the greatest scholars. as in the case of “ben Zakkai” in the mishna in Sanhedrin 5:2.⁵¹The Talmud there, Sanhedrin 41a-b, notes that “ben Zakkai” is none other than Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, who authored the teaching in question in his younger years, when he was still a student known as “ben Zakkai.” The text of the teaching entered the tradition immediately and its form remained unchanged, hence the name “ben Zakkai.” Although I saw a different explanation in the book Asarah Ma`amarot, I have written what seems best to me.

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

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

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

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

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

BETTER THAN SILENCE. This is the version quoted in Midrash Shmuel. He quotes an alternate version, “I have found nothing good for the body other than silence.” So also Maharal in Derech Chaim.

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

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

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

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

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

NOT STUDY. Rav: as a proof that the best thing for the body is silence, note that even expounding and speaking of Torah, which is the best type of speech, is not the main source of reward—action is. For if this phrase were not being brought as a proof to the earlier phrase, it would have been better to place “and whoever speaks much etc.” immediately after “I have not found anything better for the body than silence,” as the former naturally leads in to the latter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RABBAN SHIMON BEN GAMLIEL. He was the grandson of the Shimon mentioned in the previous mishna, and the father of Rabbi⁵²Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi., also known as Rabbenu HaKadosh, in the first mishna of the second chapter.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, "On three things the world subsists: on judgment": That he should judge a truthful judgment.

Judgement is the administration of a country with fairness. And we have already explained in the fourth chapter that truth is the intellectual virtues and that peace is the virtues of character. And when these three are found, existence will be as perfect as is possible, without a doubt.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: He is the grandson of Shimon who is mentioned in the previous mishnah. And this is the father of Rebbi, who is [known as] our holy rabbi, and with him does the second chapter begin.

"The world stands": [Meaning] the settlement of people is preserved. And this is not like "the world stands" of above.

Introduction Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel in this mishnah is not the same Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel that we saw in the previous mishnah, but rather his grandson, the son of Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh. He was the patriarch after the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 C.E.). He lived in the Gallilee, which became the center of Judaism after the revolt. Many of his statements appear in the mishnah. He was the father of Rabbi Judah Hanasi, who edited the Mishnah..

THE WORLD STANDS. Rav: human civilization continues to exist. With this Rav anticipates the question one might raise from mishna 2, which mentions three other things upon which the world stands. Now although Rav there says that the three things in mishna 2 are the ones for whose sake the world was created, and one might attempt distinguish between the things necessary for creation to have occurred, and the things that that keep the world in existence after the fact, the distinction is illusory. For whatever is important enough for the world to have been created ex nihilo is a fortiori important enough for its continued existence. Rav therefore writes on our mishna that these things are necessary for maintaining civlization, not the continued existence of the world. Torah, the sacrificial worship, and acts of kindness can be done by small numbers of people even in the absence of a proper civilization due to a lack of law, truth, and peace. For the remaining few precious to G-d are sufficient for the three pillars mentioned by Shimon the Righteous in mishna 2. You should not find this strange, as the Talmud says (Berachot 17b): the world was only created for Chanina my son, and (Berachot 6a): the world was only created to keep this one company, in expounding the verse “for this is the entirety of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13). See my commentary to the end of the mishna in Sotah 3:4.

"on truth": As a person should walk in the paths of repentance - as He is true and His Torah is true - and walk in the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He, of truth. And he should also go in that path, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 28:9), "and you shall go in His ways." And the sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 63a) that even in the recounting of mundane words should a person not lie, like that story of Rav's son, etc.: [Rav] said to him, "Your mother has improved." He said [back] to him, "It is I that reversed [your words to bring about the change]." He said, "This is as people say, 'The one that comes from you will teach you reason.' But you should not do this because of that which is stated (Jeremiah 9:4), 'they taught their mouths to speak words of falsehood.'" For a person who accustoms his tongue to speak falsehood about a matter that has neither a loss nor gain will - when he comes to speak matters of principle - also not be able to speak the truth; as it is his mouth that will speak and habit rules over it.

As the preservation of the world would be able to continue through the three things for the sake of which it was created. As what was not [in existence, came to existence for their sake] - all the more so, what was [in existence, should exist] for their sake. Since acts of lovingkindness can also exist through the precious few through which the world is preserved. And [it is] as it is written (Berakhot 17), "The world was only created for the sake of Chanina, My son." And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"on judgment": [Meaning] to render innocent the innocent and guilty the guilty.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel used to say: on three things does the world stand: On justice, on truth and on peace, as it is said: “execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates” (Zechariah 8:16). Note how close this mishnah is in style to mishnah two in the beginning of the chapter. This is surely not accidental. The editor of the mishnah chose to begin and end a unit with similar language and style, perhaps to aid in memory. This type of literary structure is not unusual in the mishnah. However, there may be some differences between the two mishnayoth. Some versions of our mishnah read “does the world exist” and not “stand”. The Meiri comments that the difference is that in mishnah two, Shimon the Righteous, taught three things without which the world would crumble: the Torah, the Temple service, and the practice of acts of piety. Our mishnah teaches things without which the world could stand but the political/societal structure would fall apart. Without justice, truth and peace, the world be anarchical, full of danger. Justice: the Rabbis also stated that any judge who judges correctly is a partner with God in creation. Creating a just world is one of the responsibilities of all human beings, Jew and non-Jew alike. Truth: Some commentators understand this as speaking truthfully to one’s fellow human being. Others understand this as a recognition of God. Peace: Without peace, even if a person has personal wealth and all of the material things he needs, he will not be able to enjoy them, for war will tear apart his life. Proper Torah study is also impossible to fulfill in times of strife and war. This statement can also be understood as peace between the people of Israel, as was learned in mishnah twelve. The Palestinian Talmud comments that these are all actually connected. If there is justice, there will be truth and if there are truth and justice there will be peace. That is why all three are learned from one verse.

THE WORLD STANDS. An alternate version, which Maharal in Derech Chaim considers the correct one, reads “continues to exist.”

and on peace": Peace includes all good things in the world, and there is no end to its benefits. And [may there be] peace upon Israel.

"as it is said": And above [this verse] is written, "When I contemplated to do bad to you, etc... so I repented, contemplated in these days to do good unto Jerusalem and to the house of Yehuda; do not fear. These are the things that you shall do, etc." And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"and on truth": [Meaning] that a man should not lie to his fellow.

AS PER THE VERSE, “RULE WITH TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND PEACE IN YOUR GATES.” Zecharia, 8:16. The verse immediately preceding this is, “Just as I planned to bring evil upon you… so have I gone and planned in these days to do good unto Jerusalem and the House of Judah. Fear not! These are the things that you should do…”⁵³The implication is that these are the things that you should do to receive G-d’s promise of good, i.e. peace and prosperity, the fruits of well-functioning civilization.
Rashi here writes: “Rule in your gates” is adjacent to “perhaps the Lord of Hosts will act towards us with grace.” So also Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rashbam. But these two verses are nowhere near one another, for “perhaps…” is in Amos 5:16: “Despise evil and love good, and establish justice at the gate, perhaps…”
Rashi also mentions that he saw a Tiberian edition of the Mishna in which no verse appears in our mishna.

"and on peace": [Meaning] between governments and between a man and his fellow.