Commento su Pirkei Avoth 4:11

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

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

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

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

"Defender": A good interceding angel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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