Comentário sobre Pirkei Avot 5:26

THE WORLD WAS CREATED THROUGH TEN UTTERANCES. WHAT DOES THIS TEACH US? COULDN’T IT HAVE BEEN CREATED WITH ONE? RATHER, ETC. The meaning is as follows. “What does this—the world being created through ten utterances—teach us,” i.e. what lesson can be drawn from this? This is not a question concerning the creation itself, as in “why was the world created through ten utterances?” The mishna simply means that we should extract some lesson from creation having happened through ten utterances instead of one; it does not mean that the world was created through ten utterances so that the wicked could be punished, etc., for it does not accord with His goodness to do something extra specifically to punish. Maharal explains it thus in Derech Chaim.

With ten utterances the world was created. And what is learned: "And He said" is written nine times from "In the beginning" (Genesis 1:1) to "And completed" (Genesis 2:1). And "In the beginning" is also an utterance, as it is stated (Psalms 33:6), "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made" - as it is impossible that the heavens and the earth were created without an utterance.

With ten utterances: When you observe everything that comes in the story of creation, you will find, "and He said," nine times. And "In the beginning" is the tenth [utterance]. And even though the word, "and He said," does not elucidate this, the content indicates it. And it as if it said, "And God said, 'Let there be the heavens and the earth.'" As they could not have been without an utterance. And He could have spoken the entire creation with one utterance by saying, "And God said, 'Let there be the heavens and the earth and let there be the firmament and let the waters gather, etc.'" Instead, He designated a [separate] utterance for each matter, to make known the greatness of this existence and the goodness of its order; and that one who destroys it destroys something great and that one who refines it refines something great. He means to say that the one who destroys his soul - which is in his hand to refine or to destroy - destroys [the world]; since it is as if he is the final purpose from all of existence, for which He said ten utterances - as we elucidated in the introduction of this essay of ours.

And what is learned, etc: And this is its explanation: and what is learned from this that it was created in ten utterances, which is to say, "What lesson comes out from this?" And it is not a question on the creation itself - why was it with ten utterances. But rather it means to say that there is a nice ethical teaching that we can learn from the creation being in ten utterances, as could He have not created it in one utterance, etc? And it comes out to us from that which He created it in ten, that it is to punish, etc. But it is not that the intention of creation in ten utterances was for this - to punish, etc - as this is not from His trait of goodness, may He be blessed, to do an extra act in order to punish, etc. - Derekh Chaim.

With ten utterances: Nine [times in the creation story does it state] "and He said"; and "In the beginning" is also an utterance, as it is written (Psalms 33:6), "With the word of the Lord were the heavens made."

Introduction All of the mishnayoth in chapter five are taught anonymously. The chapter begins with mishnayoth that revolve around the numbers 10, 7, and 4.

THE WORLD WAS CREATED. “Could have been created, etc.” The mishna’s choice of the passive voice over “[G-d] created the world” or “[G-d] could have created” in the active voice is a wonderfully subtle way of indicating that the world was created out of total nothingness, as opposed to the opinion that maintains there exists an eternal prime matter.¹⁹⁴An opinion popularly attributed to Aristotle. For if we believe in creation completely ex nihilo we can properly say that, in and of itself, something “could have been created” in any way, for since there previously was complete nothingness, nothing prevented the world from being created through one utterance the same way it was created through ten. But if there existed some prime matter we cannot say with such certainty that the world could have been created with one utterance out of the prime matter, for perhaps the nature of the matter would not have allowed creation through one utterance.

And what is learned - couldn't it have been created by one utterance?: It wants to say, what is this teaching us, when it says, "With ten utterances the world was created?" Or the explanation is "what is learned" in creating it with ten utterances.

have been created: And we do not learn, "He created the world...and He could have created." And it appears in my eyes that he expressed through this the teaching that the creation was ex nihilo, from total nothingness, and not like the thought of the one that thinks there was primordial matter. As if we believe in total nothingness, this statement is justified in saying that it could have been created [in one utterance] - which is [referring to] that which was created - as since it was total nothingness and void, there was nothing preventing it from being created in one utterance or in ten utterances. But if there had been primordial matter, he would not be justified in simply saying that it could have been created [in one utterance, with reference to] the matter, as lest the nature of that matter not [be able to] accept the creation through [only] one utterance.

who destroy the world: Since 'anyone that destroys one soul of Israel is as if they destroyed an entire world,' and [since] the wicked destroy their souls because of their sins, it is as if they destroy the world. So have I found. And it appears to me that they literally destroy the world, as they tip the scales of the whole world towards guilt, and it comes out that the world is destroyed on their account.

With ten utterances the world was created. And what does this teach, for surely it could have been created with one utterance? But this was so in order to punish the wicked who destroy the world that was created with ten utterances, And to give a good reward to the righteous who maintain the world that was created with ten utterances. In the first chapter of Genesis the phrase “and God said” appears nine times. If you add to this the first three words of the Torah, which are also considered an “utterance”, you get to the number ten, which is considered a number of completion. God could have created the world with one utterance, but He took more effort in His creation in order to teach human beings their awesome responsibility in being stewards over the world. The wicked who ruin the world are ruining something that took God ten utterances to create and therefore there crime is greater. The opposite is true for the righteous, who preserve the “ten-utterance” world, and are therefore greatly rewarded for their actions. The ways that the wicked destroy the world and the righteous preserve the world can be understood on several levels. One explanation is that this refers to religious or moral wickedness or righteousness. When the wicked corrupt the world, they bring ruin on our great world, and when the righteous act morally and with piety, they preserve our world, which took a full ten utterances to create. On another level it may be taken environmentally. The world was not created with great ease and therefore those who destroy it, are destroying a carefully crafted structure. Those who physically take care of the world, are preserving this incredibly complicated world which God gave over to humanity.

TO GIVE GOOD REWARD. My comments on the mishna in 2:1 address the use of the verb “to give” regarding wages or reward.

Rather, [it is] in order to punish the wicked who destroy with their actions the world which is a big thing - as it was created with ten utterances: And the trait of strict justice will punish them accordingly in the future.

that was created with ten utterances: And one who destroys work that was done in one day is not similar to one who destroys work that was done in many days.

and to give reward to the righteous who sustain the world that was created with ten utterances: As the world was only created to do in it that which is 'straight in the eyes of the Lord.' And [hence] those that do so, preserve it.

TEN GENERATIONS FROM ADAM TO NOAH, TO MAKE KNOWN ETC. I.e., this fact of ten generations tells us how patient G-d is—Maharal in Derech Chaim.

There were ten generations from Adam to Noah, to demonstrate the great extent of [God's] patience, for each one of those generations provoked [God] continually until [God] brought the waters of the flood upon them: And it comes to teach us that [just] like you see that in the generations between the first man (Adam) and Noah, all of them provoked Him with the action of their hands to cause bad to themselves - and while He had great patience with all of those generations - in the end, He brought the waters of the flood upon them, as He is not greatly patient forever; so should you think about our exile. And that you not say, "How many days and years is it that He restrains His anger from upon [the evil] kingdom while we are in exile - He will have great patience towards them forever, as He is of great patience." And you should surely know that in the end, He will pay them back according to their activities and the action of their hands; and He will redeem us and save us. As [even though] His patience is very great; still in the end of days, He visits 'the first iniquities [upon them,] and may You quickly bring forward Your mercies, as we have become very poor.'

These generations are the words of the Torah, "x begot y," according to its order. And it mentioned this and that which is after it because of its mentioning [the] ten utterances, which has reproach in them for man; to arouse him and to refine his soul with the dispositional virtues and the intellectual virtues, which is the intention of this tractate.

There were ten generations from Adam to Noah, etc.: which is to say that this thing that there were ten generation, it is informing us how patient God is, may He be blessed - Derekh Chaim.

To demonstrate the great extent of [God's] patience: You too should not be surprised that he has been patient with the nations of the world all of these years that they are subjugating His childeren, since He was more patient with the generations from Adam to Noah. And afterwards, they were washed away [with the flood].

Introduction Mishnah two continues to provides things that came in ten in the Bible and that teach lessons about God. This mishnah contains a highly schematic version of history. In other words, history and its length are divided into equal periods and in those equal periods we can detect God’s directing hand at work. This type of learning from history and from its division into equal periods was extremely prevalent in ancient Judaism both amongst the rabbis and amongst other sects of Jews.

TO MAKE KNOWN HOW PATIENT ETC. Rav: accordingly, you should not wonder that G-d has had such patience with the nations of the world for all these years that they have enslaved His children, for he had greater patience with the generations from Adam to Noah and they were subsequently drowned. For the flood happened 1656 years after creation and the Temple was destroyed 3828 years after creation. Make the calculation, and wait for Him, for He will not delay.¹⁹⁵3828 + 1656 = 5484, which is the year 1724. Tosafot Yom Tov printed the first edition of his commentary between 1614-1617, the second edition in 1645, and died in 1654. Midrash Shmuel explains in the name of Rabbenu Yonah that this tells us that just as G-d eventually gave them their just desserts and brought the flood upon them, so also the day is coming when He will repay them for their deeds and will save and redeem us, may it come speedily in our days, Amen.

There were ten generations from Noah to Abraham: And our rabbis said (Bereshit Rabbah 30:8), "When Noah died, our father, Avraham was fifty-eight years [old]." Still, when you count the children you will find ten generations among them. As even if Noah had length of days, it is [still] considered ten generations.

There were ten generations from Noah to Abraham: [This is] not similar to "from Adam to Noah," since Adam and Noah are included in [those] ten. But here, Noah is not included; but rather since it ended with Noah [in the first group], it went back and started [the second group] with him.

and received the reward of them all: He did good deeds corresponding to what was fitting for all of them to do, hence they were all saved in his merit. And just like he took upon himself the yoke of the commandments in this world corresponding to all of them, so did receive reward in the world to come corresponding to all of them. As each person has two portions, one in the Garden of Eden and one in gehinnom - if he merits, he takes his portion and the portion of his fellow in the Garden of Eden; if he is guilty, he takes his portion and the portion of his fellow in gehinnom. (Chagigah 15b)

[There were] ten generations from Adam to Noah, in order to make known what long-suffering is His; for all those generations kept on provoking Him, until He brought upon them the waters of the flood. Although all of the generations between Adam and Noah were evil, God did not destroy them immediately. He put up with their provocation until the tenth generation, when He decided to destroy the world with a flood. In God’s long-suffering we can learn a lesson of patience and forgiveness. Even though in the end God did decide to destroy the world, He did not do so immediately, but gave the world a chance to repent. We also, by the way, learn that God will not tolerate provocation forever; He will eventually bring judgment. Jewish commentators in the Middle Ages found in this comfort, for they lived under terrible oppression at the hands of the Muslims and especially the Christians. A Jew should not despair, for God will eventually punish them for their evil acts.

TEN GENERATIONS FROM NOAH TO ABRAHAM. The second “from” is not the same as the first. In the first count both Adam and Noah were included in the ten, while in the second count Noah is not included. Since the first list concluded with him the mishna mentioned him again as the beginning of the second.

to demonstrate the extent of [God's] patience, for each one of those generations provoked [God] continually, until Abraham came: And here they did not say, "until He punished them" - as our father, Avraham, made up for all of their shortcomings and did good corresponding to all of their bad, and [so] he saved them from punishment. However, Noah was not able to save them, because he was not righteous enough to make up for their shortcomings.

to demonstrate the extent of [God's] patience, etc.: And with this he demonstrates something greater than the previous: that the Holy One, blessed be He, is patient and does not collect what is His with destruction and complete extermination, as [He did] in the generation of the flood. And it appears to me that this is [the reason] that it is written, erekh apayim (patient, literally, of long angers) and not erekh af (of long anger), as there are two angers: one that is actualized and, in the end, destroys everything; and one that is not actualized into rapid and overwhelming extermination, as a righteous one controls [it] with the fear of God.

[There were] ten generations from Noah to Abraham, in order to make known what long-suffering is His; for all those generations kept on provoking Him, until Abraham, came and received the reward of all of them. This section is a little more difficult to explain, for what does the phrase, “Abraham came and received the reward of all of them” mean. Rashi explains that Abraham received the reward that they would have received had they repented. Others explain that based upon the merit of Abraham God did not destroy again the whole world. Abraham taught them that repentance was possible and therefore God did not destroy the world. A third explanation is that Abraham received the reward that they all would have received had they learned from him the principles of monotheism.

TO MAKE KNOWN HOW MUCH PATIENCE ETC. This tells us of even greater patience than the first set of ten, for in this case G-d was patient and did not even collect what was owed Him through complete destruction as He did in the generation of the flood. This might be why the mishna uses the Hebrew phrase erech apaim, lit. “length of noses”, instead of erech af, “length of nose”. For there are two types of wrath: 0ne is actualized and destroys everything, while the other is never actualized through a flood of utter destruction, for “the righteous man rules through his fear of G-d.”¹⁹⁶The verse in 2 Samuel 23:3 reads: “...a righteous ruler over men, one who rules with fear of G-d”. The Talmud in Moed Kattan 16b midrashically reads this verse as saying that even when G-d decrees something, the righteous person can overturn the decree.

and received the reward of them all: And even though there is a portion in the Garden of Eden and a portion in Gehinnom for every person - if he merits [it], he takes his portion in the Garden of Eden; and if he is guilty in his judgement, he takes it in Gehinnom - nonetheless, since everyone is commanded to do good and this one does not do [it] and his fellow fulfills his commands and his own commands; the trait of justice would indicate that he should take his portion and the portion of his fellow in the Garden of Eden. And for this [reason] did our father, Avraham take the reward of all of them. And this is what is stated (Psalms 119:126), "It is a time to act for the Lord, for they have violated Your Torah" - if you see a generation that is negligent from [study] of the Torah, be involved in it (Berakhot 63a). And the simple meaning of the verse is "It is a time to act for the sake of the Lord." And similar to it is (Genesis 20:13), "say for me, 'He is my brother'" - [which is] like "for my sake." "They have violated your Torah" - since they are all violating Your Torah, I should do for the sake of the Lord more than in other generations, so that Torah is not, God forbid, forgotten in Israel. There is a parable [relevant to this] about a king whom all of his servants betrayed except for one. Does [that servant] not need to go with him truthfully and with a whole heart at that time more than other times? And so all of his days the king will love him with a great love and increase his gift [to be] equal to the gifts of all of them [together].

OUR FATHER ABRAHAM. We merit and receive goodness in his merit, for he withstood all of the trials. This is why the tanna calls him “our father” here.

With ten tests Abraham, our father, was tested - and he withstood them all: The first was 'Ur (which besides being a place name can also mean fire) Kasdim' - that Nimrod dropped him down into the fiery furnace and he was saved. And this is not explicit in the Torah and it is from the words of tradition. But we have a hint about this thing from the Torah; that before Parshat Lech Lecha Meartsekha ouMemoladetekha, Ur Kasdim is mentioned twice above [it], to make known that it was because of that test that he withstood that God, may He be blessed, promised him and brought him to the land [of Israel. This is] like we find with Noah. As at the beginning it is written (Genesis 6:8), "But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord," and afterwards in Parshat Eleh Toledot Noach that he was saved from the waters of the flood - [which indicates that it was] because he found favor in his eyes. And the second is that He commanded him to go out from his land and from his birthplace, and he did so. And the third is that is stated (Genesis 12:10), "And there was a famine in the land." And even though the Holy One, blessed be He, promised him and said to him (Genesis 12:3), "And all the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you”; when He brought the famine, he did not question His traits. The fourth is the taking of Sarah to Pharaoh. The fifth is the war of the four kings when he deployed [only] three hundred and eighteen men and trusted in the Holy One, blessed be He; and a miracle was done for him that he was saved and he saved his brothers and all of the property of Sedom and Ammorah. And he endured the events [accepting that it was] for his good and for his merit. The sixth is that he was ninety-nine when he circumcised the flesh of his foreskin [and] placed himself in danger due to his old age, and he was saved. The seventh is the taking of Sarah to Avimelekh. The eighth is when he sent Hagar and Yishmael away by the commandment of God. And [even] if 'the thing was bad in his eyes on account of his son,' he fulfilled the commandment. The ninth was the binding of Yitzchak his son, about which it is written (Genesis 22:12), "For now I know that you fear God.” And did He not know until now - and is not everything revealed and seen in front of Him? Rather when the thing is known to the creatures, the Holy One, blessed be He, calls it, "For now I know that you fear God." And it comes to inform us that [this showed] greater fear of Heaven than all of the other commandments in the Torah. Since with all the tests except for this, He did not say to him "that you fear God" - as this test was the greatest of all of them, since he took his son to bring him up as a sacrifice. The tenth was the burial of Sarah. As it was stated to him (Genesis 13:17), "Get up, walk about the land, through its length and its breadth, for I give it to you”; but when his wife died, he could not find a place to bury her until he bought it - and he did not question.

The ten tests with which Abraham, our father, was tested are all [in] the words of Scripture. The first is his emigration by His statement, may He be blessed - "Go forth from your land, etc." (Genesis 12:1). And the second one is the famine that was found in the Land of Canaan when he came there and it was [the land of] his destiny - "and I will make you into a great nation" (Genesis 12:2). And this was a great test, and it is its saying, "And there was a famine in the land" (Genesis 12:10). And the third was the injustice of the Egyptians towards him in the taking of Sarah to Pharaoh. The fourth is his fighting against the four kings. The fifth is his taking of Hagar as a wife after he despaired of giving birth through Sarah. The sixth is the circumcision that he was commanded about in the days of his old age. The seventh is the injustice of the king of Gerar towards him in his also taking Sarah. The eighth is the expulsion of Hagar after his being built (having a child) from her. The ninth is the distancing of his son, Yishmael, and that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "Let not it be bad in your eyes about the youth, etc." (Genesis 21:12). And Scripture already testified how this thing was difficult in his eyes, in its stating, "And the thing was very bad in the eyes of Abraham" (Genesis 21:11). Yet he observed the commandment of God, may He be blessed, and expelled him. And the tenth is the binding of Yitzchak.

Our father: Since we merit and receive good in the merit of this one who withstood all of his tests, therefore the teacher [of this mishnah] called him "our father" here. [So does it] appear to me.

Ten tests: One - Ur Kasdim, when Nimrod cast him into the fiery furnace; the second - "'Go out from your land'" (Genesis 12:1); the third - "and there was a famine" (Genesis 12:10); the fourth - "and the woman was taken to the house of Pharaoh" (Genesis 12:15); the fifth - the war of the kings; the sixth - the stand between the pieces, where he was shown the subjugation of [his descendants by] the nations; the seventh - the circumcision; the eighth - "and Avimelekh sent... and he took Sarah" (Genesis 20:2); the ninth - "'Expel this maidservant and her son'" (Genesis 21:10); the tenth - the binding [of Isaac].

With ten trials was Abraham, our father (may he rest in peace), tried, and he withstood them all; to make known how great was the love of Abraham, our father (peace be upon him). The ten trials which Abraham withstood can be counted in several different ways. One count is as follows: twice when ordered to move (Gen. 12:1 ff., 12:10), twice in connection with his two sons (21:10, 22:1 ff.), twice in connection with his two wives (12:11 ff., 21:10), once on the occasion of his war with the kings (14:13 ff.), once at the covenant between the pieces (14:13 ff.), once in Ur of the Chaldees, when he was thrown into a fire furnace by Nimrod (this one is not in the Bible but appears in a midrash), and once at the covenant of circumcision (17:9 ff.). Some commentators point out the connection between Abraham’s trials and the ten utterances with which the world was created. Abraham was tried with ten trials and withstood them all, thereby proving that he was worthy of sustaining the world which was created by ten utterances. A scholar of midrash and ancient Jewish literature named James Kugel (Harvard University) has shown in his book, The Bible as It Was, that the idea that Abraham was tested was an ancient idea, common to many ancient Biblical commentators. Indeed Abraham’s life does seem to have been full of trials; he is told to leave his homeland, he faces famine, war, troubles with his wives and son, Ishmael, and especially obvious, his command to sacrifice his son, Isaac. It is not surprising that many ancient commentators would assume that he was “tried” by God many times. As an aside, this fascinating book is highly recommended.

AND WITHSTOOD ALL OF THEM. Rashi: he never questioned G-d’s ways.

in order to show how great was the love of Abraham, our father: He tested him in order to reveal to the creatures that he feared God and was complete in all of his traits.

and he withstood, etc.: as he did not [question] His [actions] - Rashi.

TO MAKE KNOWN HOW MUCH LOVE ETC. For through this we certainly know how beloved he was, as Rashi writes in his commentary on the Torah (Genesis 22:12): “now I know”—what to answer the Satan and the nations who wonder what the cause of my love for you is.

in order to show, etc.: As with this, we certainly know how great his love was. And it is like Rashi wrote in his Commentary , "Now I will know [how] to answer the Satan and the nations that wonder what My love is towards you. I have, etc."

TEN MIRACLES WERE DONE FOR OUR ANCESTORS IN EGYPT. Rav: they were spared during the ten plagues. Rambam: and this is miraculous, without a doubt. The Torah writes of each plague that it was brought only upon the Egyptians with the exception of the plague of lice in which this is not made explicit; it is understood, however, that it did not touch the Jews. These plagues were present in their areas but did not affect them, as the Sages explain.

Ten miracles were performed for our ancestors in Egypt: As our forefathers were not hurt by all of the ten plagues that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought on the Egyptians in Egypt. And it is explicit in all of them except the plague of lice, about which it is written (Exodus 8:14), "and the lice were upon men" - and the Torah did not distinguish between Egypt and Israel. But it is a tradition in the hand of the sages that also with this [one] were they not struck .

But the ten miracles that were performed for our ancestors in Egypt are their salvation from the ten plagues and that each of the ten plagues were specifically on the Egyptians and not on Israel. And these are miracles without a doubt. And the language of the Torah in each and every plague is that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought it [only] on the Egyptians. Except for the plague of lice - as [there] it did not make this clear, but it is known that He did not punish Israel. Rather [the lice] were found with [the Israelites as well], but they did not distress them. And so did the sages elucidate. But with the other plagues, the matter was clarified [in the text]. It stated about the blood (Exodus 7:21), "and the Egyptians could not drink water from the river" - a proof that that the damage reached them alone. And it stated with the frogs (Exodus 7:28), "and they will come into your house and into your bedrooms, etc." And it stated with the mixture of animals (Exodus 8:18), "And I will distinguish on that day the Land of Goshen, etc." And it stated about the pestilence (Exodus 9:6), "but of the livestock of the Israelites not one died." And it sated about the boils (Exodus 9:11), "as the boils were upon the magicians and and upon all of Egypt." And it stated with the hail (Exodus 9:26), "Only in the Land of Goshen, where the Israelites were, there was no hail." And it stated with the locusts (Exodus 10:14), "And locusts went up upon all the Land of Egypt." And it stated with darkness (Exodus 10:23), "and for all the children of Israel, there was light in their dwellings." But the ten miracles that were at the Sea is a received tradition. The first is the splitting of the water like the simple understanding of the verse, "and the water split" (Exodus 14:21). The second is that after the sea split, it became like a tent until it turned into a type of roof - and not of beams and not slanted - and the path was as if there was a hole in the water and the water was on the right and on the left and on top. It is [like] the statement of Habakuk 3:14, "You have pierced with his rods, the head of his rulers." The third is that its ground became hard and solid, as it states (Exodus 14:29), "walked on dry land" - and there did not remain any clay and mud like in other rivers. The fourth is that the paths of the Egyptians were in quicksand, and that is its stating (Habakuk 3:14), "the clay of great waters." The fifth is that it split into twelve paths like the number of tribes like a curved bow, as per this drawing. And that is its stating (Psalms 136:13), "To tear the Reed Sea into pieces." The sixth is that the water congealed and became as hard as boulders. And about this, it stated (Psalms 74:13), "you broke the head of the 'sea monsters' upon the waters" - meaning to say that the waters hardened to the point that they went back in such a way that heads would break on them. And the seventh is that it did not congeal like the solidifying of other waters that congeal - meaning to say [into] one piece, but rather [into] many pieces, as if they were [building] stones and they were arranged some on top of others. And that is its stating (Psalms 74:13), "You crumbled the sea with Your power." The eighth is that it congealed like glass or onyx - meaning to say, it was clear to the point that some of [the tribes] would see each other in their crossing it. And this is its stating (Psalms 18:12), "the darkness of the waters, the clouds of the sky," which is to say that the gathering of waters was 'like the essence of the sky in purity' - which is clear. The ninth - that sweet water would flow from it and they would drink it. The tenth is that it would congeal at the time that it flowed, after they took what they drank from it - to the point that it would not fall to the ground. And that is its stating (Exodus 15:8), "they stood up like a flowing stack" - meaning to say the thing that was flowing congealed in the heart of the sea. And in the tradition we found that more plagues came upon the Egyptians at the Sea than the plagues that came upon them in Egypt. And the hint to this is in its stating (I Samuel 4:8), "He is the same God who struck the Egyptians with every plague in the wilderness" - meaning to say in the Wilderness of the Reed Sea. But the ten trials that our ancestors tested the Omnipresent are all words of Scripture. The first is at the Sea in their saying "Are there no graves in Egypt" (Exodus 14:11). And the second is at Marah - that is its stating (Exodus 15:24), "And they complained about Moshe, saying, 'What will we drink?'" And the third is in the Wilderness of Sin when they asked for the manna. And that is its stating (Exodus 16:3), "And who will give that our death be at the hand of God, etc." And the fourth is their leaving manna over until the morning. And that is its stating (Exodus 16:20), "and men left over from it until the morning." And the fifth is their rebellion in seeking manna on the Shabbat day, as it is stated (Exodus 16:27), "And it was on the seventh day some of the people went out to gather." And the sixth is their rebellion at Refidim, also over water. And the seventh is at Chorev with the story of the [golden] calf. And the eighth is at Taverah when they become doubtful at that place with the speaking of the grumblers. And that is its saying (Numbers 11:1), "And the people were like grumblers." And the ninth is at Kivrot HaTaavah (the graves of desire), when they asked for meat - its saying (Numbers 11:4), "And the mixed multitude that was within them desired a desire." And the tenth is in the Wilderness of Paran with the matter of the spies. And there it stated (Numbers 14:22), "and they have tried Me these ten times and they did not listen to My voice."

And these are miracles without a doubt. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

Ten miracles were performed for our ancestors in Egypt: as they were spared from the ten plagues. And they were all against the Egyptians and not against Israel.

Ten miracles were wrought for our ancestors in Egypt, and ten at the sea.
Ten plagues did the Holy one, blessed be He, bring upon the Egyptians in Egypt and ten at the sea.
[With] ten trials did our ancestors try God, blessed be He, as it is said, “and they have tried Me these ten times and they have not listened to my voice” (Numbers 14:22).
The ten miracles that were wrought for our ancestors in Egypt were their being spared from the ten plagues that were afflicted upon the Egyptians.
The ten miracles that were performed at the sea are not mentioned in the Torah but are contained in a midrash and are listed as follows by the Rambam: 1) the sea was split; 2) the water formed a tent over their heads; 3) the land became firm (not muddy); 4) when the Egyptians tried to cross the land in the sea returned to being muddy; 5) the sea was split into 12 strips so each tribe could travel separately; 6) the water froze and became hard as a rock; 7) the water which became as a rock was actually many rocks and was beautifully arranged; 8) the water remained clear so that the tribes could see each other; 9) water that was fit for drinking leaked from the sides; 10) after they finished drinking the water, the water that was left immediately again froze.
The ten plagues that were wrought upon the Egyptians in Egypt are well known and listed in the Torah.
The ten plagues at the sea are, according to some commentators, the ten different verbs used to describe the death of the Egyptians in chapter 15 of Exodus, “he has thrown” (15:2); “he has cast” (15:4); “deeps cover them” (15:5); “they went down into the depths” (15:5); “dashes in pieces the enemy” (15:6); “You overthrow them that rise up against You” (15:7); “it consumes them like straw” (15:7); “the waters were piled up, the floods stood upright as a heap” (15:8); “they sank as lead” (15:10).
The ten times that the children of Israel tried God are as follows: 1) at the sea (Ex. 14:11); 2) at Marah (ibid. 15:24); 3) in the wilderness of Sin (ibid. 16:3); 4) with the Manna (ibid. 16:20); 5) again with the Manna (ibid. 16:27); 6) at Rephidim (ibid. 17:2); 7) with the golden calf (ibid. 32:1); 8) at Tavera (Numbers 11:1); 9) at Kivroth-taaverah (ibid. 11:4); 10) in the wilderness of Paraan, at the incident of the spies (ibid. 13:3).

AND TEN BY THE SEA. Rav writes that the fifth miracle was that the solidified water was formed into small pieces like bricks [*so also Rambam]. What purpose was there in having the water formed like bricks? [*I say that it was simply for beauty, for the glory of Israel, just like the second miracle of the sea becoming like a tent. Even without a tent it would sufficed for the sea simply to split for them. And as for protecting them from the sun and rain, the Clouds of Glory certainly did not depart from them even as they were walking through the sea. Rather, both of these miracles occurred solely for the honor of Israel.]

and ten [miracles were performed] at the [Reed] Sea: The first is the splitting of the Reed Sea, as it is stated (Exodus 14:21), "and He opened the waters." The second is that the water formed a bow and like a type of dome and it came out that the water was on top of them. And about this is it stated (Habakuk 3:14), "You have pierced with his rods, the head of his rulers." The third is that the springs of the great foundations opened and [absorbed all the moisture so that] no mud or sludge remained on its ground, as [is not the case] when other springs dry up. Rather it was like marble stone on its bottom and [so] Israel crossed the sea as one who walks in his house. The fourth is that the places that the Egyptians tread upon in the sea were like a type of clay, and this is what the verse states (Habakuk 3:15), "Your horses tread the sea, the clay of the mighty waters." It states "Your horses," as also the horses of the Egyptians were given into the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He. And the fifth is that the waters hardened more than necessary and they became hard as boulders and slabs and hurt the Egyptians that were chasing Israel. And about this King David, peace be upon him, stated (Psalms 74:13), "You smashed the heads of the sea monsters upon the waters" - these sea monsters were the Egyptians. The sixth was that [the waters] were torn into twelve parts - one path for each tribe that would pass over there. And this is what is stated (Psalms 136:13), "to tear the Reed Sea into many parts." The seventh is that the partitions between one tribe and another were clear like white glass so that the tribes could see one another. The eighth is that the water did not congeal into one piece, but rather it was made into [many] small pieces - like one block on top of another and one brick on top the other, as it is written (Psalms 74:13), "You crumbled the sea with Your power." The ninth is that the sweet (fresh) water did not harden like the rest of the waters of the sea but [rather] would flow; and they would drink from all of the streams going towards the sea. The tenth is that after their drinking, [the fresh water] would immediately harden - as the flowing water would not descend to the floor. Rather, Israel would drink from it, and the rest would go out and fall to the ground like a piece of snow. And so too each and every time that they needed to drink.

And this was for beauty and for the glory of Israel. And without a tent it would have also sufficed for them, by it splitting alone; as there is no doubt that the clouds of glory did not move from them. And so [too] was the fifth miracle done for beauty.

And ten [miracles were performed] at the [Reed] Sea: One - "and the water split" (Exodus 14:21); the second - that the sea turned into a type of of tent and Israel went into it, as it is written (Habakuk 3:14), "You have pierced with his rods, the head of his rulers"; the third - that the sea floor became dry without clay and mud, as it is written (Exodus 14:29), "And the children of Israel walked on dry land"; the fourth - that the sea floor, that the Egyptians that chased after Israel trod upon, dampened and became clay and mud, as it is written (Habakuk 3:14), "the clay of great waters"; the fifth - that the water that congealed on the sea floor did not become one piece, but rather [many] small pieces, similar to bricks and building stones arranged one next to the other, as it is written (Psalms 74:13), "You crumbled the sea with Your power," [meaning] that it turned into a type of [surface made up of] crumbs; the sixth - that the water that congealed hardened and became as hard as boulders, as it is written (Psalms 74:13), "you broke the head of the 'sea monsters' upon the waters," and the Egyptians were called sea monsters; the seventh - that the sea was split into twelve pieces so that each and every tribe could cross by itself in [its own] path, and that is [the meaning] of that which is written (Psalms 136:13), "To tear the Reed Sea into pieces"; the eighth - that the waters congealed [with the appearance of] sapphire and onyx and glass, so that the tribes would see each other, since the pillar of fire was giving them light, and this is what is stated (Psalms 18:12), "the darkness of the waters, the clouds of the sky," which is to say that the gathering of waters was like clouds of the sky, 'like the essence of the sky in purity'; the ninth - that sweet water would come out from it, such that they would drink it, and this is what is stated (Exodus 15:8), "flowing"; the tenth - that after they drank what they wanted from it, the remainder would congeal and turn into piles, as it is written (Exodus 15:8), "the waters piled up, they stood up like a flowing stack."

TEN PLAGUES. This is the text in other versions, and is the text that Rav had. [*He writes that they correspond to דצ"ך עד"ש באח"ב, which is the mnemonic that R. Yehudah gives in the Passover Haggadah. This year, in the sermon that I gave in the synagogue over Shabbat HaGadol here in Krakow in the year 1644¹⁹⁷There is a clever use of Hebrew here. The Tosafot Yom Tov writes פה בקראק"א לפ"ק, “here, in Krakow, not counting thousands.” The meaning of this is that “in Krakow” is both where he delivered the sermon and, if one takes the sum of its alphanumeric values, the year in which he delivered it. So the phrase reads “here, in Krakow = 404, not counting thousands (i.e., in the year 5404).” Tosafot Yom Tov had actually just recently been appointed chief rabbi and judge over Krakow. I brought up that the acronym doesn’t seem to have any meaning. In answer I said that the words should be vocalized and read as ditzach `adush be’ichav, and the meaning is as follows: it is as if G-d says, “your joy [ditzach] will be when I trample [’adush with initial ’alef, in the mnemonic `adush with initial `ayin] with the dread [be’ivchat, in the mnemonic be’ichav] of the sword.” For `ayin and ’alef are frequently interchanged in Hebrew, and two letters can switch places in a single word,¹⁹⁸This is called metathesis. as in the words simla and keves, which are often written salma and kesev.¹⁹⁹Be’ichav can therefore be derived from be’ivchat of Ezekiel. `adush is based on the verse in Habakkuk 3:12, “you trampled [Heb. tadush] the nations with wrath”. Be’ichav is based on the verse in Ezekiel 21:20, “dread of the sword” [Heb. ’ivchat cherev], where Rashi explains that the tav is only there because the words is in the construct state and is not part of the root.]

Ten plagues did the Holy One, blessed be He, bring on the Egyptians in Egypt: [These are the ten known by the acronym,] Detsach, Adash, Beachav.

the Holy One, blessed be He: Since the plagues came by law and justice upon the Egyptians, therefore the teacher of the mishnah designated them to the Holy One, blessed be He, who is the true Judge. But with the miracles that were performed for our forefathers, he did not designate them to Him, because the exact law would not have granted the miracle; as 'these are idol worshipers, etc.' - Midrash Shmuel.

Ten plagues did the Holy One, blessed be He, bring upon the Egyptians in Egypt: Detsakh (the Hebrew initials of the first three plagues) Adash (the Hebrew initials of the second three plagues), Beachav (the Hebrew initials of the last four plagues).

GOD BROUGHT… UPON. The tanna makes G-d, who is the true judge, the explicit subject and actor here because the Egyptians fully deserved the plagues, which were brought upon them justly. But in describing the miracles done for our ancestors, the tanna does not make G-d the subject and actor, and He is omitted by the use of the passive voice in the phrase “were done for our ancestors.” This is because in the lens of strict judgment they would not have been found worthy of these miracles, as they were also idolaters, as Rashi writes in his commentary on parashat Beshalach (Exodus 14:19): “these are idolaters and these are idolaters”—Midrash Shmuel.

and ten at the sea: The first, "and it lit the night" (Exodus 14:20) - and like the translation of Onkelos, "and it was (darkness) [cloud and fog] for the Egyptians and light for Israel all night." And the second and the third are "And the Lord looked down upon the Egyptian camp in a pillar of fire and cloud" (Exodus 14:24) - the cloud would come down and make it like sludge and the pillar of fire would boil it, [such that the] hoofs of their horses would be severed. The fourth is "He removed the wheels of their chariots" (Exodus 14:25) - that He removed the wheels from the wagons and the Egyptians fell and were crushed. The fifth is "and they drove with heaviness" (Exodus 14:25) - after they fell and were crushed, they could not stand. And [so,] they stayed in the place that they fell. And the sixth is that they wanted to flee and they could not, as it is stated (Exodus 14:25), "And Egypt said, 'Let us flee from Israel.'" And [this is] not like we found with Sisera, as it stated (Judges 4:15), "and Sisera descended from his chariot and fled on foot." But these did not descend and they did not have the possibility of fleeing. And the seventh is "And the Lord shook the Egyptians into the sea" (Exodus 14:27) - likes its [classic Aramaic] translation, "and He confounded," which is an expression of breaking. As He shook them like a man shakes a pot, [such] that what is above [goes] below and what is below [goes] above. And the eighth is that the earth at the bottom of the sea swallowed them, as it is stated (Exodus 15:12), "You stretched out Your right hand, the earth swallowed them." The ninth is that they descended heavily into the depths of the sea like lead, as it stated (Exodus 15:10), "They sank like lead in the mighty waters." The tenth is that the sea spit them out, as it stated (Exodus 14:30), "And Israel saw Egypt dead on the shore of the sea."

the [Reed] Sea: That which the teacher had the miracles (plagues) at the sea precede [the ones in Egypt] is because the essence of the plagues was in order that His name would be recounted in the world. And the main impartation of [God's involvement] was only recognizable when God [visibly] distinguished between Egypt and Israel. Therefore since they were the main ones in terms of the quality of publicity; for that reason, he placed them first, even though they were not first in time - Midrash Shmuel.

and ten [miracles were performed] at the [Reed] Sea: These correspond to the ten downfalls in the Song "And God Saved" (Exodus 14:30 - 15:19): "He threw into the sea"; "He cast into the sea"; "they drowned in the Reed Sea"; "The depths covered them"; "they descended into the depths"; "You crushed the enemy"; "You destroyed your enemy"; "it consumed them like straw"; " they sank like lead" - behold ten falls. And "the earth swallowed them" is not in the calculation of the downfalls, as this is to their benefit - that they merited a burial.

AND TEN AT THE SEA. The tanna puts the miracles at the sea before the miracles in Egypt.²⁰⁰It seems that Tosafot Yom Tov is suggesting that the mishna should have said “G-d did ten miracles for our ancestors and brought ten plagues upon the Egyptians in Egypt, and did ten miracles for our ancestors and brought ten plagues upon the Egyptians by the sea,” as the mishna should put what came first chronologically first in the text. It instead puts together the sets of miracles done for the Jews, which makes the ten miracles by the sea precede the ten plagues brought upon the Egyptians in Egypt. This is problematic, because both the question and the answer come from Midrash Shmuel, who is clearly asking a different question: since the miracles (at least in Egypt) were precisely in being saved from the plagues, the mishna should have first mentioned the plagues and then the miracle of being saved from those plagues. He answers that since the miracles are what distinguished between the Jews and the Egyptians they come first in the mishna.
Perhaps Tosafot Yom Tov rejected the possibility of the plagues coming first in the mishna out of hand for a different reason: the mishna primarily wishes to speak in praise of G-d, as the mishnayot before and after it do, for which reason the miracles would certainly come first (in fact, Midrash Shmuel's version of the mishna did not even mention the plagues; he cites “other versions” of this mishna as mentioning the plagues and then presents his question and answer). Since, however, the mishna mentions the plagues as well, it should pair the miracles and plagues that occurred at the same time, and not pair the miracles on the one hand and the plagues on the other hand in a way that unnecessarily violates the chronological order of events. To answer this question, Tosafot Yom Tov draws on Midrash Shmuel's answer, which answers Tosafot Yom Tov's question just as well it answered Midrash Shmuel's.
Midrash Shmuel explains that the main purpose of the plagues was to make G-d’s name known in the world, and people arrived at the conclusion that G-d was responsible for the plagues mainly because he distinguished between the Egyptians and the Jews.²⁰¹In Egypt through bringing the plagues upon the Egyptians and not upon the Jews (which is the very meaning of the “miracles in Egypt”, as Tosafot Yom Tov explained above), and at the sea through the splitting of the sea and the miracles attendant thereto, which happened only for the Jews and not for the Egyptians, who drowned in the sea. The miracles, therefore, serve to make the distinction. Therefore, since the miracles are primary in terms of the quality of spreading G-d’s name, the mishna puts them first even though chronologically they come after.

[With] ten trials did our ancestors test the Omnipresent, blessed be He, in the Wilderness, as it is said (Numbers 14:22): "Yet have they tested Me these ten times, and have not hearkened to My voice:" The first is that they said (Exodus 14:11), "Are there not enough graves in Egypt?" And the second is (Exodus 15:24), "And the people grumbled against Moses, saying, 'What shall we drink?'" And a miracle happened that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Moshe to throw wood into the bitter waters, as it is stated (Exodus 15:25), "And he cried out to the Lord, and the Lord showed him a piece of wood." And they said in Tractate Pesachim that this tree [that the wood come from] was a hardofanei, which is bitter. He threw bitter into bitter and it turned sweet. (The editor said, I did not find this in Pesachim, but rather in Rashi on Pesachim 39 in the name of the Mekhilta on Parshat Beshalach. And Tosafot on Pesachim 36 cites the Mekhilta that it was an olive tree; and in truth these are two [different] opinions in the Mekhila - see there.) The third was in the Wilderness of Sin when they asked for bread, as it stated (Exodus 16:3), "when we sat over the fleshpot." The fourth is (Exodus 17:7) "Is the Lord amongst us or not?" There is a parable [relevant to this] about a man who carried his son on his shoulder; and [the son] was competent, but he said, "Have you seen Father?" What did his father do? He flung him from his shoulder. So did the Holy One, blessed be He, carry them 'on the wings of eagles' - [and yet they] ask, "Is the Lord amongst us?" What did He do? He brought Amalek upon them. The fifth is that they left manna over. The sixth is that in Refidim 'they did not have water for the congregation' (the editor says, I could not understand this, as he already counted this in the fourth test; and further study is also required about his whole count regarding this, and see Arakhin 16). The seventh was at Chorev with the story of the [golden] calf, as it is stated (Exodus 32:1), "the people gathered against Aharon, etc." The eighth was (Numbers 11:1), "And the people were like grumblers of evil in the ears of the Lord." And 'He set a fire of the Lord against them and it consumed the edge of the camp,' 'as the Lord, your God, is a consuming Fire, He is a jealous God.' The ninth was at the Graves of Desire (Kivrot HaTaavah) when they said (Numbers 11:4), "Who will feed us meat?" And did they not have meat; and did they not have the quail at each and all times, as it is stated (Exodus 16:8), "in that the Lord will give you meat to eat in the evening and bread in the morning to satiation." And [just] like the manna did not cease, the quail [also] did not cease. Rather they wanted meat in the evening to satiation, [just] like they had the bread. And about this our teacher Moshe, peace be upon him, stated, (Numbers 11:22), "Could enough flocks and herds be slaughtered to suffice them, etc." Our teacher Moshe, peace be upon him said in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, "They have much meat; their request is [only] from the evil of their hearts. And 'since they are a stiff-necked people,' even if You give them much more, they will continue to say [there is] not enough. 'Could enough flocks and herds be slaughtered' - and their mouths will [still] not be satiated." The Holy One, blessed be He, said [back] to Him, "'Is the hand of the Lord short?' I will give them meat until they are satisfied and they will no [longer] be able to open their mouths to say, 'we are not satiated'." And He added and brought them much more of the quails 'and they spread them all around' 'and the least gathered ten chomer' and they could not eat it [all]. Such is the simple meaning of the verse. And you will [hence] come to say that Moshe did not sin with his words. But our rabbis in the Talmud (Yoma 75a) did not interpret it thus. And the tenth was in Midbar Paran when they sent the scouts. And there it states (Numbers 14:22), "and they have tried Me these ten times."

test: And even though the [golden] calf was a sin, it is called a trial; as the matter of a trial for the Holy One, blessed be He, is [the demonstration of] lack of faith and of their reliance upon Him. And so [too] is the sin of the calf, as they did not believe and they did not trust Him, that they could walk safely in the wilderness upon which He had taken them from Egypt and until here. And see Tosafot Yom Tov, who wrote about this at length and concluded that the [golden] calf should not be counted, and [that we should] count in its place, "and they rebelled upon the sea, at the Reed Sea." As we say in the gemara, that they said, "In the same way as we are coming up on this side, etc."; but "And they came to Marah" was not in their coming up from the sea. And according to the gemara that also counted the [golden] calf, one can say that the grumblers and the mixed multitude are one and that it is dependent upon the disagreement between Rabbi and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel in Tractate Shabbat 116a, see there. And with this, the [statement] in Midrash Rabbah, Parshat Metsora comes out well when it brings "and it will be for loathing," (which is said about the mixed multitude) to be about the grumblers.

[With] ten trials did our ancestors test the Holy One, blessed be He, in the Wilderness: Two at the sea - one in going down, where it states (Exodus 14:11), "'Are there no graves in Egypt,'" and one in coming up (Exodus 15:23-24), "And they came to Marah... And they complained"; one at Refidim (Exodus 17:2), "And the people argued with Moshe"; two with the manna - [Moshe said] "do not go out" and they went out, and (Exodus 16:19-20) "no man should leave over from it... and they left over"; two with the quail - with the first [incident of quail] (Exodus 16:3), "'about our sitting over the pot of meat,'" with the second [incident of] quail (Numbers 11:4), "And the mixed multitude that was within them"; one with the [golden] calf; one with the grumblers (Numbers 11:1); and with the spies, and that is the tenth - there it states (Numbers 14:22), "and they have tried Me these ten times and they did not listen to My voice."

OUR ANCESTORS TRIED G-D WITH TEN TRIALS IN THE DESERT. Even though the Golden Calf was a sin it is called a “trial” because the notion of a “trial” of G-d is doubt and lack of faith in Him, and the sin of the calf was that they did not believe and trust in Him that they would go securely on their way in the desert through which He had guided them from Egypt until that point.
Rav does not list them chronologically, putting them in pairs instead. But there is difficulty with Rav saying that the trial at their “ascent from the sea” was that of “and they came to Marah” (Exodus 15:23)—how can this be called “ascent from the sea” when it happened three days after they had crossed? And Rambam, whose commentary Rav is quoting here, does not say that the trial at Marah had anything to do with the ascent from the sea.
The Talmud in Arachin 15a, when it says that one of the ten trials was at the ascent from the sea, explains that this trial occurred immediately upon their ascending from the sea: “They said: just as we have ascended at this point, so have the Egyptians ascended at some other point!” And the Talmud quotes the verse “And they rebelled at the sea, at the Red Sea”²⁰²We have translated yam suf as “Red Sea” in deference to convention. It is actually uncertain which sea yam suf was. (Psalms 106:7) in support of this. The Talmud’s count, despite this addition, is balanced by the omission of the trial of the “complainers”.
But why, indeed, does the Talmud not count the complainers? It seems that the Talmud understood the “complainers” (Numbers 11:1) and the “rabble” (Number 11:4) to have been one thing—even though G-d sent fire upon them they were not quieted, “and the rabble in [the nation’s] midst etc.” This is why the verse says that they “went back and wept,” for they returned to the initial complaint of the “complainers”. This accords with the Talmud in Shabbat 116a: R. Shimon ben Gamliel says: in the future, this section [“And when the ark traveled” (Numbers 10:35), which the Talmud is discussing there] will be removed from here and written in its proper place. Why was it written here? To provide a pause between the first story of punishment and the second. What is the second story of punishment? “And the people were like complainers” (Numbers 11:1). The first story of punishment is “And they travelled from the mountain of G-d [Heb. vayis`u mehar Hashem]” (Numbers 10:33), as R. Chama bar Chanina said, for they turned away from G-d [Heb. saru me'acharei Hashem]. Tosafot raise the question that the text still ends up putting two stories of punishment adjacent to one another, and offer a very forced answer.²⁰³It is unclear which Tosafot is being referred to, as our editions of the Talmud do not have Tosafot raising this question. But according to what I wrote earlier, this is precisely the point the Talmud is making: that the “complainers” and the “rabble” are just parts of one story of punishment.
We can show this as follows. For the Talmud there asks “what is the second story of punishment” but does not first ask “what is the first story”, from which we can infer that the Talmud had an idea of what the first story was. And when the line “the first story of punishment is ‘And they travelled from the mountain of G-d’” following that was subsequently put into the text it was not phrased as a question, “what is the first story of punishment”, for it was the redactor of the text who was clarifying for us what the first story was, but the question as it was originally asked in the study hall was only concerning the second story. For the original assumption in the question was that the “complainers” were complaining about the amount of Torah they had learnt at the mountain of G-d—see below—and there is no break in the text [between the punishment of the “complainers” and the punishment of the “rabble”]. The Talmud answers by saying that the second punishment is actually that of the “complainers”, and the entire succeeding text, including the story of the “rabble”, is one long story of punishment.²⁰⁴And the first story is the separate story of their travelling away from the mountain of G-d.
This is unlike Rashi’s approach, that the Talmud answers that the story of the “rabble” is the first story of punishment, which had started after they turned away from G-d. Tosafot there already take issue with his approach and quote the Midrash Vayechulu saying that the first punishment is that they turned away from G-d because they had learned much Torah at Sinai, like a child running out of school.
[*I found support for this in Midrash Rabbah on parashat Metzora (Vayikra Rabbah 18:4), which asks why Israel was punished with the afflictions of emissions and leprosy and quotes several amoraic opinions. One of them is that of R. Yehudah berabbi Shimon who says that they come from the “complainers”, for the verse there says “until it comes out of your noses and becomes nauseating [Heb. lezara] to you” (Numbers 11:20): “What is zara? It will be zorna and bisna for you.” Matnot Kehuna there explains in the name of Aruch that these are types of swelling and boils. And numerous other amoraim there explain lezara as somehow referring to such things. Now if the “complainers” and the “rabble” were not both part of the same story, how could the midrash say that the source is from the “complainers” and proceed to bring a proof from “it will become nauseating to you”, a verse that was said in the story of the “rabble”? It must be that the whole thing is one story, and this is a strong proof of my position.
Also, I say that the plain meaning of the verses indicates as much, for the text says “and the rabble… went back and wept”, and the meaning of “went back” is that they went back to what they had already been doing. And otherwise, what is the purpose of writing that they “went back” altogether? This is also a clear proof.]
For Rambam and Rav, who see the “complainers” and “rabble” as two separate trials, one might say that they hold like Rabbi in that passage in Shabbat 116a who says that the section “and when the ark travelled” is in its proper place and does not see it as a break between two stories of punishment,²⁰⁵He must hold, in general, that there is no need for a break between two stories of punishment. The stories of the “complainers” and the “rabble” can then also be seen as two stories, even though there is no break between them. and the mishna in Yadayim 3:5 goes according to Rabbi. In any case, I feel that the Golden Calf should not be included in this count at all,²⁰⁶If we follow Rav and Rambam’s position of counting the “complainers” and the “rabble” as two, we cannot also include the trials at the ascent from the sea and at Marah as two separate trials—as Tosafot Yom Tov has shown they are—for then the count comes to eleven. Tosafot Yom Tov proposes deleting the sin of the Golden Calf from the list of trials and preserving the trials at the ascent from the sea and Marah as separate ones. for it is a sin, not a trial. In its stead I would count what the Talmud says in Arachin based on the verse “and they rebelled at the sea, at the Red Sea”. And the Torah has seventy facets.²⁰⁷I.e., there are many different ways to count the ten trials throughout the midrashic and medieval literature, and Tosafot Yom Tov is merely adding another.

in the Wilderness: As because they were in the wilderness - a desolate place with no inhabitants and lacking everything and having nothing - they thought that maybe it was from the lack of His supervision, may He be blessed, of this region, and therefore they tested Him. And that is [the reason] that it was precise to teach, "in the Wilderness" and actually called the Holy One, blessed be He, "the Omnipresent (literally, the Place)" here; to teach that He is the Place of the world without any [part of the world being] devoid of His supervision. So is it explained in Midrash Shmuel.

TEN MIRACLES WERE DONE FOR OUR ANCESTORS IN THE TEMPLE. The mishna goes though them because there is no hint to them in any verses.

Ten miracles were performed for our forefathers in the Temple: No woman had a miscarriage from the scent of the meat that is on the outer altar and gives off a scent similar to any roast. And [since] is forbidden to derive benefit from holy meat, the Holy One, blessed be He, protected the women all of those days - that they should not have a miscarriage from that scent [given they could not eat from it to prevent the miscarriage].

You already know that the altar was in the middle of the courtyard - and we will elucidate this in the future in its place - and it was open to the skies. And with all of this, the rains did not extinguish the fire of the wood pile. And the wind did not dissipate the pillar of smoke that arose from the sacrifices. Rather, the air during the time of the sacrificing was fresh. And they would stand in the courtyard one next to another; but at the time of bowing down, they did not push against one another, due to their great awe and tranquility in this place.

Ten, etc.: And it lists them as they are not hinted to in scripture at all.

A High Priest did not have an accidental emission: Since this is an impurity that comes out from his body, this thing was more disgraceful and ugly than other impurities.

And it is written in the Talmud, even if a snake is wound around his foot, he should not cease. And this is because

In the first three miracles in this mishnah we can see reflected the practical problems that one would have imagined to have occurred in Jerusalem and specifically in the Temple. Many of these are issues of cleanliness. The Temple would have been full of animals and of meat, and in times when there was no refrigeration and running water was a luxury, it must have been very difficult to keep the place clean. Therefore the mishnah teaches that miracles were wrought that prevented a woman from miscarrying due to the smell of the sacrifices, the meat from going bad and flies from gathering.

NO WOMEN MISCARRIED BECAUSE OF THE SMELL OF THE SACRIFICIAL MEAT. From a desire for the sacrificial meat. Alternatively, from the smell of the limbs burning on the altar, for if a woman would smell it and desire to taste it we would not be able to give her any of the sacrificial meat to eat—Rashi.

and no holy flesh ever went putrid: Holy things with a lower level of sanctity (kodashim kalim) that are eaten for two days and one night that were held for such a long time never went putrid.

from the scent, etc.: from desire for the holy meat; and also (another explanation is) from the smell of the limbs [of the sacrifices] on the arrangement [of the wood]; As if she smelled and wanted to taste from them, we do not listen to her to feed her holy meat - Rashi.

and rain did not extinguish the fire of the wood pile: and even though the altar was in an exposed place.

If the high priest were to have a seminal emission, he would be disqualified from performing the special Yom Kippur worship.

AND THE SACRIFICIAL MEAT NEVER BECAME RANCID. Rashi: when there wasn’t enough time at night to burn up all the pieces of the sacrifices that were left over from evening, the priests would leave the pieces lying on the altar, where they would stay for two or three days until the priest had an opportunity to burn them up, for staying on the altar overnight does not disqualify the pieces from being burnt.²⁰⁸If a piece of the sacrifice is not burnt on the altar by the next morning (in the case of sacrificies that can only be burnt until morning) it is pasul, or disqualified from the rest of the sacrificial service. The exception to this is if the pieces stay on the altar, in which case they are not disqualified, even if they have not burnt by morning. Miraculously, the pieces never became rancid during this period of delay.
Midrash Shmuel writes that a possible reason that the mishna says “never” in this case is to indicate that this miracle took place even outside of the Temple, on outside altars or in the tabernacles of Nov and Giv`on. One might add the tabernacle in the desert as well.

and a High Priest did not have an accidental emission on Yom Kippur so that would he not require the assistant. And even though they would know that he would not have an accidental emission, they [still] appointed an assistant; as we do not rely on miracles, because of "Do not test" (Deuteronomy 6:16) - as is found in the Yerushalmi Yoma 1:4.

and no [holy flesh] went putrid, etc.: When he did not have the time available at night to burn all of the limbs that accumulated on the eve, they would bring them up to the top of the altar and they would sit there for two or three days until they would be available to burn them; as staying overnight would not disqualify them [when they were] on top of the altar [as it would if they were not there]. And a miracle would be performed on them and they would not go putrid the whole time of their delay - Rashi. And it is taught, "ever" - it can be said that it is coming to include [the presence] of this miracle on the private altars and Nov and Givaon and the Tabernacle [when it was] in the desert.

and the wind did not overpower the pillar of smoke: that it should not asecnd and go up [vertically].

Even though the altar was uncovered, the fire underneath never was extinguished by rain.

AND A FLY WAS NEVER SEEN IN THE SLAUGHTERING AREA. Rashi: in the inner coutyard where there were marble tables on which they would wash out the innards. Flies never descended on the innards, as that would have been disgusting.

and a fly was not seen in the room of slaughtering due [to its] sanctity.

in the room of slaughtering, etc.: in the courtyard in the place that there were marble tables upon which they would wash the innards. And no fly would go down there because of [its] foulness - Rashi.

and there was not found a disqualification in the omer or in the two breads or in the showbreads: As if a disqualification was found in [the omer offerings] before their commanded [time], it would not have been possible to offer others in their place; as the omer was cut at night and they would not cut a lot. And the two breads were baked on the eve of the holiday, and their baking does not push off [the restrictions of] the holidy [forbidding their baking]. And so [too], the showbreads were baked on the eve of Shabbat.

The pillar of smoke coming up from the altar always went straight up without being effected by the wind (according to the Rambam, there was never wind at the time when sacrifices were being offered).

THE HIGH PRIEST NEVER HAD A NOCTURNAL EMISSION ON YOM KIPPUR. Some ask, what is so miraculous in this case? Why would we expect him to have a nocturnal emission? For seven days prior the priests would urge him on to matters of purity, he remained ritually pure the entire day before, and the elders kept him from falling asleep that entire night. The answer is that the inclinations to good and to evil are constantly in competition with one another the way two adversaries are. When one of them is on the verge of being defeated he strengthens his hold knowing that he close to being dealt a fatal blow, just as it often happens that shortly before their deaths people have renewed strength and speak fair speech as though they were in good health. For this reason it is more likely that the high priest would have an emission—so Midrash Shmuel in the name of Chasid Ya`avetz.
See my comments on Demai 1:1, s.v. hachometz shebi(ye)huda, where I deal with the mishna in Yoma 1:1 that says they would prepare an alternate high priest, and Rav there explains that they were concerned for a nocturnal emission.

and there was not found a disqualification in the omer (a special barley offering, offered the day after Pesach, which permits grain harvested in the new harvest to be eaten): No disqualification, of being outside the wall or held overnight, was ever found with the omer; which was at the time of barley, in order that all of Israel be permitted to eat new grain.

on Yom Kippur: Even though it is [a time] of strengthening, [there is] the prosecution of the [evil] impulse. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

crowded (tsefufim): [It is like] the expression, float (tsaf) on the face of the waters. From the large size of the crowd, they would be pushing one man up against his fellow, until their feet were lifted off the ground and they would stand in the air.

On the sixteenth of Nissan they would bring the omer sacrifice, which consisted of barley. After this sacrifice people were allowed to eat from the new harvest. The two loaves refers to the two loaves brought on Shavuoth. After these two loaves were offered, new wheat could be used for minhah sacrifices. The showbread was baked on the eve of the Sabbath and remained on the table for a week. According to the mishnah, disqualifying defects were never found in these three things.

RAIN NEVER EXTINGUISHED THE FIRE ON THE ALTAR, THE WIND NEVER DISPERSED THE COLUMN OF SMOKE. This is the text that Rav and Rambam have. But Rashi writes that these two should not be in the text of the mishna, because the Talmud in Yoma 21a quotes our mishna and does not mention them, and brings a baraita afterwards that does mention them. He says that the miracles of the omer sacrifice, two loaves, and the showbread are counted as three separate miracles in the list, thereby completing the count of ten. This is clear from the fact that the Talmud notes that our mishna claims to list ten miracles that took place in the Temple and ends up including two that happened in Jerusalem, and answers by quoting a baraita that two other miracles did take place in the Temple: the rain never extinguished the fire etc.

or in the two breads: They come to permit bringing up the new offering form the new grain. And no disqualification, of being outside the courtyard or held overnight, was ever found with them.

the pillar of smoke: that rose from the sacrifices. But during the time of the offering, the air was still - Rambam.

and bow down with [enough] space: At the time of bowing down, a miracle was performed for them and they would bow down with space, [such that] each one was a distance of four amot from his fellow; so that he not hear his friend when [the latter] was confessing and mentioning his sins.

Although it must have been crowded in the Temple during the pilgrimage festivals, and people stood pressed up against each other, when it came time to bow, miraculously there was room to do so.

THE COLUMN OF SMOKE. Rambam: that arose from the sacrifices; rather, the wind was calm during the sacrifice.

or in the showbreads: As it was arranged on Shabbat day, and it was warm at the time of its removal from the table as on the day that they placed it there - as it is stated (I Samuel 21:7), "(and it) [to place] warm bread on the day of its being taken." And no disqualification, of being outside the wall or being held over was ever found in it. As they needed to eat it during the week after the Shabbat that they took it away; but if it remained through another week it would become disqualified. And no mishap [like this] ever happened to them.

hurt: We do not learn, "[never] bit;" as even if it sometimes occurred that it would bite, it would not hurt. And we learned, "never" - he explained in Midrash Shmuel that it is possible that it is coming to include even not at the time when the Temple is in existence; as the holiness of the land is worthy of this.

"The place is too cramped that I should lodge in Jerusalem": is the textual variant that we [follow]. As the Omnipresent would provide for their livelihood and none of them would have to leave from there and say, "My livelihood (is tight) and I cannot live in Jerusalem." And there are books that have written in them, "when I lodge." And it is said about the holiday pilgrims; such that none of them was cramped when he was lodging in Jerusalem because of the tightness of the place - as in (Isaiah 49:20), "The place is tight for me, give me and I will dwell."

If a snake or scorpion killed someone in Jerusalem, it would have potentially caused sudden impurity to any of those standing near. The miracle that this didn’t ever happen would have prevented this problem.

THERE WAS NEVER A DISQUALIFICATION IN THE OMER SACRIFICE. Rav writes that the barley for the omer was cut by night, and they did not cut down much. Rashi in Yoma 21a adds that they only harvested enough to end up with an isaron of flour that had been sifted thirteen times.²⁰⁹Both Rav and Rashi are addressing the problem that even if the sacrifice were somehow ruined it would have been a simple matter to cut down more barely and bring another. What need, then, for this miracle?

and rain did not extinguish the fire of the wood pile: As the fire burnt upon the outer altar which stood [unprotected] in the Tabernacle courtyard.

Although it must have been unpleasantly crowded in Jerusalem during the pilgrimage festivals, no one ever complained.

NEITHER A SNAKE NOR A SCORPION EVER INJURED ANYBODY. The mishna does not say “never bit”—even if it sometimes happened that one of them did bite somebody, the bite did not injure.
Maharal explains in Derech Chaim that the mishna says “in Jerusalem” because it is no great surprise that there wouldn’t be injurious things like these in the Temple. See what I wrote above, quoting the Talmud in Yoma 21a.
Midrash Shmuel writes that perhaps the mishna says “ever” to indicate that even when there is no Temple in Jerusalem this miracle occurs, for the sanctity of the land alone is enough to save one from the injuries caused by snakes and scorpions.

and the wind did not overpower the pillar of smoke: As it would billow straight up.

Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the difference between the last miracle and all of the previous ones?

they would stand up crowded and bow down with [enough] space: They would stand in the courtyard all in rows, this one crowded next to the other; but they would bow down with space, such that not one of them would push his fellow. And that is a wonder.

and a person did not say to his fellow, "The place is too cramped that I should lodge in Jerusalem": When they went up to Jerusalem, he would not say, "The place is too crowded for me; make room for me to settle.” And this is what David, peace be upon him, stated, (Psalms 122:3), "Jerusalem that is built up, a city constructed together for it" - he wanted to say that when they built it, they measured it so that all of Israel could be contained in it. And the explanation of "for it" is for its sake; as [it was] for the sake of the congregation of Israel that would gather together that it was constructed.

TEN THINGS WERE CREATED AT THE DUSK OF THE SABBATH, AND THEY ARE: THE MOUTH OF THE EARTH, ETC. Rambam: the Sages do not believe that G-d’s will is renewed every moment. Rather, when He first created things he made their natures such that whatever should happen to them will happen, whether that should be something constant, which we call natural, or some unusual thing that happens infrequently, which we call miraculous. They therefore said that on the sixth day He put it into the nature of the earth that Korach and his followers should be swallowed up by it, into the nature of the well that it should give forth water, into the nature of the donkey that she should speak, and so on. One might object that if all miracles were implanted into the nature of things during the six days of creation, why does the mishna single out these ten things? You should know, in answer to this, that they did not single them out because no miracles other than these were implanted into the nature of things. They meant simply that these were the only things that were put in during dusk, whereas the other miracles were put into the nature of things from the very beginning, at the moment they were made. They would say, for example, that when the waters were divided on the second day, it was made part of their nature that the Red Sea should part for Moses, and the Jordan for Joshua and Elisha. And when the sun was created on the fourth day, it was made part of its nature that it should stop in its orbit at a given time when spoken to by Joshua. This is so for all other miracles aside from these ten, which were put into the nature of those things during dusk.
He clarifies this further in his book the Guide for the Perplexed, 2:29. There, after quoting the midrash that says G-d stipulated with the sea that it should split for Israel and with all of what was created during the six days similarly (Bereshit Rabbah 5:5), he concludes: when G-d has a prophet perform a sign he tells him the moment at which what he is saying will come to pass, and it happens in accordance with the nature that was implanted into the thing.
But there is great difficulty with this position, for Moses said to Pharaoh, “for what time should I entreat for you… to excise the frogs” (Exodus 8:5), and Isaiah said, “request a sign from Hashem, your G-d, request it in the depths or high above” (Isaiah 7:11). And Gideon’s request of the sign with the wool involved two opposing possibilities (Judges 6:36). Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Meiri that the Sages do not believe that these stipulations the midrash refers to were made in the permanent nature of the thing that was acted upon; they were undoubtedly speaking from the perspective of the Actor and His will. They mean to say that there was no change in His will, G-d forbid, for at the moment that He created the heavens and the earth and all that is within them His knowledge encompassed and included all of the things that would happen in the future; He knew that there would come a point at which He would change the nature of a particular created thing, and He created it with that in mind. The act of the miracle, therefore, was not a change in His knowledge or a new element in His will, etc.
This means that all the signs were created and done at that particular moment in time, and were not implanted into nature such that they should come into existence and be done at that moment. And although His knowledge already encompassed them we have already noted above on the mishna of “all is seen”, 3:15, that His knowledge does not turn the possible into the necessary. As such, all miracles depend on what a person chooses from among the things that are possible, as they are all done for people.
And I say that, just as Rambam resolves the paradox of “all is seen, but permission is given” using the verse “for My thoughts are not your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8), as I wrote on the mishna at 3:15, I will likewise answer that the end of that verse itself is the resolution of the great paradox inherent in the subject of miracles. For there is no change in His will, which is the meaning of the end of the verse, “and your ways are not My ways” (ibid.). His “ways” are His actions, as Moses said, “make Your ways known to me” (Exodus 33:13), which are His actions and administration of the world. When Isaiah says “your ways are not My ways” he means that you should not understand My ways in terms of your ways, and then this great paradox will not arise. Rambam himself writes in the Guide for the Perplexed at the end of 3:20: the terms supervision, knowledge, and intent when said of G-d are not the same as when said of us. When these different kinds of supervision, knowledge, and intent are conflated and treated as though they are the same, the abovementioned paradoxes arise. But when it becomes clear that whatever is said of us differs from what is said of Him, the truth becomes clear. And the prophet told us of the difference between the things said of Him and of us when he said “and your ways are not My ways.”
It also seems from his language in the above-quoted segment from Guide for the Perplexed 2:29²¹⁰There, Rambam calls the words of the midrash “strange,” though a better translation might be “extroardinary.” that although he explains the opinion of the Sages that way, it is not his own. It suffices for us that we have rescued Rambam, at least as far as his own opinion, even if we cannot rescue him regarding the opinion he attributes to the Sages.
But I say that the opinion of Meiri is that of the Sages as well and is not foreign to them, G-d forbid—it emerges clearly from explicit verses in the Tanach which every elementary schooler knows. When they say these things were created at the dusk of the Sabbath they are speaking only of His knowledge, like the mishna of “all is seen”, as Meiri says. As for their saying that G-d stipulated with the sea during the six days of creation that it should split, I feel that this is not at all about refuting the notion of a change in His will. Rather, this dictum is of the same tenor as the one on the verse “on the sixth day” that I quoted earlier in my commentary to 2:8, which says that G-d stipulated with all of creation that it only continue if the Jewish people accept the five books of the Torah. This has nothing to do with the nature of the created things, and speaks rather about the purpose of the creation of the world, which was only created for the Jewish people to receive the Torah; should they not accept it, the world will return to “formlessness and void”, for it was only created for this purpose. All of the conditions mentioned in the midrash were said in the same vein, using language that emphasized the merit and great importance of Israel. G-d stipulated with the sea during creation that it part for Israel, as it is for that purpose that He created the sea; and with the sun that is stand still for Joshua, as it is for that purpose that it was created.
They thus conveyed to us one of the fundamentals of faith: that everything was created solely for Israel, which accords with the midrash that says “ ‘In the beginning’—for the sake of Israel, who are called ‘the beginning’ “ (Vayikra Rabbah 36:4) and numerous other dicta that speak the praises and merits of Israel. Now we do not deny that, in saying this, they also meant that He knows the conclusions of things at their beginnings and sees the end of something from the very first moment, but only insofar as this is the nature of His knowledge, as in “all is seen”. But it was not their primary intent to rid us of the mistaken notion that His will and knowledge are subject to change, for they never entertained these ideas to begin with, as Isaiah the prophet already removed the confusion surrounding this by saying “My thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not My ways,” meaning that they are not to be compared at all, which will prevent us from falling into the paradox. And in using the language “G-d stipulated” they meant the same thing as the midrash on “the sixth day”.
Our master Maharal offers “wondrous counsel and great wisdom” (cf. Isaiah 28:29) in Derech Chaim to negate this question altogether. He says that “knowledge” and “ability” and such are all actions of G-d, just as “and G-d knew” (Exodus 2:25) was an action of G-d. Just as the other actions attributed to Him do not necessitate a change or plurality within Him, neither do these, and in these matters we rely on the Kabbalah. See there.

Ten things were created on the eve of the [first] Shabbat at twilight. And these are they: The mouth of the earth for the swallowing of Korach and his assembly.

Also the [first human-made] tongs, made with [Divine] tongs: [As] who made the first ones? We have already mentioned in the eighth chapter (Eight Chapters 8:9-10) that they would not believe in creation by the (Divine) will at every instant. Rather, at the beginning of things, He placed into [their] nature that they should do everything that they would do [in the future] - whether they be things that would happen constantly, that being a natural thing; or whether it be [something unusual], that being a miracle. It is all one [regarding this]. Therefore they said that on the sixth day, He placed into the nature of the earth that it would sink [under] Korach and his community, and into the well that it would give out water and into the donkey that it should speak, and so [too] for the rest. And ketav (letters) is the Torah that was written in front of Him, may He be blessed, as it is stated. And we do not know how it was - and that is its stating (Exodus 24:12), "and I will give you the stone tablets." And the miktav (writing) is the writing on the tablets, as it stated (Exodus 32:16), "and the writing was God’s writing, inscribed upon the tablets." And maybe you will say [that] since all of the wonders are all placed into the nature of things from the six days of creation, why did he distinguish these ten things. You should [hence] know that he did not distinguish these ten things to say that no other miracle was placed into the nature of things except for these. Rather, he said that these alone were done at twilight and the rest of the wonders and miracles were placed into the nature of things that they were put into at the time of their original creation. And they said by way of example that [on] the second day in the division of the waters, it was placed into the nature [of water] that the Reed Sea would divide for Moshe, and that the Jordan would divide for Yehoshua and also for Eliyahu and also for Elisha. And [on] the fourth day when the sun was created, it was placed into its nature that it would stop at time x by the word of Yehoshua to it. And so [too] with the other wonders except for these ten that were put into the nature of these things at twilight. And the shamir is a small creeping thing that chisels big stones when it goes on top of them, and Shlomo built the Temple with it. And tongs are a tool with which the blacksmith holds the hot iron until he makes what he wants to make with it.

One who wants to master the intention of the matter should see Tosafot Yom Tov.

At twilight: on the eve of the Shabbat of creation, before the creation was completed.

Introduction This mishnah lists fourteen things (10 + 3 + 1) that seem to defy the laws of nature. These are problematic because God is supposed to have created a world that acts upon the laws of nature. In order to solve this metaphysical problem, the mishnah claims that these supernatural items were created for this very purpose during the six days of creation. They were created during this in-between time, right before creation ended at the end of the sixth day. These items are therefore part of God’s ultimate plan and they are not in essence “supernatural”.

WERE CREATED AT THE DUSK OF THE SABBATH, AND THEY ARE: THE MOUTH OF THE EARTH, ETC. Even according to Rambam above, these things were singled out as having happened specifically at this time. Many ideas have been put forth to explain why this is; you can find them in Midrash Shmuel. I haven’t seen fit to reproduce a single one of them, as I don’t see that any of them have succeded.
I see that on the previous mishna of the ten miracles that were done for our ancestors in the Temple Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that the mishna starts with a woman, “no woman miscarried”, and ends with “no man ever said that there was not enough room” because these things correspond to the ten sefirot of blimah²¹¹The ten sefirot, lit. “countings”, often popularly translated as “emanations”, are one of the central elements of the Kabbalah. They are called “the sefirot of blimah” in Sefer Yetzirah, one of the earliest Kabbalistic works.; he explains them one by one, see there. I felt it would be just as appropriate and even more so to expound that way here. For the world, certainly including these ten things, was created through the ten sefirot of blimah. And the mishna starts from the mouth of the earth the same way that the previous one starts with the miracles that happened to women. But I will not speak of what is beyond me.
I will rather speak in terms of the exoteric, and say that these ten things correspond to the ten utterances through which the world was created. In the first utterance, the verses spoke of the earth, which was formlessness and void. The mouth of the well corresponds to the utterance “let there be light”, for that light was hidden away (Chagigah 12a) and the well was also hidden away in the sea of Tiberias (Shabbat 35a). The mouth of the donkey corresponds to the utterance “let there be a firmament… and let it separate”, in which the waters supernaturally became the Upper Waters; in the case of the mouth of the donkey, a higher force was also supernaturally placed in a coarse material being. The rainbow corresponds to the utterance “let the waters be gathered... and let the dry land be seen”, for the rainbow comes about from the humidity of moist earth that the rains have made wet. The manna corresponds to the utterance “let the earth bring forth vegetation… fruit trees…”, for these are man’s bread and his fruit that grows in its season, and corresponding to them G-d rained down the heavenly produce of manna. The staff corresponds to the utterance “let there be lights” of which it is said that “they will be signs”, and G-d sent Moses His servant with the staff that he was to use for giving signs. The verse “do not fear the signs of the heavens” (Jeremiah 10:2) is related to this. The shamir is a worm-like creature that comes from the utterance “let the waters swarm, etc.” The script and the inscription correspond to the two utterances “let the earth bring forth living things of every kind” and “let Us make man”, for both have to do with life and spirit, as do the script and the inscription. The inscription has more of a spiritual dimension, for it could be read from all four directions, as Rav writes. Similarly, man became a superior living creature that speaks and rules over the four corners of the earth. The tablets correspond to the utterance “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” with the seed of man, which are created in the image of G-d. The tablets are likewise the “work of G-d” (Exodus 32:16).
Behold, this is what I consider the straight path. “Give to a wise man, and he will grow wiser” (Proverbs 9:9) and think of more satisfying explanations. This approach also explains why our tanna did not keep to any chronological order in his list.

and the mouth of the well: The boulder that Moshe struck.

And there is an objection, as [Moshe] said "'And if [the Lord] creates a creation.'" And behold, [this] was already created and waiting according to the transmission here of the sages, may their memory be blessed, etc. And it appears to me that the explanation of the mouth of the earth is the speech of the earth, similar to the mouth of the donkey and the mouth of the well [which also refer to speech]. And this is the meaning of the verse - "If gehinnom is in the creation (and it is lacking a bet as a preposition for the word creation, and there are many others like this) from the six days of creation, [then] bringing close its opening should be created, (as the statement of the sages in [the chapter entitled] Chelek, may their memory be blessed). And via this, "and the earth will extend (from the expression, "my lips have extended") its mouth" to project the voice of words, to tell all of what is done within it, that they descended alive to the lowest level. And afterwards at the time of the event, it only stated, "And the earth opened, etc.," to swallow them. And it was also that the people, "fled from their voices," which means to say from the voice of the words of the earth. As if it is not so, there is an objection; that just the opposite, it is the way of those that hear the voice of those yelling out, "oy, oy," to approach that voice. And this is the language of Rashi on the Torah, "'because of their voices' [means] on account of the voice that went out from their being swallowed" - and see there in Rabbi E. Mizrachi. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

The mouth of the earth: to swallow Korach and his congregation.

Ten things were created on the eve of the Sabbath at twilight, and these are they: [1] the mouth of the earth, [2] the mouth of the well, [3] the mouth of the donkey, [4] the rainbow, [5] the manna, [6] the staff [of Moses], [7] the shamir, [8] the letters, [9] the writing, [10] and the tablets. And some say: also the demons, the grave of Moses, and the ram of Abraham, our father. And some say: and also tongs, made with tongs. [1] the mouth of the earth: which swallowed Korah and his congregation (Numbers 16:32). [2] the mouth of the well: that gave the children of Israel water in the desert. (See Numbers 21:16-18). [3] the mouth of the donkey: that spoke to Balaam (Numbers 22:28). [4] the rainbow: that was a sign to Noah (Genesis 9:13). [5] the manna: (Exodus 16:15). [6] the staff [of Moses]: (Exodus 4:17). [7] the shamir: this was the strong stone used to cut rocks for the breastplate used during the first temple. [8] the letters: the shape of the letters used to write the Ten Commandments. [9] the writing: See Exodus 32:16. The writing, according to legend, could be seen from all four sides of the tablets. [10] and the tablets: this refers to the first set of the tablets (ibid.) Moses made the second set of tablets (Exodus 34:1). Demons: In the ancient world, people firmly believed in demons, much as we believe in bacteria and viruses even if we have never seen one. These being unnatural phenomenon, must have been created on the twilight of the sixth day. The grave of Moses: Since no one was there for Moses’s burial, we could surmise that it was not created by any human being (Deuteronomy 34:6). And the ram of Abraham, our father: which seemed to have miraculously appeared before Abraham sacrificed Isaac (Genesis 22:13). The mishnah teaches that God all along created the ram to be sacrificed in Isaac’s place. Otherwise it might seem that if the ram had not gotten caught in the bushes, Abraham would have been allowed to sacrifice his son. Tongs made with tongs: One cannot forge tongs in fire, without already having a set of tongs. The first set of tongs must therefore have been made during the twilight of the sixth day.  Why do you think that the mishnah divides its list into three parts, a list, then a list of three and then one last item?  Why aren’t miracles such as the splitting of the sea and the standing still of the sun mentioned here?

[*THE MOUTH OF THE EARTH. Rav explains that this was to swallow Korach and his followers; so also Rambam. This is difficult, for the verse there says “if G-d will create a creation” (Numbers 16:30), and according to the tradition of the Sages here, which is from scholar to scholar all the way back to Moses, it had already been created.
The Talmud in Sanhedrin 110a explains the verse as follows: Rava expounded: what is the meaning of the verse “if G-d will create a creation [Heb. im beriah yivra], and the earth open up its mouth”? Moses said to G-d, “if [Heb. im]” Gehinnom “has been created [Heb. beriah]”, very well. If not, “let G-d create [it] [Heb. yivra]”. In what sense? If this actually means “create”, why, “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Rather, the request was to bring the opening of Gehinnom closer. But according to this, the word im is used for a rhetorical question,²¹²According to the Talmud’s final reading, the verse says, “Is Gehinnom close? [No.] Then G-d will bring the opening here.” which is also a forced reading. I therefore propose an alternative, for which purpose I will first raise three points.
The first is that Moses’ request uses the word ufatz'tah,“the earth shall open [Heb. ufatz'tah] its mouth” (Numbers 16:30), but in describing the execution of that request the verse says vatiftach, “and [the earth] opened” (Numbers 16:32). And even if the verses had not used this word in describing the execution, one wonders why Moses wouldn’t use the verb patach, which is a more common word than the verb patzah. The second is that the verse says “they descended alive to Sheol [Heb. sheolah]” (Numbers 16:33), using sheolah²¹³The word is in the accusative case with locative sense. In other words, the suffix -ah means “to”: “to Sheol”. The Torah does not always attach the -ah suffix even when speaking of motion towards. instead of sheol. Rashi, writing on the verse “the wicked shall return to She’ol [Heb. lisheolah]” in Psalms 9:18, says: R. Abba bar Zavdi says: to the lowest level of Sheol. Although we cannot deny the testimony of the verses, when the verse relates that it became known that they descended to the lowest level of sheol, wouldn’t it have been proper to relate how exactly that became known? We must therefore investigate where the verse tells us this. The third is that the verse says that the entire nation “fled at the sound [of their voices] [Heb. lekolam]” (Numbers 16:34). People who hear others cry out “oy and avoy!”²¹⁴The equivalent of English “Oh, no!” do not usualy flee, they come nearer to the sound of the voices to determine the reason for their screaming. Rashi writes that lekolam means “at the sound that came from their being swallowed,” and Mizrachi explains that this is the sound of the splitting itself, which was like the sound of thunder, which throws people into a panic and causes them to flee. But this was not the sound of their cries at the moment they were swallowed up, for that sound is not the kind of sound that causes people to flee. On the contrary, it would cause people to gather round and come to hear their cries at that moment and see the great wonder, the like of which had not occurred from the six days of creation until then—these are his words.
I now say that although Mizrachi says that the sound of the splitting was like thunder, I can claim that the sound was the sound of words, words which made known that they had descended alive to Sheol, i.e. to the lowest level of Sheol. The earth emitting the sound of clear words saying that they had descended alive to the lowest level of Sheol, i.e. that they had suffered that much, would have been a great sign. And this is what Moses requested when he said “let it open” using ufatz'tah. For had he simply requested that it open in order to swallow them he should have said ufat'chah, which is the word used in the description of the event itself. He used ufatz'tah, which is the word Jephthah uses when he says patziti pi lashem, “I have opened my mouth to G-d”, in Judges 11:35, and the word used in patzu sefatai, “my lips opened” in Psalms 66:14, both of which refer to speech.
This, then, is how to parse Moses’ request. Im beriah yivra Hashem ufatz'tah ha'adamah—the word beriah appears without an implied prepositional bet,²¹⁵We should read the word beriah, “creation”, as if it were baberiah, “through the creation”. as in the verse ki sheshet yamim asah Hashem, “in six days G-d made” (Exodus 20:10), where the word sheshet is understood as if it were b'sheshet²¹⁶Reading the verse as is gives “for six days G-d made”; the verse should be read as if the word sheshet, “six”, were besheshet, “in six”, giving “for in six days G-d made”., and the verse un'shalmah parim sefateinu, “and we shall make up for bulls with our lips” (Hosea 14:3), where the word sefateinu is understood as if it were bisfateinu²¹⁷Reading the verse as is gives “we shall make up for bulls our lips”; the verse should be read as if the word sefateinu, “our lips”, were bisfateinu, “with our lips”, giving “we shall make up for bulls with our lips”.. We can now read the verse: im baberiah, “if in the created thing”, i.e. Gehinnom, which was created during the six days of creation, yivra, “he shall create”, i.e. bring its opening here as the Sages say, and through bringing the opening here ufatz'tah ha'adamah et piha, “the earth shall open its mouth” to bring forth the sound of a voice speaking words made by lips relating what happens within all the way down to the lowest level of Sheol, [“then shall you know that these people have provoked G-d”²¹⁸Tosafot Yom Tov does not supply the end of the verse.].
Afterwards, during the execution, the verse says vatiftach ha’aretz et piha, “the earth opened its mouth”, i.e. merely an opening of the mouth but no speech, for the opening was only in order to swallow them. In addition, however, it happened that everybody “fled at their sound”, which is the sound that emerged upon their being swallowed, a voice speaking words relating that they had descended alive to the lowest level of Sheol.
I have somewhat of a proof to my approach, for the tanna in speaking of the donkey says “the mouth of the donkey” and not that the donkey itself was created at dusk. Now all mouths, in and of themselves, are equivalent; there is no need for that mouth to have been created at dusk unless “mouth” in the context of the donkey means “speech”, which indeed was created at dusk. If so, “the mouth of the earth” also refers to speech, [not]²¹⁹The Hebrew text is missing the obvious negative. simply an opening of the mouth. Also, the “mouth of the well”, according to the other opinion that Rav mentions in his commentary, means that the well sang. This is what seems best to me, and in my eyes it is truly well said.]

and the mouth of the donkey of Bilaam - "And the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey" (Numbers 22:28).

As in every place that they would go, the well would rise and spring forth water. And for this well was created a mouth (an opening) that the water would come out from in every place that they would go - Derekh Chaim. And this is also the intention of Rashi [when he writes], "that the boulder would go and roll with them." As, if it is like the simple understanding [of his words], it should have mentioned the miracle that the boulder gave water unattached [to any spring or well].

and the mouth of the well: The well of Miriam that went with Israel in the wilderness on all of the journeys. And some say, that it opened its mouth and uttered song, as it stated (Numbers 21:17), "rise up, O well; answer it."

THE MOUTH OF THE WELL. Rav: the well of Miriam which traveled with the Jews in the desert. Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that wherever they went the well would come up and bring forth water, and it had a mouth through which the water would come out wherever they went. But the rock most likely did not go from place to place with them, as would seem from Rashi’s words in his commentary to Pesachim 54a, for if so, why would the mishna not mention the miracle that the rock gave forth water although it was not connected to the ground? And he writes that Rashi’s words must then be understood as agreeing with his explanation.
Rav: and some say that it opened its mouth and sang, as the verse says ali be'er enu lah (Numbers 21:17)—i.e., they answered the words of the well.²²⁰The verse is usually understood to mean “they said it about the well”. Tosafot Yom Tov explains that according to Rav, the verse must be read “about the well, they answered it”—i.e., the song of the well was a call and response between the well and the people. [*See above. This approach explains why the mishna does not say “the mouth of the rock”, for according to the first approach it was the rock which brought forth the water. And it is of any given rock’s mouth, which brought fourth the water, that the mishna should say that it was created at dusk. Now that the mishna says “the mouth of the well” we must offer the forced reading that this refers to the mouth through which the well could come out. According to the second approach, however, the tanna actually means “the mouth of the well”, which sang.]

and the rainbow: "My rainbow have I given in the cloud" (Genesis 9:13).

Meaning to say that they would answer corresponding to its speech. And with this, it is good that [the mishnah] did not teach, "the mouth of the boulder." And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

and the mouth of the donkey: At twilight it was decreed about it that it should speak with Bilaam.

AND THE MOUTH OF THE DONKEY. Rav: it was decreed at dusk that she speak to Balaam.²²¹I.e., the donkey itself was not created then, but the created world included the decree that the donkey Balaam rode would speak to him. For it is impossible that she would have lived that long, from the six days of creation until the time of Balaam. Maharal writes as much in Derech Chaim, where he says that all these ten things were not actually created at dusk; it was the decree that G-d decreed which was created at dusk. For it is unlikely that the ram of Isaac lived from the six days of creation until the days of Abraham. And Rav says the same of the ram: it was decreed at dusk that it be caught in the brush by its horns at the moment of the Akeidah. [I have alread explained the meaning of “mouth” at the end of my comment on “the mouth of the earth”.]

and the manna of the wilderness.

And what is likely to me is that this was a miracle and that they were the work of God. And many hesitated in this, etc. And the author of the Ten Essays wrote (in the essay, Chakor Din, Part II, Chapter 20) that it was [so designed because it was] the work of God, which cannot be analysed with our intellects; not like the work of an ordinary one that [others] besides us would describe in front of us in the study hall and 'a youth could write them down.'

and the rainbow: as a sign of the covenant that there would not be another flood.

THE INSCRIPTION. Rav: the inscription could be read from all four directions. What seems most likely to me is that this was some kind of miraculous thing, “the work of G-d” (Exodus 32:16). Many of the commentators on the relevant passage in the Jerusalem Talmud strugled with this. See Ein Yaakov and Yefeh Mar'eh. I prefer the words of the most recent of the comentators, R. Menachem Azariah of Fano in his work Asarah Ma'amarot, in the treatise Chakor Din, 2:20, commenting on the passage in the Jerusalem Talmud. There he says that they were the “work of G-d” that our minds cannot imagine, “not like the work of some commoner that others have drawn for us in the study hall, which a boy could come up with”.

and the staff of Moshe, with which he did the signs.

Which is to say that therefore were they soft and not like our sapphire which is hard and not soft. But it was sapphire-like to behold 'and like the actual sky in purity.' And the tablets [here] are the first tablets, as regarding the second, Moshe chiseled them himself.

and the manna: that descended for Israel for forty years in the wilderness.

AND THE TABLETS. Rav: they were made of sapphire… and they could be rolled, and they were hewn from the sphere of the sun. I.e., they could be rolled, unlike our sapphire which is hard and cannot be rolled, because they were crystalline in appearance and pure like the stuff of the heavens.
Rashi writes that “the tablets” refers to the first tablets, for the second ones were made by Moses.

and the shamir: It was a type of long worm. And King Shlomo built the Temple with it, as he would place it on the stone and it would split (Gittin 68a). "And no hammer or ax or any iron tool was heard in the House while it was being built" (I Kings 6:7).

And some say, etc.: In Derekh Chaim, he concludes that they are not coming to disagree, but rather each one adds on those that preceded him (with each addition corresponding to a progressively earlier part of twilight). As there are different times for twilight, as is learned in Shabbat 34b, etc. And another textual variant is, "[And some say] the ram of Isaac and the grave of Moshe. And some say also the destructive spirits; and some say also the tongs, etc." And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

and the staff [of Moshe]: with which the signs were preformed. And it was [made] of sapphire.

SOME SAY, EVEN THE MAZIKIN… SOME SAY, EVEN THE TONGS… Maharal concludes in Derech Chaim that these other opinions do not argue on the previous ones, each adding, rather, to the ones that preceded. For dusk has several parts, as the Talmud says in Shabbat 34b: what is dusk? Starting at sunset, as long as the eastern sky is red—the words of R. Yehudah. R. Nechemiah says: the time, starting at sunset, that it takes a man to walk half a mil. R. Yossi says that dusk is like the blink of an eye—day ends and night begins, and it is imperceptible. He writes that the number of times our mishna says “some say” varies by version. He establishes the correct version as: “[some say] the ram of Isaac and the grave of Moses”—for these are both necessary for two great righteous men—“and some say, even the mazikin, and some say, even the tongs.” These three “some say”s divide dusk—whatever dusk is being discussed, other than the dusk of R. Yossi, which does not last any amount of time at all—into three periods, for every measurable thing has a beginning, middle, and end. These are his words.
According to the Talmud, which says that our mishna should not include the tongs, there are only two additions. One corresponds to the dusk of R. Nechemiah, and the other to the dusk of R. Yehudah. And the same could be said for our version, which only has two “some say”s.
According to all opinions the first ten things were created simultaneously at the dusk of R. Yossi, so they remain constant.

and the letters: The Torah that was written in front of God, may He be blessed, from the six days of Creation with black fire on top of white fire.

and the shamir: It is like a type of worm, the [size of a grain of] barley in its entirety. When they would [place] it on the stones that were marked with ink [to demark what they wanted cut, the stones] would become indented on their own. And with it did they engrave the stones of the vest (ephod) and the breastplate, as it is written about them, "in their fullness."

and the writing: The form of the letters carved on the tablets.

the letters: The shape of the letters that were engraved on the tablets;

and the tablets themselves.

the writing: that they could be read from all four sides.

And some say, also the destructive spirits, and the burial place of Moshe: "And no man knew his burial place" (Deuteronomy 34:6).

the tablets: were [made] of sapphire. Their length was six and their width was six and their thickness was three, like a stone whose length, width and thickness are equal and it was split into two. And they were soft and they were quarried from the ball of the sun.

and the ram of Abraham, our father "caught in the thicket by its horns; and Avraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son" (Genesis 22:13).

And some say, also the tongs, made with tongs: These are pincers with which a blacksmith holds metal when it is hot until he makes it into a vessel. And we learned in a beraita in Tractate Pesachim 54a, "Rabbi Yehuda says, 'Tongs can be fashioned only with other tongs, but who fashioned the first tongs? Rather, (in its coming) [it was created] by the hands of Heaven.' They said to him, 'It is possible for one to make it in a mold and align it.'" And why was it necessary to count these ten things? To make known that all the Holy One, blessed be He, created, He created on condition that it change its nature when it is told [to do so] at a time when it is needed. As there is nothing (from the depths) [novel] in the world that did not come up in the thought [of God] in the story of Creation. When the luminaries (fell) [were suspended] on the fourth day, He decreed upon them that they would stand for Yehoshua and Hizkiyahu; the sea, that it should split for the Children of Israel; and so [on] with all of them. However, these ten went up into [His] thought "on the eve of the [first] Shabbat at twilight," [though] they are included in the things that [have change] embedded in them.

also the destructive spirits: These are the shedim (demons). As after the Holy One, blessed be He, created Adam and Chava, he was involved in their creation. And when He created their spirits, He did not suffice to create their bodies before the [Shabbat] day was sanctified (began), and they remained spirits without a body.

and the ram of Avraham, our father: It was decreed about it at twilight that it would be stuck in the thicket by its horns at the time of the binding [of Yitschak].

also the tongs (tsevat), made with tongs: The [Aramaic] translation of (Numbers 4:9) "its tongs" is tsivtaha. The tongs can only be made with other tongs - and [so,] who made the first ones? Perforce they were made by themselves by the hand of Heaven; and they were created at twilight. And this was pushed off in the gemara in the chapter [entitled] Makom she'Nahagu (Pesachim 54a); and they said it is possible that the first tongs were made in a mold, as they cut the copper [for the tongs] with fire and cast it into the mold and it immediately became tongs.

SEVEN THINGS IN A GOLEM. Rav: as in the phrase “golems of vessels”, vessels that were not finished [Kelim 12:6], which are lacking completion and final touches. Such as when a blacksmith makes the golem of a knife or sword and they acquire their form, before he sharpens, polishes, cleans, and engraves them with his usual engravings and puts the final touches on them. The mishna similarly uses golem to describe a person who has a certain degree of intellect and good character, but they are not perfected and have not been acquired in the proper order—they are mixed up and confused, and have and admixture of imperfections. The golem is not the same as the am ha`aretz, who has derech eretz [*which is only good character], and certainly not the same as the bur of 2:2 —Rambam. [*See Rav’s commentary on mishna 10, s.v. “what’s mine is yours and what’s yours is mine”.]

Seven things are [found] in a golem (an unformed person): Anything the form of which has not been completed is called a golem, as it is stated (Psalms 139:16), "Your eyes saw my unformed limbs (golmi); they were all recorded in Your book" - before the formation of the limbs. So [too], one who knows that which is taught to him, but does not know how to build an argument on his own is called a golem - as his wisdom is not recognizable. And his mind will never reach to fathom these seven things, some of which are from the topic of wisdom and some of which are from the good traits. And so did Rambam, may his memory be blessed, explain.

Behold I will first explain these character [types] that are frequently repeated in the words of the sages. And they are the boor (buur), the ignoramus (am ha'arets), the unformed person (golem), the wise man and the pious man. Indeed, a buur (literally, an empty pit) is a man that does not have intellectual virtues nor dispositional virtues - meaning to say, neither wisdom nor ethics. And he also does not have acquisition of knowledge - [it is] as if he is naked of the good and of the bad. And he is called buur to compare him to land that is not sown with anything, and that is called a sdeh buur (empty field), as it is explained in [the Order of] Seeds (Zeraim). And an am ha'arets is a man that has dispositional virtues but he does not have intellectual virtues - meaning to say that he has [knowledge] of the ways of the world (derekh erets) but does not have Torah in his hand. And he is called an am ha'arets (literally, people of the land), meaning to say that he is good for the settling of the land and the societies of the states, since he has dispositional virtues through which he will connect well with others - as we explained in the beginning of our essay. And an unformed person is a man that has intellectual virtues and dispositional virtues. However they are not complete and properly organized. Rather, they have clutter and confusion and there is a lack mixed in with them. And because of this, he is called a golem - to compare him to a tool that a craftsman has made that has the [initial] form of [its] function [but] is missing its completion and refinement. [An example of this is] a knife and a sword that the blacksmith has made not [completely] formed, and their form comes to them before they sand them and sharpen them and smoothen them and engrave whatever is their way to engrave upon them and complete its refinement. And before this, they are called golmei (initial forms of) tools of metals, as it is explained in Kelim (Mishnah Kelim 12:6). And it is a Hebrew word: "My unformedness (golmi) Your eyes saw" (Psalms 139:16) - meaning to say, my substance before the form of the man came to it. And when this form does not reach its completion, they called it a golem, to compare it to substance that is designed to receive a different form through which it will become more complete. And a wise man is one to which these two types of virtues have come to completeness, as is needed. And a pious man is the wise one when he has added to [his] virtue, meaning to say to the dispositional virtues, to the point that he inclines a little towards one of the extremes - as we have explained in the fourth chapter (Eight Chapters 4:7). And [so] his deeds will be greater than his wisdom. And because of this supplement, he is a called a pious man (chassid). As the increase of something is called chessed - whether that increase is for good or for evil. And he said here that the wise man will have these seven virtues, and they are great fundamentals. And because of that, he focuses on them - as through them analysis and study and [proper] action are possible. And four of them are dispositional virtues. And they are that he does not speak in front of someone who is greater than him in wisdom; and he does not interrupt the words of his fellow - but he desists until he finishes his words; and he does not bluster about what he does not know, and that is his saying "about that which he has not heard [anything], he says, 'I have not heard [anything]'"; and he is not stubborn, but when he hears the truth, he concedes to it - and even about that which he is able to refute and to disagree with and to misconstrue, he does not want to do it - and this is his saying, "and he concedes to the truth". And [the following are] the three intellectual virtues: [The first is] that when a deceiver deceives him with his rhetoric of deception, he should not be impulsive and remain in doubt about the truth. Rather, he should quickly sense the source of the error and clarify it. And this is his saying, "and is not impulsive in answering." And this is actually from ease of comprehension and proper examination of the deceiver's argument to understand the difference in the words. And the second virtue is that he asks what needs to be asked about that matter - and he does not ask for a logical proof in natural science, nor for a scientific argument in the wisdoms of logic and similar to this. And if he is the one asked, he should also answer according to the category of the question. If he is asked about matters the nature of which is that they can be proven, he should answer from the category of the inquirer with a proof; and if he is asked about that which is lower than this, he should answer according to its science and [style] of proof. And he should also not be asked about a material explanation and give a formal explanation or be asked about a formal explanation and give a material explanation. But rather he answers according to the purpose. And this is his saying, "he asks to the point and answers as is proper." And the third virtue is that he organizes his study and puts first what is fitting to put first and puts later what is fitting to put later. As this approach is very helpful in study. And that is his saying, "he speaks to the first [point] first and the last [point] last." And all of these are the opposite with the unformed person, since he is not complete - as we have explained - and he has not reached this level.

(In Mishnah Kelim 12:6) [the term, golemi kelim refers to vessels] that are lacking completion and finish. etc. And so [too, the mishnah calls a golem] a man who has intellectual virtues and virtuous character traits, yet they are not complete and do not flow in proper order. [Rather,] they are mixed up and confused and there are lackings mixed in with them. And this is not an ignorant man (am haarets) who has [knowledge] of the ways of the world (which are only virtuous traits), and all the more so is it not the boor in Mishnah 5 of Chapter 2 - Rambam.

An unformed person (golem): This is an expression as per [its usage in the phrase,] "unformed vessels (golmei kelim)." So [too] is a man who is not finished in his intellect - not in his character traits and not in his wisdom - called unformed (golem).

[There are] seven things [characteristic] in a clod, and seven in a wise man:
A wise man does not speak before one who is greater than he in wisdom,
And does not break into his fellow’s speech;
And is not hasty to answer;
He asks what is relevant, and he answers to the point;
And he speaks of the first [point] first, and of the last [point] last;
And concerning that which he has not heard, he says: I have not heard;
And he acknowledges the truth. And the reverse of these [are characteristic] in a clod.
In what may or may not be a coincidence, the seventh mishnah of our chapter begins to list things that come in sevens.
Our mishnah lists the differences between a “clod” and a wise man. According to Maimonides a “clod” is a person in whom are to be found moral and intellectual virtues, but in state of incompleteness, and not functioning properly. That is why he is called a clod; he is like an implement beginning to take shape in the hands of a craftsman, but still lacking completion.
The mishnah lists the qualities of the wise man and then at the end tells us that the opposite is true for the clod. Note that many of these qualities are important in the learning of Torah. In other words, the mishnah is discussing the type of behavior that is most appropriate for inside the bet midrash, the rabbinic study hall. Also, many of the qualities are important in a learning environment that is all oral, without books, as learning was during the time of the Mishnah. In an “oral” culture, properly organized speech is a highly regarded quality.
Some of these qualities are self-explanatory, so we will only explain those which require some clarification.
And does not break into his fellow’s speech: it is extremely important to wait to fully hear what your fellow has said, lest by interrupting him you distract his train of thought or ask a question that will be answered later.
And is not hasty to answer: the wise man must consider his answer before he gives it, for others will take his words quite seriously.
He asks what is relevant, and he answers to the point: Asking what is relevant means that when discussing one subject, for instance the laws of Sabbath observance, he doesn’t ask about another subject, such as the laws of prayer. He answers to the point means that the wise man does not give long-winded arguments that others will not understand.
And he speaks of the first [point] first, and of the last [point] last: In an oral culture, organized speech is easiest to remember and is therefore most effective.
And concerning that which he has not heard, he says: I have not heard: This does not mean that he admits that he doesn’t know the answer to something. The mishnah is stating that if he has reasoned out an answer to a question on his own, but does not have a tradition as to what the right answer is, he must admit that his answer is based upon reason and not tradition. In the eyes of many of the rabbis tradition was a stronger criterion in determining points of law than reason.
And he acknowledges the truth: If he realizes he has lost an argument, he admits it
And the reverse of these [are characteristic] in a clod.

AND SEVEN IN A WISE PERSON. A WISE PERSON DOES NOT SPEAK ETC. The mishna first mentions the seven things in a golem because he comes first chronologically.²²²A person is a golem before he becomes wise. But the mishna proceeds to actually discuss the seven traits of a wise person, because it is fitting to speak of the traits of the wise, and the others will become known in either case by virtue of being opposites, for which reason the mishna says “and their opposites in a golem.”

and seven in a wise man who knows how to build an argument.

Seven things, etc.: [The mishnah] started with the unformed person as he is first temporally. But nonetheless, it elucidated the traits of the wise man, as it is pleasant to bring them to the lips; he will kiss the traits of the wise man, etc.

does not speak in front of someone who is greater than him in wisdom: As so have we found with Elazar and Itamar, who did not want to speak in front of their father, when Moshe became angry with them; and [instead] Aharon responded.

HE DOES NOT SPEAK IN THE PRESENCE OF ONE WHO IS GREATER THAN HE, ETC. Rav: for this is what we find in the case of Elazar and Itamar, etc. This is a case of answering a question. But when it comes to asking one, the mishna says in 5:2 that the bashful do not learn.

A wise man does not speak in front of someone who is greater than him in wisdom: As he listens, is quiet and learns; and [in this way,] he [builds] wisdom - which is not the case with the golem. As he does not desire understanding - but rather to reveal [what is on his mind], as we wrote above.

And this is with regards to [giving] an answer, but with regards to [asking] a question, behold, we learned in Mishnah 5 of Chapter 2, "A person prone to being ashamed cannot learn."

and he does not interrupt the words of his fellow: that he not mix him up. As it is written (Numbers 12:6), "'listen to my words,'" [meaning] listen to me until I [have spoken]. All the more so with simple people [is there a concern that it will mix them up].

IN NUMBER. Rashi: in years. And he is “greater” in terms of students. See what I wrote on the mishna in Eduyot 1:5 [s.v. uvminyan]. Some editions do not have “and in number”. And even those that do see it as an either or.²²³I.e., one should not speak before someone who is greater either in wisdom or in number. So also Midrash Shmuel.

and he does not interrupt the words of his fellow, but he allows him to speak until he finishes all of his words; and afterwards he gives him an answer. And that is a good trait. But the golem does not do [this], but answers something before he hears [it].

or in number: And there are books that don't have the textual variant, "or in number." And, nonetheless, for those that have it in their version, it is teaching, either [wisdom] or [numbers]. And see Mishnah Eduyot 1:5.

and is not impulsive in answering: so that his answer be as is proper. And so was it with Elihu, he said (Job 36:2), "Wait for me a little and I will tell you."

HE DOES NOT RUSH TO ANSWER. Rav: in order that he answer correctly. I.e. not only does he not interrupt a colleague, he waits until he can give a correct answer.

and is not impulsive in answering: When they ask him, he is not quick to give an answer until he hears all of their claims and all that the questioners want to say and to elaborate on the question. Rather, he will study the words intently. And his mouth will not be impulsive and his heart will not be quick to put something out until it be clear as the sun in front of him. And this is from the way of wisdom, as this answer will be correct [this way].

["And is not impulsive in answering,"] means to say, that it is not enough that which "he does not interrupt the words of his fellow," but he also waits until he knows that he will answer as is proper.

and he asks to the point and answers as is proper: It is counted as one thing here, and this is its explanation: The student asks to the point, which is to say about the topic with which they are involved, and then the teacher will answer him as is proper. But if the student asks not to the point, he brings the teacher to answer as is not proper. [This is] in the way of what Rabbi Chiya said to Rav (Shabbat 3b), "When Rabbi is in this tractate, do not ask him about another tractate." And so [too] do you find with the people that were impure from [contact with a dead] soul, who saw that Moshe was involved with the laws of Pesach and asked him about that same topic.

HIS QUESTIONS ARE ON TOPIC. Rav: and we find that the people who were impure … saw Moses studying the laws of Passover and asked him about that topic. From a plain reading of the verses we do not see anything other than that all of Israel were slaughtering their Paschal lambs and they could not slaughter the Paschal lamb on that day, so they approached Moses, as the verses relate. See my comments to the mishna in Pesachim 6:2 [s.v. haza’ah]. Midrash Shmuel quotes Rav’s commentary on some of the sections of this mishna, but leaves out the end of his comments here.

and he asks to the point and answers as is proper: Rabbi Meir (Halevi), may his memory be blessed, explained, "he asks to the point": If he asks to get a reason for anything, he should only ask for a reason that is possible to give for that thing, according to the nature of that thing. And so [too], if they ask him, he "answer as is proper."

And [Rabbi Bartenura's explanation on "about that which he has not heard [anything]" made me wonder, as this is the measure of every man - not to lie. All the more so in a legal decision, that he should make himself dependent on a [greater authority], etc. And it will come out that he will make the masses stumble, as it is possible that the law is not like this. And also the proof that he brought from the men of Charan is not [relevant] to this case at all. And Rambam explained, "And he should not glorify himself with that which he did not hear, and that is what it is saying, 'about that which he has not heard [anything], says, "I have not heard [anything]."' And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

and he speaks to the first [point] first: And so did we find with the Holy One, blessed be He; since Moshe said to Him (Numbers 3:11), "'Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh'" - that is the first - "'and that I should bring out the Children of Israel'" - behold, the second. And the Holy One, blessed be He, answered about the first (Numbers 3:12), "'Since I will be with you'"; and about the second, "'in your bringing the people out from Egypt, you will serve God.'"

WHEN HE HASN’T HEARD SOMETHING, HE SAYS “I HAVEN’T HEARD”. Rav: if he issues a ruling based on his own reasoning he will not say “this is what I heard from my teachers.” I find this explanation puzzling, for this is a trait common to every person—not to lie! It is all the more so in the matter of a ruling, where one should not “hang from a high tree”²²⁴A rabbinic expression for presenting one’s opinion as that of an earlier, greater authority. for perhaps those listening will rely on the ruling because they heard him say he has it as a tradition. He will end up causing the public to sin, for perhaps the law actually does not follow his ruling. And the proof that Rav brings from the people of Haran has nothing to do with our case.
Rambam writes: he should not boast of knowing what he does not know, which is what the mishna means by “when he hasn’t heard something, he says ‘I haven’t heard’”. In that case the proof from the people of Haran is valid, for if this is true of cultured behavior it is certainly true in matters of Torah and wisdom.

and he speaks to the first [point] first and the last [point] last: And its explanation is not that he should answer about the first thing first, and about the last question last. Rather that if the first question is clarified by the last thing, he should elucidate that first, and then elucidate the first; so as to understand and clarify his answer and [so] that the thing will be assimilable for his listener. And that is why it is called first, [even if] it is last - because it precedes it [logically] and the first thing is clarified by it. And if the matter is the opposite, it is called last. And about this is it said, "to the first [point] first and the last [point] last." And this is from great wisdom and understanding of things. And the golem does not know from all of these [things].

and about that which he has not heard [anything], says, "I have not heard [anything]": If he is deciding a legal case from the analysis of his own mind, he should not say, "So have I heard from my teachers." And we found with the men of Charan (Genesis 29:6) when Jacob asked them, "Is there peace (wellness) with him," they answered him, "there is peace and behold his daughter, Rachel, is coming with the flock"; which is to say, "This we know, but if you ask more, behold Rachel, his daughter, is coming with the flock and she will tell you, as we do not know more than this."

and about that which he has not heard [anything], says, "I have not heard [anything]": [About] that which he has not heard from the mouth of his teacher, he should say, "I have not heard [it] from my teachers." And if he has a hypothesis about the thing, he should say, "But it appears to me like this." And this thing is from the good traits that the golem will not grasp.

and he concedes to the truth: And even though he can uphold his words with claims that he [can produce]. And so did we find with Moshe when Aharon pushed him and said to him, "If you have heard [the law] with regards to temporary [sacrifices], you should not be lenient [with it] with regards to permanent sacrifices. "And Moshe heard and it was good in his eyes" (Leviticus 10:20). He conceded to him and he was not embarrassed [so as] to say, "I didn't hear [this]"; but rather [he said,] "I have heard [this] and I had forgotten [it]."

and he concedes to the truth: Even if he is sufficiently wise to know how to respond with many claims and intelligent words and he can refute the claims of his fellow - since [the latter] is not as wise as he - he should not do so; if it appears to him that the truth is with [the other]. Rather he should concede to his words and not be concerned with victory. And it is honorable for him, since this is a beautiful and accepted trait. And the golem will not think about this, and it is a disgrace for him when he is defeated.

And their opposites [are the case] with an unformed person: The opposite of these things that are in the wise man are [found] in the unformed person.

And their opposites [are the case] with a golem: As he will err in all of these, as he does not have the understanding of the wise man - as he is not whole in this dispositions and in his wisdom.

BODIES OF SIN. Different sins. The Sages use this word to speak of various sins as distinct bodies, as you will see from Rav’s comments to the mishna in Keritot 3:10. Because the mishna, in speaking of punishments, says “types” and does not simply say that there are seven punishments, it speaks also of “bodies” of sin and does not simply say there are seven sins.

Seven kinds of punishment come to the world for seven categories of sin: [When] some of [the people] give tithes, and others do not give tithes, a famine from drought comes: A famine that comes because of the withholding of rains in their time.

A famine from drought is that the year be with little rain. It rains in some places and in some places it does not rain; and when it does rain, the rain will be little. And a famine from tumult is when a man is involved in wars and arguments and other novelties that come up for them until the land is unworked - and he does not plant at the time of planting from the [instability in] the world. And a famine of annihilation is that it not rain at all and the rivers and lakes dry up, as its stating (Deuteronomy 28:23), "And the skies above your head shall be copper."

Categories (literally, bodies) of sin: Which is to say, differing sins. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

A famine from drought: [This is when] the rains are few and, from that, the [prices for food go up].

The purpose of this saying is that people should check their behavior to see if perhaps calamities are punishments for what they have done. While it is true that humans will often not be able to see a direct correlation between what happens to them and what their actions are, Judaism continues to believe that there is such a correlation. We should also note a couple of other theological statements made by this mishnah. First of all, the mishnah talks about collective punishments and not individual ones. Second of all, the mishnah teaches that God’s punishments are “measure against measure”, in other words, the punishments somehow fit the crime. Third, and perhaps most important, God is seen as responsible for everything, even the bad things that happen in this world.

SOME TITHE [Heb. me`asrin] ETC. I wrote on the mishna in 1:16 that in many places the word ma`aser is a general name referring to all of the priestly gifts taken from the produce of the earth. Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that our mishna refers specifically to ma`aser and not terumah, because even one kernel of wheat taken as terumah exempts an entire heap. And in the case of challah, the verse uses the language of “giving”, implying that one should remove an amount that is enough for a proper gift, see there. But the Talmud in Shabbat 32b does not seem to support this approach.

and some go hungry, and others have plenty: [This is] poetic justice - "some of them give tithes, and others do not give tithes."

Delay of justice is the postponement of judgement and its investigation for many days about something that is [already] clear. And perversion of justice is when he judges in [a way] that is not proper.

give tithes: "Tithe (maaser)" is a general name for all of the gifts [to the Levites and priests]. And see Tosafot Yom Tov..

a famine from tumult: [This is when] they are not able to gather the produce because of the [enemy] troops.

Seven kinds of punishment come to the world for seven categories of transgression:
When some of them give tithes, and others do not give tithes, a famine from drought comes some go hungry, and others are satisfied. In this section and in the following two, we will see that tithes are connected to rain. In a perhaps more modern interpretation of this concept, we might say that our attitude towards the food that we grow can have an effect on the earth itself. In the first section the punishment of famine due to drought, is seen as the least of the types of famine (it is also clearly not uncommon in the dry land of Israel). Since some tithe and some do not, the punishment will only fall on part of the community. However, the mishnah does not state that those who tithe will not be punished and those who don’t will.

A FAMINE CAUSED BY DROUGHT COMES. The Talmud in Shabbat 32b: as per the verse “as drought and heat [Heb. chom] steal the snow-waters, so have they sinned [all the way] unto Sheol” (Job 24:19)—on account of your not doing what I commanded you [i.e. terumah and ma`aser] to do in the summer [Heb. bi(ye)mot hachamah], the snow-waters will be stolen from you in winter.

[When] they all decide not to give tithes: Since they all do not tithe:

A famine, etc.: In Tractate Shabbat 32b, we learn it from scripture.

a famine of annihilation: [This is when] the skies are like iron and the earth is like copper.

When they have all decided not to give tithes, a famine from tumult and drought comes; If all people decide not to tithe, then famine comes not only as a result of lack of rain, but also as a result of war. Since people will be out fighting war, they are not able to tend to their lands and many more people will go hungry.

AND NOT TO SEPARATE CHALLAH. I.e., not even to separate challah. Midrash Shmuel writes that the mishna might mean specifically challah, which is considered more serious because he could have kneaded less than the amount that would require separating challah and yet chose not to, so it is as if he deliberately decided to not perform the commandment out of spite. But there is nothing one can do about terumah and ma`aser to exempt oneself from the law.
This is only true, however, on a rabbinic level, as by Torah law he may bring the produce home by lowering it through the roof or bringing it in via the enclosed areas behind the houses. For the Torah only requires that terumah and ma`aser be taken from produce that was brought into the house as per the verse “I have cleared the holy gifts out of the house” (Deuteronomy 26:13), and which was brought through the main gate as per the verse “and they shall eat it in your gates” (Deuteronomy 26:12), as Rambam rules in Hilchot Ma`aser 4:1.

a famine from tumult and drought comes: This is a famine that comes because of war and disasters that come to people and [so] they are not able to work their land. 'And the Lord will send tumult' and they will all go hungry - poetic justice - as they all do not tithe.

the dough [offering]: Which is to say, "also not set apart the dough [offering]." And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

that are not given over to the court [to carry out]: [such] that they did not perform a Torah judgement (din Torah) on them.

[When they have, in addition, decided] not to set apart the dough-offering, an all-consuming famine comes. When making bread, Jewish law dictates that a piece of the dough be separated and given to the priests. This dough is called “challah”. If Jews don’t separate the challah and they don’t separate tithes, a total famine will come. In this famine people will die of their hunger.

[*PLAGUE COMES TO THE WORLD FOR CAPITAL CASES ETC. See the next mishna, on “plague increases at four times”.]

[And when they decide, in addition,] not to set apart the dough [offering]: Since they all do not set apart the dough [offering]:

And since the court sinned and did not do [a judgement], pestilence comes to the world, and it does not distinguish between the good and the bad, 'and it will be to the righteous one like the evil one.' But the expression, "that are not given over" does not imply this, but rather like the commentators explain - for example, [sins that result in] death penalties by the hand of the Heavens and excisions (keritot); and also (another explanation is) [sins that are committed] without warning or witnesses, or that the sinner escaped [such that the court cannot punish him].

and for [violation of the laws governing] the produce of the Sabbatical year: They are doing business with [this produce] and they are not treating it with the holiness of the Sabbatical year.

Pestilence comes to the world for sins punishable by death according to the Torah, but which have not been referred to the court, and for neglect of the law regarding the fruits of the sabbatical year. There are several possible explanations for “sins punishable by death according to the Torah, but which have not been referred to the court”. This might refer to crimes that should have been punished by death, but were not brought to trial for various reasons (for example not enough witnesses or the perpetrator was not properly warned). Another explanation is that this refers to cases that could have been brought to trial, and maybe were, but for some reason the courts neglected their duty to execute. Yet another explanation is that this refers to crimes punishable by death at the hand of Heaven (in other words they were not referred to the court because by definition the court could not punish for these crimes. If enough people commit these crimes, perhaps reasoning that a court won’t punish them anyway, pestilence will come to the world. In addition, pestilence comes to the world because people transgress the laws of the fruit of the sabbatical year. According to Jewish law, fruit that grows on its own during the sabbatical year may be collected in order to eat, but not in order to sell. If one collects in order to eat but then has extra, he may sell the extra. Since this system is open to abuse, for only God can tell what a person’s intentions were when he collected, the punishment is great. One who thinks that he won’t bring punishment into the world because people do not see his sins, is actually causing even greater punishment.

THAT WERE NOT GIVEN OVER TO THE COURT. Rav: that the court did not try. Since the court and the leaders of the people sinned and did not uphold the law, plague comes to the world and does not distinguish between [good and evil people] and the righteous and wicked are treated in the same way.
But the language “not given over” does not mean this. As the commentators explain, it refers to sins that carry the penalty of death by the heavenly court or excision, or sins that were done without receiving sufficient warning, or cases in which the one who sinned fled.

a famine of annihilation comes: A year that no rain falls at all - 'and the skies above your head shall be copper.' Because of the proliferation of sins, there is a great punishment.

the produce of the Sabbatical year: to render them ownerless; and also (another explanation is) to completely dispose of them, as I wrote in Mishnah Sheviit 9:2. And therefore it is poetic justice that pestilence comes to the world, as it causes people to be 'ownerless,' as the destructive angel does not distinguish. But with the sword, it is possible that if his voice supplicates, the enemy will surely hear him and leave him - Derekh Chaim. And these two [sins] are considered one in the count of seven since they are similar in their punishment. And so [too] the adjacent [ones].

the delay of justice: They know to [which side] the judgement is leaning and they do not decide upon it.

The sword comes to the world for the delay of judgment, and for the perversion of judgment, and because of those who teach the Torah not in accordance with the accepted law. The sword, representative of war, comes to the world because of delay and perversion of justice. In other words because the system of justice was not implemented properly, society will decay into the anarchy of war, an inherently unjust situation. The sword also comes when people teach Torah not according to the accepted halakhah. Although there are many interpretations of this sentence, my sense is that it means that this person teaches Jewish law from what seems to them to be the simple meaning of the Torah. Jewish law is derived from the Torah, but it is mitigated by the oral Torah, the traditional teachings that have always accompanied the Torah. The Sadducees were the ones who taught literal interpretations of the Torah, whereas the Pharisees used tradition to help them interpret and make legal rulings.

AND THE FRUITS OF THE SHEVI`IT YEAR. For the law is that one must relinquish ownership of them or clear them out of the house entirely; I record all the opinions on this matter in my commentary on the mishna in Shevi`it 9:2. It is measure for measure, therefore, that plague comes to the world, which is like relinquishing ownershp of people, for the angel of desruction does not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked. With the sword, it is possible that one will speak fairly and the enemy will heed his plea—so Maharal in Derech Chaim.
Since these sins bring forth the same punishment, they are counted together as one of the seven, as are the ones in the next group.

Pestilence comes to the world for the death penalties set forth in the Torah that are not given over to the court [to carry out]: For example, excision and death penalties at the hand of the Heavens.

[The] sword, etc.: In the gemara (Shabbat 33a), we learn it from scripture.

the perversion of justice: [meaning] to render the guilty innocent and the innocent guilty.

THE SWORD COMES TO THE WORLD ON ACCOUNT OF PROTRACTED RULINGS. As per the verse “and I will bring upon you the sword which extracts vengeance for the covenant” (Leviticus 26:25), in which “covenant” refers to the Torah. And the verse at the end of that same section says, “because they have made My laws revolting”²²⁵The simple reading is “because they have found My laws revolting.” The midrashic reading interprets ma'asu as a transitive verb, giving “because they have made My laws revolting.” The Talmud explains that the courts have made the laws revolting by protracting the rulings and perverting justice. (Leviticus 26:43)—Talmud, Shabbat 33a.

and for [violation of the laws governing] the produce of the Sabbatical year: That he does not dispose of them from his house and does business with them and [that is] forbidden. And for this, pestilence comes from the angle that (the leaders of) Israel agreed to turn their eyes away from the community. In this which they are doing evil, pestilence comes to all of 'the haters of Israel' - and from them, it extends to the whole world. However, if the heads do not have the power to protest against the lesser people, "pestilence comes to the world" is understood to be talking about an individual person - who is called a small world. And he is evil and will die in his sin. And all of Israel is [then] exempt.

and because of those who interpret the Torah counter to the accepted law: [meaning] to render the permissible forbidden and the forbidden permissible.

[The] sword comes to the world: Since it is written (Leviticus 26:25), "I will bring a sword against you to wreak vengeance for the covenant." And covenant only [means] Torah, since it is written after it (Leviticus 26:43), "because and because they rejected My judgments.

and because of those who interpret the Torah counter to the accepted law [declaring] the forbidden, permissible, and the permissible, forbidden.

WILD BEASTS COME TO THE WORLD ON ACCOUNT OF POINTLESS OATHS AND THE DESECRATION OF G-D’S NAME. Talmud, Shabbat 33a: as the verse says “and if through these you are not disciplined unto Me” (Leviticus 26:23)—read not be'eleh, “through these”, but be'alah, “in the matter of oaths”. And the verse says “and I will send forth the beasts of the field against you” (Leviticus 26:22). And concerning false oaths the verse says “and do not swear falsely in My name and desecrate the name of your G-d” (Leviticus 19:12), and concerning the desecration of G-d’s name the verse says, “and do not deserate My holy name” (Leviticus 22:32).

Destructive animals come to the world because of false oaths: They sinned with the mouth - 'the teeth of beasts will I send upon them.' As the difference between us and the beasts is in [oral] expression. And this is why we rule over them. And therefore, one who does not concern himself [in this way] for the glory of his Creator is fitting that he should be trampled by the beasts. And this is a cause for desecration of God's name, may He be blessed. As 'You adorned him with glory and majesty; You have made him master,' 'and it is reversed' - that the beasts will rule over the people that desecrate the glory of the Glorious one.

We have already explained the order of the extraction of the obligations from produce many times in the Order of Seeds (Zeraim). And there it was clairified that in the third and sixth year, he would extract the first tithe and give it to the Levite [like] in each [and every] year. And afterwards, he would extract the poor tithe and give it to the poor. And this poor tithe was in place of the second tithe, which he would extract in other years of the sabbatitcal cycle. And the gifts to the poor are the gleanings, the produce that is forgotten, the produce that is in the corner of the field, the fallen grapes and the single strands of grapes. As at the holiday (Sukkot), they are all present - since occupation with the earth (agricultural pursuits) is already finished. And the one that gave these obligations, gave them; and the one who did not give them, stole them

Destructive animals, etc. Exile, etc.: They bring verses [as proof-texts] for all of them in the gemara in Shabbat 33a.

False oaths: in vain, that are unneccesary.

Introduction This mishnah continues to list calamities that come to the world as a result of sin.

EXILE COMES TO THE WORLD ON ACOUNT OF IDOLATERS ETC. Murder, as per the verse, “do not bring guilt upon the land… and do not contaminate the land in which you dwell, in whose midst I dwell” (Numbers 35:33-34). Illicit relations, as per the verse “for the people of this land did all of these abominations” (Leviticus 18:27), and the verse “and the land was contaminated, and I visited its iniquity upon it” (Leviticus 18:25), and the verse “and the land will not vomit you out on account of your contaminating it” (Leviticus 18:28). Concerning idolatry, the verse says there “and I will cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idols” (Leviticus 26:30), and the verse says “and I will lay waste your holy places and disperse you among the nations” (Leviticus 26:31). The shemitah and yovel years, as per the verse “then shall the land be appeased of its Sabbaths, all the days of its lying desolate with you in the land of your enemies” (Leviticus 26:34), and the verse “all the days of its lying desolate it shall rest” (Leviticus 26:35)”—Talmud, Shabat 33a.

Exile comes to the world, etc.: And we learn all of them in the chapter [entitled] Bemeh Madlikin (Shabbat 33a): As it is written about sexual prohibitions (Leviticus 18:25), "And the land became defiled; and I called it to account for its iniquity, and the land spewed out its inhabitants." And about idolatry, it is written (Leviticus 26:30), "and My soul will spurn (gaala) you" - like a man who drives out his fellow from in front of him. As any ejection of something is called geeul. And about the sabbatical year, it is written (Leviticus 26:34), "Then shall the land make up for its sabbatical years throughout the time that it is desolate... it shall rest." And spilling of blood is even when accidental, and the proof of the thing is from the cities of refuge.

become more widespread, etc.: As when it happens that there is pestilence in those periods of time, it becomes more widespread then, due to the sin of these [people]; as [this] sin always happens in these [time periods] with some people. And behold, it is poetic justice; as [such a man] took away from the life of the poor person and also was concerned that if he would give, it would take away from his [own] bread if his life is lengthened. Hence, his life will be taken from, and his produce will remain for others. And from now, there is no objection at all from the previous mishnah - Midrash Shmuel.

desecration of God's name: One who commits a sin publicly with a high hand. And also (another explanation is) that people see and learn from his [sinful] actions.

Wild beasts come to the world for swearing in vain, and for the profanation of the Name. A vain oath is one taken unnecessarily (see Shevuoth 3:8). Profaning God’s name refers to one who sins in public, thereby giving not only himself a bad name but all of Judaism. It can also refer to the sin committed by a respectable person, from whom others learn. When such a person sins it causes a greater profanation of God’s name than when a regular person sins. The Meiri draws a connection between the punishment and the crime. By taking a vain oath and profaning God’s name, the person attempts to bring God’s holiness down a level. As a punishment God brings him down to the level of an animal and wild animals come and attack him.

PLAGUE INCREASES AT FOUR TIMES. That is, if there happens to be plague at one of these times, it will be a more severe plague on account of these sins, for during these times some people always commit these sins. This punishment comes measure for measure, as he has taken away the sustenance of the poor and imagined that, should he give the poor, he himself will lack bread for the duration of his long life. His life is therefore shortened and his produce remains for others. According to this, there is no difficulty to be raised from the previous mishna—Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Moshe Almosnino.

At four periods of time, etc.: As it is written (Proverbs 22:22), "Do not rob the poor, as he is poor." And is there something that can be robbed from the poor? Rather these are the gifts to the poor, since any one that withholds them and does not give them to the poor is as if he takes the soul (life) of the poor person. And he also robs the soul of the robber for himself, as it is written (Proverbs 22:23), "For the Lord will take up their cause and despoil those who despoil them their soul" - ["their soul" being plural is] meaning to say the soul of the robber and of the poor person. And therefore pestilence increases and is common at these four periods of time - from the time that they hold on to [the gifts].

and after the holiday (Sukkot): As at the holiday, occupation with the earth (agricultural pursuits) is already finished. And the one that gave these obligations, gave them; and the one who did not give them, stole them - Rambam.

and because of [the violation] of the resting of the earth: when they plow and plant on the Sabbatical year.

Exile comes to the world for idolatry, for sexual sins and for bloodshed, and for [transgressing the commandment of] the [year of the] release of the land. Exile, which is the ultimate punishment, comes from a trio of the worst crimes: idol worship, sexual crimes (incest and adultery) and murder. Generally, if a person is told that he must sin or he will be killed, he is supposed to commit the sin. The three exceptions are idol worship, sexual crimes and adultery. When people willingly commit these sins, God will exile them from their land. According to Jewish legend, it is for these three sins that the first Temple was destroyed. During the seventh year Jews are not allowed to work their land. The punishment for not observing this law is that the land itself will exile you from living on it. This is another case of “measure for measure”; the punishment fits the crime.

THE YEAR FOLLOWING THE SHEVI`IT YEAR. Because the shevi`it year itself is when the sins occur that bring this punishment, the plague increases immediately at the end of the shevi`it year, for which reason the mishna says “the year following the shevi`it year” and not “the eighth year because of the fruits of the shevi`it year”—Midrash Shmuel.
I do not see the mishna’s choice of words making this point, for the mishna in Sotah 7:8 the mishna says “the eighth year” and is forced to explain further “which is the year following the shevi`it year”.²²⁶Clearly, then, saying simply “the eighth year” was never an option due to a lack of clarity; hence the mishna, in saying “the year following the shevi`it year” is not deliberately choosing this wording over “the eighth year” to make a point. The objection might be raised against Tosafot Yom Tov that the mishna in Sotah says “the eighth year, which is the year following the shevi`it year” precisely because there, the event in question also occurred immediately at the beginning of the eighth year—the king read from the Torah on the 16th of Tishrei. As such, we do not see that “the eighth year” is not a viable choice for things that occur during the eighth year; in fact, this mishna would support Midrash Shmuel’s contention that “the year following the shevi`it year” indicates that the plague starts immediately at the completion of the shevi`it year. Presumably, Tosafot Yom Tov would answer that the 16th of Tishrei, while close to the beginning of the year, is not immediately upon its beginning, and so the use of “the year following the shevi`it year” for this purpsoe would not be justified.

In the fourth [year], it is because of the tithe to the poor in the third [year] and they did not give it. As it is written (Deuteronomy 14:28), "At the end of three years, you shall bring out all the tithe, etc." And such is the order of the tithes.

it is because of [negligence] of the tithe to the poor in the third [year]: As in place of the second tithe that they put aside in other years of the Sabbatical cycle; on the third and the seventh, they put aside the tithe to the poor.

At four times pestilence increases: in the fourth year, in the seventh year and at the conclusion of the seventh year, and at the conclusion of the Feast [of Tabernacles] in every year. In the fourth year, on account of the tithe of the poor which is due in the third year. In the seventh year, on account of the tithe of the poor which is due in the sixth year; At the conclusion of the seventh year, on account of the produce of the seventh year; And at the conclusion of the Feast [of Tabernacles] in every year, for robbing the gifts to the poor. This section expands on section four of the previous mishnah, where we learned that “Pestilence comes to the world for …neglect of the law regarding the fruits of the sabbatical year.” Fruits of the sabbatical year (which grow on their own without the field having been worked) should be left in the field to be collected by the poor. One who collects them is actually stealing from the poor. Our mishnah teaches that pestilence can come as a result of other crimes committed involving food intended for the poor, and that the punishment comes after immediately after the sin has been committed. In the third and sixth years, the second tithe goes to the poor. When people don’t give those tithes, there will be pestilence in the fourth and seventh years. The punishment that comes at the end of the seventh year was already mentioned above. The pestilence that comes after the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth) is retribution for not leaving parts of the harvest for the poor. According to the Torah the corners of the field, things that have fallen and things that have been forgotten must be left for the poor. Since the main harvest time in Israel is in the fall, the punishment for not leaving these things to the poor comes after Sukkoth.

AND FOLLOWING SUKKOT. Rambam: for by Sukkot everyone has finished dealing with the produce of the earth, so whoever has given these portions has given them, and whoever has not has stolen them.

And after the holiday (Sukkot) in every single year, it is because of the theft of gifts to the poor: As at the time of the holiday of Sukkot, it is the time of the harvest. And when they steal the gifts of the poor - as they do not leave over the dropped stalks, the forgotten stalks and the corners of the field - the Omnipresent punishes them immediately after their harvest. And therefore, it said, "At four periods of time, etc."

the theft of gifts to the poor: The gleanings, the produce that is forgotten, the produce that is in the corner of the field, the fallen grapes and the single strands of grapes.

FOUR TYPES OF PEOPLE: HE WHO SAYS, WHAT’S MINE IS MINE, ETC. The mishna is not discussing giving tzedakah, for the types of people who give tzedakah are discussed in mishna 13. It is speaking simply of benefitting from people’s possessions.

There are four temperaments, etc.: the one who says "what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" He is not generous, but he is good in that he 'hates presents.' And it is difficult. As how can they say that this is an [average] temperament? And is not someone who prevents himself from giving charity completely wicked? And [granted] that it is true that according to the one that says that it is the temperament of Sodom, it comes out well - as it is stated (Ezekiel 16:49), "Behold this was the sin of your sister, Sodom, etc.; she did not support the poor and the needy." Rather, it is dealing with one who gives charity from fear of God, however his nature is to be stingy. And hence since he 'supports the poor and the needy,' what does his nature matter to us - the actual temperament (in practice) is [average]. "And some say that it is the trait of Sodom" and that its source is very bad, since his nature is to be stingy. But [regarding] if he 'does not support the poor and the needy at all,' everyone agrees about this that he is completely wicked and that it is the temperament of Sodom.

Behold it is elucidated in this statement that the pious one is one who multiplies good deeds - meaning to say that he inclines a little towards one of the two extremes. And it is also elucidated for you that one who has vices of the soul is called evil - meaning to say that he inclines towards the extreme that is extraneous, as we have explained in the fourth chapter (Eight Chapters 4). As the one who wants that he should have his money and the money of someone else has much desire and he is called evil.

"What is mine, etc.": We are not speaking about givers of charity - as those we teach later [in] Mishnah 13 - but rather about benefit in general.

"What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours": "I do not want to give you benefit, and would you only not benefit me."

There are four types of character in human beings:
One that says: “mine is mine, and yours is yours”: this is a commonplace type; and some say this is a sodom-type of character.
[One that says:] “mine is yours and yours is mine”: is an unlearned person (am;
[One that says:] “mine is yours is yours is yours” is a pious person.
[One that says:] “mine is mine, and yours is mine” is a wicked person.
The Mishnah now begins to list things that come in fours.
One that says: “mine is mine, and yours is yours”: this is a commonplace type: a person who acts in this way is not pious, for he does not give of his own to others, but neither is he wicked for he is careful not to take others property.
And some say this is a sodom-type of character: Some say that this is the way that the people of Sodom acted. When the angelic visitors visited Lot in Sodom, the people of Sodom were angered by Lot’s generosity (Genesis 19:5). Ezekiel states, “Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom: arrogance! She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquility; yet she did not support the poor and the needy” (Ezekiel 16:49). We see that one of the cardinal crimes of the people of Sodom was their lack of generosity, especially when contrasted with the generosity and hospitality of Abraham.
The commentators also point out that one who does not want to give of himself to others will eventual never want to give anything to others, even if it costs him nothing.
[One that says:] “mine is yours and yours is mine”: is an unlearned person (am haaretz): One explanation is that this literally refers to the “am haaretz”, which literally translates as the “people of the land”, who live in partnership on the land. There is no concept of ownership amongst this type of people, and therefore they don’t recognize any border between what is theirs and what belongs to others. In a positive manner, we could state that they share everything equally. Others explain this as having a negative connotation, and “am haaretz” refers to an uncivilized, unlearned, almost barbaric people.
[One that says:] “mine is yours is yours is yours” is a pious person: A person who does not want to ever take of others’ property but does want to give to others is truly pious, for he gives without expecting anything in return.
[One that says:] “mine is mine, and yours is mine” is a wicked person: He is wicked for he wishes to take and not give anything in return.

AND WHAT’S YOURS IS MINE—THIS IS AN AM HA`ARETZ. Rav: this is how to settle the land. Specifically when one wishes to benefit from others’ possessions with their consent. For if done without their consent, even if he wishes to benefit them as well he is a regular thief and the ultimate evildoer, and the Sages here were speaking about proper behavior and weren’t dealing with thieves, who are wicked—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Ramah.

"what is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine" - [that's an] am ha'arets (literally, a man of the land): Because this one wants the improvement of the world, he is called a man of the land. As he wants to give and to take, since love increases among them through this. And even if this is a good trait for the improvement of the world, this is not from wisdom. As one who 'hates presents shall live.' And the good temperament is to give but not to take.

And [when the mishnah speaks about mutual benefit, it is] specifically if he wants to benefit from the possessions of others with their knowledge. As if it is without their knowledge - even though he wants to also benefit them - he is a total thief and you can have no greater evildoer than this. And the sages, may their memory be blessed, only spoke about [normative] temperaments and they did not speak about the robber and the thief, who is an evildoer - Midrash Shmuel.

And there are some who say that is the temperament of Sodom: The thing is close to coming to the temperament of Sodom. As since he gets accustomed to this, he will not want to give benefit to his fellow - even with something that benefits his fellow and he does not [lose anything as a result]. And this was the temperament of Sodom. As they were intending to stop sojourners from among them, even though the land was broad-shouldered in front of them and they did not lack anything.

WHAT’S MINE IS YOURS AND WHAT’S YOURS IS YOURS—THIS IS A PIOUS PERSON. Not that he gives away all he owns, for the Sages say (Ketubot 50a) that even one who gives freely should not give more than a fifth of what he has in order that he not give too much and be forced to depend on others. Rather, the mishna is discussing one who gives the proper amount—Maharal in Derech Chaim.

"what is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine" -- [that's an] am ha'arets (uneducated person, literally the people of the land): who benefits and gives benefit equally, and this is [for] the [advancement of] the inhabitation of the land. But he doesn't know the verse (Proverbs 15:27) which writes, "and the one hates gifts will live." And this is the [meaning] of the expression, am ha'arets, in every place - that he wants the refinement of the land but he does not have the wisdom to distinguish [what are] proper refinements.

a pious person: Not that he scatters everything that he has, as behold, they said, "The one that scatters, let him not scatter more than a fifth" - so that he not scatter more than [that which is] enough and he perforce become dependent on the creatures. But rather we are talking about one who foregoes according to what is fit - Derekh Chaim.

"what is mine is yours, and what is yours is yours": He gives benefit to the creatures from his possessions, but he does not benefit from others.

a pious person: that goes beyond the [letter of the] law.

HARD TO ANGER AND EASY TO APPEASE—THIS IS A PIOUS PERSON. But there is nobody with such a temperament that he never angers. For who was greater in humility than Moses, of whom the verse says “Moses became angry with the commanders of the army” (Numbers 31:14)—Midrash Shmuel. Greater than this is the verse “listen here, you rebels!” (Numbers 20:10), but it does not say explicitly that he was angry.

[A person who is] easy to anger and easy to appease - his gain is canceled by his loss: As the loss is greater than the gain. As what is the use of his being appeased quickly, as [long as] his anger lay in his lap, and he will [often] come to sin. And 'who will be able to fix what he has made crooked' during the time of his anger, even if he is quickly appeased.

Observe how he called the patient one, whose patience is excessive to the point that he approaches lack of feeling concerning the matter of anger, a pious man. And he called someone with the vices of the trait of anger, evil.

[A person who is] hard, etc.: But one who does not get angry at all is not found in any disposition. As who is greater for us in humility than Moshe, our teacher, - peace be upon him - and about him it is said (Numbers 31:14), "And Moshe got angry, etc.," etc. - Midrash Shmuel.

This is the textual variant that we [follow]: [a person who is] easy to anger and easy to appease -- his gain is canceled by his loss. [A person who is] hard to anger but [also] hard to appease -- his loss is canceled by his gain: A man who get angry quickly about everything - even though he goes back and is quickly appeased - his loss is greater than his reward; as most of his deeds are spoiled, since he is easy to anger about each and every thing. But [if he is] hard to anger - even though he has a bad trait [in] that he is hard to appease - his great reward [in] that he is hard to anger cancels out his small loss [in] that he is hard to appease, and most of his deeds are refined. And some [follow] the variant [that has] the opposite, and [the first] variant seems more like the main [one].

There are four kinds of temperments:
Easy to become angry, and easy to be appeased: his gain disappears in his loss;
Hard to become angry, and hard to be appeased: his loss disappears in his gain;
Hard to become angry and easy to be appeased: a pious person;
Easy to become angry and hard to be appeased: a wicked person.
One commentator points out that although the mishnah calls these qualities “temperaments”, human beings have the ability to change their “temperaments” from one to the other. Otherwise the one who is slow to anger and quick to be appeased would not be considered pious, for these qualities would be out of his control. While we might be born genetically disposed to certain characteristics, he can overcome our predisposition. Human beings, unlike animals, have control over their temperaments and therefore their moral attributes can be described by their level of self-control.
Easy to become angry, and easy to be pacified: his gain disappears in his loss: The fact that he is easily appeased is not helpful since he is so easily angered. This person ends up with a net loss.
Hard to become angry, and hard to be appeased: his loss disappears in his gain: The fact that he is “hard to be appeased” is compensated for by the fact that he rarely becomes angry. This person ends up with a net gain, although there is still room for improvement.
Hard to become angry and easy to be appeased: a pious person: Note that the pious person does occasionally get angry. He is not perfect. However, even on the rare occasions when he does get angry, he is subsequently easily appeased.
Easy to become angry and hard to be appeased: a wicked person: This person is constantly getting angry and can never be appeased. No one can get along with him and he is therefore accounted as wicked by most people.

EASY TO ANGER ETC.—HE IS WICKED. For the Talmud says (Berachot 29b), “be not angry and you will not sin”—Rashi. Maharal explains this in Derech Chaim according to the Talmud in Nedarim 22b, where Rav Nachman says that it is clear that anyone who gets angry has done many sins per the verse, “a man of anger incites strife, and a wrathful person has much sin” (Proverbs 29:22).

[A person who is] hard to anger but [also] hard to appease - his loss is canceled by his gain: The gain is greater than the loss, since he only gets angry sporadically, for a great necessity. And even if he is not quickly appeased from that anger - behold, he is patient most of the time.

an evildoer: As the master said, "Don't be angry, and don't sin" - Rashi. And Derekh Chaim explains that it is like what we say in Nedarim 22b, "Any person who gets angry, it is known that his sins are greater [than his merits], as is states, '(A man of anger stirs up strife;) and a wrathful man much transgression.'"

[A person who is] hard to anger, but easy to appease - [that's a] pious person: And it is not necessary that he never get angry, as sometimes a person needs to get angry out of zeal for God like Pinchas. Hence it said, "hard to anger," since he still needs to get angry - however it should be with difficulty at the times when he is not allowed to be without anger. And about this the wise men of ethics have said, "Do not be sweet, lest they swallow you up." And it is also a good thing to be appeased immediately - even when his anger is still upon him. And not after his anger has left him, but precisely at the time of his anger is he easy to appease - as this is from the trait of piety and good-heartedness.

THIS IS A BAD PORTION. Rav: the mishna could not call these “pious” and “wicked” because these things are not up to a person to choose. Although it is possible to remember one’s learning with Heavenly assistance when one’s fear of Heaven precedes his wisdom, as I wrote on the mishna in 3:9, one who has not reached this level cannot be called “wicked”, since a natural flaw has brought him to this state.²²⁷Of having difficulty learning and easily forgetting. Although it is optimal to for one’s fear of Heaven to precedes his wisdom, not reaching this level does not make him wicked. And he is not called wicked for failing to change his abilities, for this is his natural state.

Quick to understand and quick to forget: His loss is greater. Since he forgets immediately, what is the use of that which he comprehends and knows quickly - behold, he forgets everything. But slow to understand and slow to forget: His gain is greater. As even if it comes to him with great toil, he does not forget after he knows [it]. And both of them should not desist from Torah study, as they have a good reward from their labor. And we learn from this mishnah to give preference to one who remembers over one who forgets - if they do not have enough to support both of them, they should support the one who remembers. This mishnah does not mention pious or wicked as it is not relevant here, since the mind of a person is from God. It is as the wise men of ethics said, "The mind is a gift, but [character] is acquired."

Observe how he did not call the one that is quick [and] has a good memory a pious one, because this is an intellectual virtue. And [so] he called him a wise man. And he did not call the one who has difficulty understanding matters and forgets much, evil - as it is not in his hand (control). And these are not virtues which are possible to acquire - as we explained in the second chapter (Eight Chapters 2:2).

And even though it is possible with the help of Heaven to raise his study, if his fear of sin precedes his wisdom; it is not fitting for someone who has not reached inclusion of this trait to be called an evildoer, as the disadvantage in his creation led him to this.

Quick to understand and quick to forget -- his gain is canceled by his loss: As since he forgets what he learns, what benefit is there in that which he is quick to understand? It comes out that his loss is greater than his gain.

There are four types of disciples: Quick to comprehend, and quick to forget: his gain disappears in his loss; Slow to comprehend, and slow to forget: his loss disappears in his gain; Quick to comprehend, and slow to forget: he is a wise man; Slow to comprehend, and quick to forget, this is an evil portion. If you belong to the first category of this mishnah, you will quickly grasp that you belong to the first category, but you will quickly forget what you just realized. Your quick comprehension will be meaningless for you will not retain what you have comprehended. If you belong to the second category, you may have to read this mishnah over many times before you understand that you are actually in this category. However, once you finally understand, you won’t forget it. Your slow comprehension is compensated by your strong memory, and in the end you are left with a gain. If you belong to the third category, congratulations, you are lucky to be so wise. If you belong to the fourth category, this mishnah will take you a long time to comprehend, and then you will forget it anyway. It is too bad that you have not been blessed with either quick comprehension or a good memory, but don’t give up hope. You will have to work harder to learn but the mishnah has already taught us that “according to the effort is the reward”. Since you will have to make a great effort to learn, at least your reward will be commensurate.

[A student who is] slow to understand and slow to forget -- his loss is canceled by his gain: As the good trait in him exceeds the negative trait; since that which he understands after the difficulty, he remembers and does not forget. And what comes out from it (the practical difference) is that if we have two students in front of us and we only have enough sustenance to [support] one of them, we prioritize the one that is slow to forget.

that is a bad portion: It would not be relevant to learn here, "pious" or "evil," as this is not something that is dependent upon the choice of a person, but rather is a disadvantage that was in him from the beginning of his creation.

FOUR TYPES OF PEOPLE WHO GIVE TZEDAKAH. This mishna is taught here because the previous mishna was also discussing stipends for students, as Rav writes there—Midrash Shmuel. Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that this mishna should have come after mishna 10, “what’s mine is mine, etc.”, but the mishna of “quick to learn, etc.” is more similar to mishna 10 because they both say “his gain is offset by his loss, etc.”²²⁸This does not explain why that mishna is mishna 12, and a different mishna is mishna 11; presumably, our mishna should have been mishna 11, mishna 12 should be mishna 12, and mishna 11 should be mishna 13. See Derech Chaim on mishna 11 for a full treatment of the issue.

There are four temperaments, etc.: One who wishes to give, but [that] others not give: He wants the good and the praise for himself and his want is not for the benefit of the creatures.

Observe how he called one with [so] much mercy that he does not suffice that he alone should have mercy, [but only] that others should also have mercy, a pious man. And he called a cruel one, evil.

And "he has an evil eye regarding himself" because he has brazenness of the heart. And it is not similar to "he has an evil eye regarding others" - Rashi. But rather it is to say, it is like the "evil eye" in Mishnah 19, [of the one] who does not suffice with what is his and covets that which is fitting for the poor person. And there is an objection: If so, he is an evildoer, as he transgresses against "do not harden your heart." And it is possible that here we are speaking about the [case] that there is no lack to the poor person and it comes out that he does not harden his heart from giving to the poor person what he lacks. And if [the poor person] did not have someone to give to him, he would have given. And his desire is to give when he finds a poor person who has no givers; and nonetheless, this is brazenness of heart. And now it comes out well that "[to] give and [that] others give -- [that's a] pious person"; as there is an objection that such is the temperament of every man. But rather here it is concerning a poor person who has what he needs, through the giving of one of them. But he wants that he give and [also that others] give - so as to fill his requirements with plenty. It is fitting that such a person be called a pious person. So does it appear to me.

There are four temperaments among givers of charity: meaning to say in the giving of charity, and not literally among givers of charity. As behold, there is among them the one who does not give. And so [too] in the adjacent [mishnah], "among those who attend the House of Study," is in the going to the House of Study.

There are four types of charity givers. He who wishes to give, but that others should not give: his eye is evil to that which belongs to others; He who wishes that others should give, but that he himself should not give: his eye is evil towards that which is his own; He who desires that he himself should give, and that others should give: he is a pious man; He who desires that he himself should not give and that others too should not give: he is a wicked man. This mishnah is straightforward and not difficult to understand. However, a few notes can be made. First of all, the “evil eye” is one that begrudges and does not want to give charity to the poor. The mishnah is not only concerned with whether or not a person gives charity but whether or not he encourages others to give charity. The truly pious person gives of himself and encourages others to do the same. The type of person who wants to give but does not want others to give is probably a familiar figure. He wants to give not because giving is the correct thing to do, but because of the honor he will accrue from being known as generous. Others giving more than him eclipses his honor and hence he begrudges their generosity. He is not looking out for the ultimate welfare of the poor who really need the charity. One who does not want to give and also does not want others to give, is probably the most wicked type of person we have yet encountered in this series of mishnayoth. Despite the fact that he does not benefit from others’ generosity, his cruelty towards the poor and his desire to see them suffer, makes him begrudge even others’ generosity. It is also possible that he does not want others to give so that they should not be seen as more generous than him. His greediness and pursuit of honor at the cost of the welfare of the needy make him an evil and perhaps even dangerous figure.

HE HAS AN EVIL EYE FOR OTHERS’ THINGS. Rav: because he knows that giving tzedakah brings wealth to those who do so and he does not wish for them to become wealthy. So also Rashi, who adds: and “he has an evil eye for his own things” means that he has a toughness of heart; the term does not mean the same thing as it does in the phrase “he has an evil eye for others’ things.” That is, in the second case it means the same thing as the “evil eye” of mishna 19, because he is not content with what he has and covets what should go to the poor. The difficulty with this explanation is that if so, he transgresses the prohibition of “do not harden your heart” (Deuteronomy 15:7).
But perhaps our mishna is discussing a poor person who really is not lacking, and so one who does not give to him is not “heardening his heart” and not giving the poor person what he needs. If there were nobody to provide him with his needs he would give, and his desire is to give to a poor person that has nobody else giving to him. Even so, this is a toughness of heart.
According to this, we can understand why one who desires that he and others give is called a “pious person”. For there are those who object that this is the way of all people, to give and to desire that others give. But in our case the poor person would have what he needs whether others give but not he himself or he himself but not others. And yet, he both wishes to give himself and wishes for others to give, in order to provide the poor person with what he needs in abundance. Such a person is properly called pious.

[One who wishes that] others give, and he [himself] not give as he is stingy.

he has an evil eye with respect to others: As it is known that [giving] charity makes one wealthy and he does not want others to get wealthy. Another explanation: There [exists] one who is concerned about the money of his relatives more than about his own money. And even though he gives, he does not want his relatives to give, so that they not lose their money. And [this explanation makes] "he has an evil eye with respect to others" similar to "he has an evil eye with respect to himself" at the end [of this part of the mishnah].

[One who wishes to] give and [that] others give: And this is what King Shlomo, peace be upon him, stated (Proverbs 11:25), "A generous soul" which is one that gives charity with a good eye "will prosper," but "one who benefits others" is greater, as he is one who benefits others and teaches them that they should give charity - as he wants to "give and that others give" - and this is [the meaning of the end of the verse,] "shall also be sated." And so [too] did Yishayahu state (Isaiah 32:8), "But the generous advises generosity and he stands upon generosity"; meaning to say, he advises himself to give, but he also stands on generosity - on the generosity of others who he tells to do like himself.

AND DOES NOT DO. Rav: and does not review(,) and learn(s) and does not understand. We can explain his language thus: “he hears and does not review, or he learns but does not understand.” Alternatively, we can explain his comment as “he hears and does not review, nor does he learn, nor does he understand.” This seems to be the case, based on his comment on the end of the mishna,²²⁹There, Rav puts “learn” and “review” together in the definition of “do”. where this all seems to be one thing. And because he does not learn, he does not understand. Midrash Shmuel, in reproducing the Rav’s comment, writes “for he does not learn and does not understand.”

There are four temperaments, etc.: [One who] goes but does not do: The intention is not that he does not do anything from that which he heard in the House of Study - as one who prevented himself from doing the commandments is completely wicked, even if he does not do sins. Rather, the intention is that he does not search for them in order to do them, but he [rather] does them by happenstance when they come to his hand.

His saying, "among those who go to the House of Study," meaning to say, in the going to the House of Study, there are four traits. Observe how he called the one that proliferates acquisition of virtues a pious man, and the one who is lazy in [their] acquisition, evil.

And one can explain that this is what [Rabbi Bartenura] said: And also he [goes to] study and does not understand. And one can [also] explain that this is what he said: And he does not review and he does not study and he does not understand.

[One who] goes but does not do: He goes to the House of Study to listen but he does not review and study and does not understand.

There are four types among those who frequent the study-house (bet:
He who attends but does not practice: he receives a reward for attendance.
He who practices but does not attend: he receives a reward for practice.
He who attends and practices: he is a pious man;
He who neither attends nor practices: he is a wicked man.
“Practice” in this mishnah does not refer to one who does not observe any of the commandments, for the mishnah would not describe such a person as receiving any reward. Rather, “practice” refers to one who applies himself diligently to his learning.
He who attends but does not practice: he receives a reward for attendance: This person goes to the bet midrash to learn, but does not apply himself there and work hard at learning Torah. What he has learned will probably not stay with him for very long. Nevertheless, he receives a reward just for making the effort to go.
He who practices but does not attend: he receives a reward for practice: This refers to a person who learns at home but does not attend the bet midrash. He receives a reward for learning Torah, but he would have received a greater reward had he gone to the bet midrash. He also would have learned a great deal more had he gone to the bet midrash.
He who attends and practices: he is a pious man: This person could have learned on his own at home, but in order to set a good example for others and to participate in the community of Torah-learners he attends the bet midrash. He is considered pious.
He who neither attends nor practices: he is a wicked man: This person’s contempt for learning Torah makes the mishnah consider him wicked.
There are other mishnaic commentators who explain that this mishnah does refer to the observance of the commandments. However, one who does not “practice” does not refer to one who doesn’t practice any of the commandments. Rather he does not make an effort to learn more about what he should do. He therefore receives no special reward for his lackadaisical observance, but neither is he considered wicked.

ONE WHO GOES AND DOES IS PIOUS. For he lowers himself and makes it look as though he needs the other people sitting in the study all—Midrash Shmuel. He also writes in the name of Ramah that anyone who veers from the middle path toward the end of good and away from evil is called “pious”, not because through this one trait he becomes pious but because this is an act of piousness, for anyone who acts in such a way lays the groundwork for piousness. So also Rambam.

[One who] does but does not go to the House of Study to know the detail of the commandments and to be stringent about them - but he [rather] does them according to his [limited] knowledge - receives reward for this doing.

And when you know the intellectual virtues and the dispositional virtues; and you know every type of them - if you want, study of wisdom and practice - and you know the mean and the ways of deeds that can be called good; and [know] the slight supplement to the mean which is from the famous actions of the pious ones; and [when you] know the supplement and the lack which are both bad -- just that one of them is more fit to [be called] evil and the other is called a transgression or an incorrect action, and the example with this is that caution is completely good without a doubt and much desire is completely bad without a doubt and the lack of feeling for enjoyment is actually not like much desire even though it is [also] bad and [so] it is called a transgression or an incorrect action, [such that] leaving caution slightly towards the side of lack of feeling is fit for the complete ones - and when you understand this matter, you will know that one who leaves caution slightly is called pious as we prefaced and that the lack of feeling is called a transgression, and that is why it stated about the nazirite (Numbers 6:11), "from that which he transgressed upon the soul," as we explained in the fourth chapter (Eight Chapters 4); and [when you understand] all of what we have prefaced and elucidated, you will know which [person] from among people is fitting to be called a boor and who is fitting to be called an ignoramus and who is fitting to be called and unformed person and who is fitting to be called a wise man and who is fitting to be called evil and who is fitting to be called a sinner. These seven names apply to seven people according to their having from the virtues and the vices and their study of the intellectual [virtues], as per what has come earlier in our commentary. And they already [added] names according to the properties of a man, as with the man who has vices in his traits - and he is called evil, as we have explained - but if he [also] has intellectual virtues that he uses for evil things, such a one is called by the sages a clever evildoer. And if he is an evildoer who hurts people - meaning to say that among his character vices are matters that hurt people, like brazenness and cruelty and [traits] similar to them - such a one is called a bad evildoer. And so [too] the one who has intellectual virtues and dispositional vices is called a wise man to do evil, as it states in the verse about someone like this (Jeremiah 4:22), "they are wise men to do evil; but to do good, they do not know" - meaning to say that they use their intellectual virtues for bad actions and not for good actions. But the man who has all of the virtues gathered in him - the intellectual [ones] and the dispositional virtues - to the point that there is no intellectual virtue and no dispositional virtue not in him, and this is rarely found and the philosophers would say that finding such a person is very unlikely but not impossible and when they find him, they would call him a Godly man. And so [too], the sages called him in our language a man of God. And I say that this man is called an angel of the Lord, as it stated (Judges 2:1), "And the angel of the Lord went up from Gilgal." And the philosophers have said that it is impossible to find a man that has all of the vices gathered in him to their very end without intellectual [virtues] or ones of disposition to the point that he does not have virtue at all. And if one is found and this is improbable, they give him the name, 'an animal from the bad, dangerous animals.' And so [too] did Shlomo call him, a 'bereaved bear,' which is the gathering of stupidity and damage. And [of] these five compound names, four of them are to disparage - and they are the clever evildoer, the bad evildoer, the wise man to do evil and the bereaved bear - and one is for greatness, and there is nothing greater than it - and that is the man of God or the angel of the Lord. And Scripture has already elucidated that a man that has all of the intellectual and dispositional virtues found in him is called an angel of the Lord, and that is its stating (Malachi 2:7), "For the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and they seek Torah from his mouth; for he is an angel of the Lord of Hosts." And knowledge includes all of the intellectual virtues, as he will not be complete without them. And its stating, "they seek Torah from his mouth," is a proof of his completeness in dispositional virtues - as we have explained in the fourth chapter (Eight Chapters 4), that it is the intention of the Torah. And for [this reason], it states (Proverbs 3:17), "and all of its ways are peace." And we have already elucidated there (Eight Chapters 4) that peace is also from the dispositional virtues. And after [these indications of his completeness in the verse in Malachi], it stated, "for he is angel of the Lord of Hosts."

a pious person: As he lowers himself and acts as if he needs the ones sitting in the House of Study - Midrash Shmuel. And see Tosafot Yom Tov

[One who] does but does not go: He studies and reviews in the House of Study which is in his [own] home.

AMONG THOSE WHO SIT BEFORE THE SAGES. Rav writes that our mishna is discusssing good reasoning.²³⁰As opposed to mishna 12, which is dicussing the ability to remember. This is why our mishna says “who sit before the Sages.”

There are four temperaments, etc.: the sponge: [This is] a metaphor for a student who does not distinguish between a correct argument [and one that is not], similar to a sponge that collects and absorbs water - whether it is dirty or whether it is clear.

He compared the man with a good memory who remembers all that he hears and does not separate between the true and the false to a sponge - and that is a sea [sponge] that absorbs everything. And he also compared one who understands immediately but does not remember anything at all - not the true and not what is not true - to a funnel. And he compared one who rembers the bad things and the opinion that is not true and forgets the true things upon which action [needs to be based] to a strainer that only retains the sediment and lets out what is pure. And he compared the man whose way is the opposite [of this] to a sieve that lets out the dirt and dust through its holes and the fine flour remains. And from them, only this fine flour sieve is good, in that it lets out the [inferior flour] that has no purpose and holds what is coarser - and that is the fine flour.

the sponge: Sea wool - Rambam.

Among those who sit before the sages: Earlier with the "four temperaments among students," it was speaking about the topic of memory and forgetting. And now it is speaking about the topic of proper analysis and separating a thing that is right from that which is not right.

There are four types among those who sit before the sages: a sponge, a funnel, a strainer and a sieve.
A sponge, soaks up everything;
A funnel, takes in at one end and lets out at the other;
A strainer, which lets out the wine and retains the lees;
A sieve, which lets out the coarse meal and retains the choice flour.
Above in mishnah twelve we learned about four types of disciples. This mishnah is similar but instead of just describing the different types of students, it uses metaphors to compare them to different instruments in the kitchen. Furthermore, whereas that mishnah was considered with comprehension and retention, our mishnah is also concerned with the proper selection of what is worthy of retaining. The discussions in the mishnaic and talmudic study halls were probably very long, and no one could remember everything that was said. It would have been extremely important for the listeners to decide which statements were important and worthy of preservation and which were not.
A sponge, soaks up everything; The sponge soaks up all liquids, whether or not they are good or yucky. So too there are some students who remember everything that was said, whether or not it was reasonable and worthy of being remembered.
A funnel, takes in at one end and lets out at the other: The student who is like a funnel is able to take in all that is said, but he easily forgets it, like a funnel which lets everything out the other end.
A strainer, which lets out the wine and retains the lees: This is the most unfortunate type of student, who does not retain any of the well-reasoned valuable statements out, and only retains that which is not worthy of retention. It isn’t that he simply forgets the important things which were said, because he does remember some of what he has heard. Rather he cannot discern what was worthy of remembering in the first place.
A sieve, which lets out the coarse meal and retains the choice flour: After all of the bran is removed from the flour, the flour is passed through a sieve. What remains in the sieve are the larger, useful pieces of fine flour and the stuff that falls out is not useful [this is evidently not like the sieve we use today]. So too there are students who retain only that information which is important and remove the extraneous things that they have heard. This is obviously the best kind of student.

A SPONGE. Rambam: sea sponge.

the funnel: As it accepts all of the things, but loses them immediately.

the sponge: It absorbs the water, whether it is muddy or clear. So [too], there is one whose heart is broad and he receives everything that he hears [but] does not have the ability to separate the truth from the falsehood.

A SIEVE. Rav: after the bran is extracted… this is what they did with the flour offerings. As the mishna explicitly says in Menachot 6:6.

the strainer: [This is like] a student that retains in his mind the argument that is incorrect and loses the correct one. And about this King Shlomo, peace be upon him, stated (Proverbs 12:8). "A man is praised according to his intelligence, but a twisted heart is disgraced" - that it is not fitting to disgrace [one who knows less, but it is fitting to disgrace] one whose heart is twisted. As this one's heart is twisted, in that he retains the thing that is incorrect - such that he is compared to a strainer, as it says.

the funnel: A vessel that is put at the opening of a barrel or at the opening of a pouch when one wants to fill it with wine or oil.

The sieve - because it lets out the [inferior] flour which is the incorrect argument; and does not retain it.

because it lets in at [one end] and lets out at [the other]: So [too], there is one who receives everything that he learns; [but] in the way that he absorbs it, so does he [relinquish] it.

and retains the fine flour meaning the correct argument - it retains it and does not lose it.

The strainer: He lets out all that he has heard in the House of Study and collects a wasteful matter.

The sieve: After we take out the bran and the bruised grain from the ground flour, the [inferior powdery] flour is left with the coarse fine flour, and [the latter] is the [more] important one; we pass it through a very fine sieve. And all of the [powdery] flour - which is like white dust - falls from it, and the coarse important flour remains. And so would they do with grain offerings. So [too], there is one who has the ability to separate and to cleanse his teachings and take the truth from the false and wasteful.

DEPENDS ON SOMETHING. Rav’s text has “on something fleeting. When the thing passes, etc.”

Any love etc. What's a love that is not dependent on something, etc. [This is] the love that has no interruption, even though a person estimates that some damage and disgrace will come to him [from it, like] the example of David and Jonathan. As even though [Jonathan] was fit to rise in the place of his father and David was going to remove him from the monarchy, nonetheless [Jonathan] loved him with a firm attachment. And that is what King David, peace be upon him said in his eulogy of Jonathan (II Samuel 1:26), "your love was wonderful to me than (which can also be read as, from) the love of women." [This is] meaning to say, from where did I know that your love for me was wonderful? From the love of women. When he was the second to Shaul, the women had said (I Samuel 18:7), "Shaul has slain his thousands; David, his tens of thousands" - and Shaul became jealous, as is known. However it wasn't enough that Jonathan did not become jealous, but just the opposite - he saved him from the hand of his father. And this was from the angle that he loved him and it was not love of the body. And that is what is written (I Samuel 18:7), "and the soul of Jonathan was attached to the soul of David." However the love of Amnon and Tamar is [already] clear and there is no [need] to elaborate.

The explanation of these words is like this: You know that if the physical causes are negated and removed, then it will be necessary that what they cause will be removed with the removal of its cause. And because of this, when the cause of the love is a divine matter - and that is the true science - it is impossible for that love to be removed ever, as its cause is eternally in existence.

On something: The textual variant of Rabbi Bartenura is "on a transient thing, when that thing perishes, etc."

Any love that is dependent on something transient: that does not last. When the thing that was the cause for that love perishes, the love will also perish. But any love that is not dependent on something transient, but rather on something lasting - for example, the love of the righteous men and the sages - never perishes. In the same way that the thing which is the cause of that love does not perish, so [too] does the love not perish.

All love that depends on a something, [when the] thing ceases, [the] love ceases; and [all love] that does not depend on anything, will never cease.
What is an example of love that depended on a something? Such was the love of Amnon for Tamar.
And what is an example of love that did not depend on anything? Such was the love of David and Jonathan.
The previous mishnah was the last mishnah that was based on numbers. The mishnah which we learn today teaches about love.
Love which is based on something tangible, such as beauty or financial gain, will not last. Since “things” can end, when the “thing” upon which the love is based does end, the love will end. Such was the love of Amnon for Tamar, which is better described as lust than love. The story takes place in II Samuel 13. Amnon falls in love with his beautiful half-sister, Tamar. Once he rapes her (verse 14) her beauty and lack of accessibility are gone and he hates her.
The love of David and Jonathan is opposite. Jonathan, son of Saul, loved David with all of his soul (see I Samuel 18:1) and indeed tried to save his life when Saul sought to kill David, even though David was a threat to his father’s crown, as well as his own right to inherit the kingship. David too loved Jonathan despite his own inevitable rivalry with him. Their love was not based on any sexual relationship nor was it based on a gain that one would receive from the other. It was as the love of a parent for a child, totally unconditional.

THE LOVE OF AMNON AND TAMAR. This is merely an example. Therefore, the beginning of the mishna does not contradict the end.²³¹Besides for being love based on beauty, the love of Amnon and Tamar was a forbidden one. This would seem to imply that any legitimate love, even if based on beauty, would not be called dependent on something. The end of the mishna, however, makes it clear that only the love of the righteous for one another is the kind that is not based on something. Tosafot Yom Tov clarifies that the love of Amnon and Tamar was not chosen specifically because it was a forbidden one—it is merely an example of love based on beauty in general.

Amnon and Tamar: It took it as a general example. And therefore there is no objection from the beginning [of the mishnah] against the end.

the love of Amnon and Tamar: [which was] because of her beauty.

the love of David and Jonathan: [which was] to fulfill the will of their Maker. As Jonathan said to David, "You will be the king over Israel and I will be your second."

THE DISPUTE OF HILLEL AND SHAMMAI. Their students did not fully absorb their ways and teachings, and from that point on disputes became more common among the Torah scholars. This is why the mishna chooses their dispute as an example. Accordingly, the beginning of the mishna does not contradict the end.²³²Just as in the previous mishna, it would seem that any dispute that is not on the same level as a dispute between Hillel and Shammai is not “for the sake of Heaven”. The end of the mishna, however, makes it clear that only a dispute like that of Korach and his followers is considered “not for the sake of Heaven.” Tosafot Yom Tov clarifies that the dispute of Hillel and Shammai is merely an example, and other disputes that are for the sake of truth and not for personal gain would likewise be called “for the sake of Heaven.”

Every argument, etc. [This is] to say about that which it said, "Every argument that is for [the sake of] heaven's name, it is destined to endure" - the intention is that they will endure in their argument forever. And [so,] today they will argue about one thing and tomorrow about another; and argument will endure and continue between them all the days of their lives. And not only this, but [also] 'length of days and years of life will be added to them.'

Hillel and Shammai: Because their students did not serve [in their studies] to their fullest and from them onward, disagreement grew in Israel; therefore it took them for an example. And because of this, there is also no objection from the beginning [of the mishnah] against the end. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

Every argument that is for [the sake of] heaven's name, it is destined (literally, its end is) to endure: That is to say that the [parties to] the argument are destined to endure and not perish, as with the argument between Hillel and Shammai, [whereby] neither the students of the School of Hillel nor the students of the School of Shammai perished. But Korach and his congregation perished. And I heard the explanation of “its end” is its purpose that is sought from its subject. And [with] the argument which is for the sake of Heaven, the purpose and aim that is sought from that argument is to arrive at the truth, and this endures; like that which they said, "From a dispute the truth will be clarified," and as it became elucidated from the argument between Hillel and Shammai - that the law was like the school of Hillel. And [with] argument which is not for the sake of Heaven, its desired purpose is to achieve power and the love of contention, and its end will not endure; as we found in the argument of Korach and his congregation - that their aim and ultimate intent was to achieve honor and power, and the opposite was [achieved].

Every dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will in the end endure; But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, will not endure.
Which is the controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai.
And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korah and all his congregation.
This mishnah discusses legitimate and non-legitimate disputes. While reading the mishnah we should keep in mind that the Mishnah is the first Jewish book which records disputes between different viewpoints without claiming that one viewpoint is necessarily illegitimate. 150 years before the Mishnah was composed, Judaism had certainly been rife with disputes which caused splinter movements, such as the early Christians and the Dead Sea sect. Part of the overall goal of the Mishnah’s composers was to say that sages can disagree and still live together. We will soon see a classic exmple of this philosophy when we begin to learn tractate Yevamoth.
In Judaism debate is legitimate. Indeed Jews are famed worldwide for being an argumentative people, and this is considered (at least by most Jews themselves) a positive attribute. What is problematic is not debate itself, but debate that does not attempt to reveal the truth, and especially God’s truth. Debate that is only self-serving, an attempt to be victorious over the other side is considered to be illegitimate. The debate that is for the sake of Heaven, which stems from a desire to seek the truth, will endure. The classic example of this are the debates between Shammai and Hillel. This debate endured in several ways. First of all, in the time of the Mishnah, there were probably still scholars who followed Shammai. The debate literally endured, because scholars were still arguing about who is right. Second, students of the Mishnah and Talmud continue to study the debates of Shammai and Hillel. Although by the time of the Talmud law usually follows Hillel, the debate endures as study material throughout the generations.
Korah and his congregation rose up against Moses’s leadership in Numbers 16. Their intent was not a pure complaint against the perceived autocratic style of Moses’s leadership. Rather it was a blatant attempt to gain power for themselves. As our mishnah teaches, it was not a dispute for the sake of Heaven, but rather for their own profit. Therefore, the dispute did not endure, for Korah and his congregation were all wiped out (either by the earth swallowing them or by fire).
Note that the mishnah does not say “the dispute of Moses and Korah”, but rather only mentions Korah and his congregation. This is in contrast to the previous section where both Hillel and Shammai were mentioned. This discrepancy is because Moses and Korah were not operating out of the same motives. Moses disputed with Korah not for his own glory, but for the sake of Heaven. Therefore the mishnah could not mention them together.

THE DISPUTE OF KORACH AND HIS FOLLOWERS. The mishna does not mention the other party in the dispute—Moses and Aaron—as it does in the first section because in this case the two parties are not comparable, for Moses and Aaron acted for the sake of Heaven and had no other motives at all—Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yehuda Lerma.

But if it is not for [the sake of] heaven's name - it is not destined to endure: Rather they will cease in their first argument. 'They will end and die there' - as in the argument of Korach.

Korach, etc.: It did not mention the second side of the argument - which is Moshe and Aaron - as it mentioned the two sides in the first [argument]; as here they are not equal. As Moshe and Aaron's intentions were for the sake of Heaven, and there was no aspect in them that was not for the sake of Heaven's name - Midrash Shmuel.

WHOEVER BRINGS THE PEOPLE TO DO GOOD, NO SIN WILL COME ABOUT THROUGH HIM. Rav: in order that he shouldn’t end up in Gehinnom while his students are in the Garden of Eden. This is from the Talmud in Yoma 87a, which derives this from the verse “for you will not leave my soul to Sheol, and will not allow your devoted one to see destruction” (Psalms 16:10). The reading seems to be as follows: “you will not leave my soul” to come to sin, such that I will go “to Sheol”, because “you will not allow your devoted one to see destruction.” Now “your devoted one” is written as a plural, “your devoted ones”,²³³The ketiv or written text is chasidecha, while the keri or reading tradition is chasidcha. which means the students who did good through my instructions, so the end of the verse reads “you will not allow your devoted ones to see” me in “destruction” while they are in the Garden of Eden. And the word “to see” means specifically “to see” and not “to come”.²³⁴Indicating that the students in question are observing from a different point—the Garden of Eden—and have not themselves come to Gehinnom.
If so, we see that this is specifically when there are many students, as the verse says “your devoted ones”.

Anyone who brings merit to the many, sin does not result from him: So that his students not be in the Garden of Eden while he is in Gehinnom, as it is written (Psalms 16:10), "For You will not abandon my soul to the grave, or let Your pious one see the pit." And how is it possible that one who is pious should see the pit? Rather, since [(the following is) from a manuscript: He is pious, He does not let him commit a sin - so that he should not see the pit on its account.]

This is all clear, as these matters are from the angle of reward and punishment. So that anyone who disagrees not with the intention to contradict the words of his fellow but from his wanting to know the truth, his words will endure and not end. And anyone who makes people straight, God, may He be blessed, will reward him by preventing him from transgression. And anyone who deceives people, God, may He be blessed, will punish him by preventing him from repentance. And this is clear and there is no difficulty in it, if you understand what we have outlined in the eighth chapter (Eight Chapters 8:14-16).

In the gemara, it derives it from verses. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

Sin does not result from him: So that he will not be in gehinnom and his students in the Garden of Eden.

Introduction Our mishnah talks about the responsibility of leadership, its rewards and its punishments.

AND WHOEVER BRINGS THE PEOPLE TO SIN WILL NOT BE GIVEN THE MEANS TO REPENT. Rav: in order that he shouldn’t end up in the Garden of Eden while his students are in Gehinnom. This is from that same passage in the Talmud, where it is derived from the verse “let a man crushed [by guilt] over the bloodshed [lit. blood of a soul] flee to a pit and let none support him” (Proverbs 28:17). Although the verse says “blood of a soul”, even one soul, the mishna says “whoever brings the people to sin” because G-d has a greater tendency to reward than to punish, and even so only one who brings “the people” to do good is saved from sin by his deed—it is all the more true, then, that G-d would only punish one who brings the people to sin.

"He fulfilled the righteousness of God and His statutes with Israel": [This is] to say that he completed and fulfilled the entire Torah - he and all of Israel with him.

is not given, etc.: meaning to say, he is not helped, etc.; which is not the case with other perpetrators of sin: When [they] put into [their] hearts to repent, they are certainly in the category of '[one who] comes to purify, he is aided.' And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

is not given enough [time] to repent: So that he not be in the Garden of Eden and his students in gehinnom.

Whoever causes the multitudes to be righteous, sin will not occur on his account; And whoever causes the multitudes to sin, they do not give him the ability to repent. One who causes, through his example and his teaching, others to be righteous, will not accidentally sin or accidentally cause others to sin. He will receive help from Heaven in his endeavors. This is to prevent a situation whereby his followers are rewarded for following his teachings and he is punished for the sins upon which he stumbled. The opposite is true of one who himself sins and causes others to sin as well. Although in general anyone may repent of his sins, this person will not be given the opportunity to do so. According to the Rambam, this means that he does not have the free will to not sin. It would, after all, not be right for him to repent and earn a place in the world to come, while his students are punished for the sinful ways which he taught them.

WILL NOT BE GIVEN THE MEANS TO REPENT. I.e., G-d will not aid hm, as the verse says, “let none support him”. This is unlike all other sinners who decide to repent, as they certainly are included in the rule “G-d aids whoever wishes to purify himself” (Yoma 39a).
Rambam, however, explains that G-d will prevent him from repenting, just as it is said of Pharaoh that “G-d hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (Exodus 9:12). In the eighth of the Eight Chapters he appends as an introduction to this tractate he explains that there are sins for which one absolutely must be punished, to the point that G-d will prevent the sinner from repenting in order that he receive the punishment he deserves. He writes as much in Mishne Torah, Hilchot Teshuva 6:6-7, where he furnishes scriptural proofs.

and brought merit to the many: since he taught Torah to all of Israel.

Moses was righteous and caused the multitudes to be righteous, [therefore] the righteousness of the multitudes is hung on him, as it is said, “He executed the Lord’s righteousness and His decisions with Israel” (Deut. 33:21). Jeroboam, sinned and caused the multitudes to sin, [therefore] the sin of the multitudes is hung on him, as it is said, “For the sins of Jeroboam which he sinned, and which he caused Israel to sin thereby” (I Kings 15:30). Moses is the greatest example of leadership that the Jewish people has ever known. He was righteous in his own right and he taught others to be righteous as well. As a reward, the righteous acts that the people performed are accredited to him, as if he himself performed them. The verse in Deuteronomy quoted in the mishnah is understood as referring to Moses (although this is not at all clear from the verse itself). According to the mishnah’s understanding, the verse states that Moses did God’s righteousness, and that all of the acts of Israel were counted as his acts as well. From here we learn that when students perform the righteous acts which they have learned from their teachers, the teachers receive credit themselves. Jeroboam was the first king of the northern kingdom (Israel) when it split from the southern kingdom (Judea) after Solomon’s death. Jeroboam told Israel that they no longer had to go to Jerusalem to worship, but could worship at Bethel as well as other places in the north. He made two golden calves and told the people “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt” (I Kings 12:28). Jeroboam did not only himself sin, but he caused others to sin as well. In I Kings 15:25-30, Baasha son of Ahijah kills Nadav, son of Jeroboam and all of Jeroboam’s house as well (Jeroboam himself had already died). Verse 30 concludes that the Jeroboam’s house was killed on account of Jeroboam and his sin and the sins that he caused Israel to sin. From here we can conclude that Jeroboam himself was held accountable for those sins which he caused others to do.

"He fulfilled the righteousness of God and His statutes with Israel": [Meaning] and His statutes that are with Israel, as if he had [also] done them.

Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the overall statement of the mishnah with regards to education and the educator?

who sinned and caused the many to sin: From that which it did not state, "for the sins of Jeroboam and Israel"; we understand from it that all was dependent upon Jeroboam

EXPANSIVE SOUL. Rav: were he not possessed by desire, he would not have advised Balak to have the daughters of Moab prostitute themselves. Rambam: for a person only orders done that which is in accordance with his thoughts. Good people do not order wicked things done, they warn others against doing them. And the Torah says, “they were the ones who, upon Balaam’s advice, induced the Israelites to betray G-d” (Numbers 31:16).

Anyone who has these three things, etc.: It would have been possible for the tanna (author of this mishnah) to be brief and not to elaborate [by way of] the category and the particulars. And he could have said, "Anyone who has a good eye, a humble spirit and a small appetite is from the students of Abraham, our father. An evil eye, a haughty spirit and a broad appetite - is from the students of Bilaam the evildoer." And why did he teach the general category and then go back to explain the particulars? Rather, he is coming to teach us that in these three things that he mentioned first are included all of the virtues, even if they have many parts; and so [too] the three things that are their opposites include all vice. And that is because if he had been brief in the way that he said [it], it would have been understood that one who would have the three things mentioned is from the students of Abraham, our father; however there would be many thousands and tens of thousands of virtues besides this to the students of Abraham, our father. And so therefore he first said that one who has these three things which he will mention - that is the student of Abraham our father. And afterwards, he explained that the students of Abraham, our father, are a good eye, etc. - which is to say, all of their virtue for which they were called the students of Abraham, our father, was a good eye, etc. And therefore, he does not say, "The students of Abraham, our father, had a good eye, etc." - [meaning] that they had these three things, even if they had many things like them. But by his saying "the students of Abraham, our father, are a good eye, etc.," he hinted that these three things were the causes of their being from the students of Abraham, our father, etc. And also the opposite of this [is the case] with the students of Bilaam the evildoer. As he did not say, "the students of Bilaam had an evil eye, etc." - to teach that the essence of the teaching that they learned from Bilaam the evildoer were these three things, without any other evils. [It is only these three things] upon which they were students of Bilaam, since all of the evils were included in them - even if they have many parts.

A good eye: We have explained many times that the matter of a good eye is sufficing and [that] a small appetite is carefulness and [that] a humble spirit is extreme humility as was explained in the chapter before this one (Rambam on Pirkei Avot 4:4). And the three [negative traits] that correspond to them are zeal to acquire money and that is an evil eye, and much desire and that is a broad appetite and arrogance and that is a haughty spirit. And these three virtues are publicized in Abraham, our father. And because of this, anyone who is found to have these virtues is called one of the students of Abraham, our father - as he followed his traits. And anyone within whom is found these three vices is of the students of Bilaam the evildoer - as he followed his traits. And I will mention the places in which are elucidated these virtues in Abraham and these vices in Bilaam, and they are all found in the Torah. Indeed, the sufficing of Abraham is in his saying to the king of Sedom (Genesis 14:23), "If from a thread to a sandal strap, and if I take from any of what is yours, etc." And that is the epitome of sufficing - that a man leave much money and not benefit from it, even a little bit. But his caution is his saying to Sarah on the day they came to Egypt (Genesis 12:11), "Behold, I have known that you are a woman of beautiful appearance." And the explanation comes that he did not fully look at her form besides that day - and that is the epitome of carefulness. And [it is also shown] in his saying about Hagar after he married her (Genesis 16:6), " Behold, your maidservant is in your hands - do to her as is good in your eyes." [This] shows that he did not wish to enjoy himself with her. And so [too] when Sarah requested from him to expel her with Yishmael such that he would be prevented from inclining towards [Hagar] for sexual matters, the verse testifies that it was only bad in his eyes about Yishmael, and that is its stating (Genesis 21:11), "And the matter was very bad in the eyes of Abraham on account of his son." These are all signs of carefulness. And, indeed, his humility is his stating (Genesis 18:27), "and I am dust and ashes." And Bilaam the evildoer's zeal for money was publicized and that is his coming from Aram Naharaim for the sake of the money with which he was hired to curse Israel. And that is His, may He be blessed, stating (Deuteronomy 23:5), "since he hired against you Balaam son of Beor, etc." And, indeed, his great desire in sexual matters is the reason for his advice to Balak that he set loose the women to be promiscuous with [the men of] Israel and to place known harlots [in front of them]. As were it not for the great desire that he had and that harlots were good in his eyes, he would not have commanded this - since the commands of people are only according to their opinions. As the good will not command to [do] evil, but will rather warn against it. And the language of Scripture (Numbers 31:16) is "They are the very ones against the children of Israel by the word of Bilaam, etc." And the sages said (Sanhedrin 105a) [that] Bilaam had sexual relations with his donkey. And there is no doubt about it that one with such an opinion will have actions [like] this. And indeed, his arrogance is his stating (Numbers 24:16), "Speaks the one who hears the words of God." And indeed that which it brought a proof about Bilaam from its stating (Psalms 55:24), "And You, God, will bring them down to the pit of destruction; the people of blood, etc." - [its] explanation is [that it is] because he was a man of blood - as he was the cause of the Israelites' death in the plague; and he was also a man of deceit in his creating a machination to bring about the evil. And its bringing a proof about the students of Abraham from its stating (Proverbs 8:21), "There is what for those that love Me to inherit, and their treasuries will I fill" is like that which He called him (Isaiah 41:8), "the seed of Abraham, the one I love."

As the commandments of people are only according to their opinions, since the good will not command to [do] evil, but [rather] to guard from it. And the verse states (Numbers 31:16), "They were the ones that were against the Children of Israel according to the counsel of Bilaam" - Rambam.

From the students of Abraham, our father: He has learned from him and walks in his ways.

Whoever possesses these three things, he is of the disciples of Abraham, our father; and [whoever possesses] three other things, he is of the disciples of Balaam, the wicked. A good eye, a humble spirit and a moderate appetite he is of the disciples of Abraham, our father. An evil eye, a haughty spirit and a limitless appetite he is of the disciples of Balaam, the wicked.
What is the difference between the disciples of Abraham, our father, and the disciples of Balaam, the wicked? The disciples of Abraham, our father, enjoy this world, and inherit the world to come, as it is said: “I will endow those who love me with substance, I will fill their treasuries” (Proverbs 8:21). But the disciples of Balaam, the wicked, inherit gehinnom, and descend into the nethermost pit, as it is said: “For you, O God, will bring them down to the nethermost pit those murderous and treacherous men; they shall not live out half their days; but I trust in You” (Psalms 55:24).
This mishnah contrasts those who follow the ways of Abraham with those who follow the ways of Balaam, the wicked prophet who was hired by Balak to curse Israel (Numbers 22-24). We should note that the rabbis understood Balaam as an archetype of evil, even though in the Torah itself he seems to be more of an ambivalent character, acting as merely a passive messenger of God. In Sanhedrin 10:2 we learned that Balaam does not have a portion in the world to come. Balaam is also seen by the rabbis as greedy for he attempted to take a bribe to curse Israel.
In contrasting Abraham with Balaam we should note that both saddle their own donkeys in the Torah (Abraham in Genesis 23:2 and Balaam in Numbers 22:21). Perhaps this similarity led to their comparison in our mishnah, and in several other sources.
Abraham is known for three things: generosity, humility and temperance. He demonstrates his generosity when he brings generous portions of food to the messengers who visit his home (Genesis 18:17). He is humble when he negotiates the purchase of a grave for Sarah. He states, “I am a resident alien among you” (Genesis 23:4, see also his words in 18:27). His temperance in appetite is learned from a midrash on Gen. 12:11, where he states to Sarah, “Behold, I now know that you are a beautiful woman”. According to the midrash Abraham had not looked at her until that moment.
In contrast, Balaam is greedy for he pursues the reward he would have received for cursing Israel. In Numbers 22:18 he states, “Even if Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold”. Rashi comments that from here we can see that Balak had already begun to think about the material reward that he might receive. He is haughty as we can see from his statement, “The word of him who hears God’s speech, who obtains knowledge from the Most High” (Num 24:16). He has a limitless appetite, for a midrash teaches that after he failed in cursing Israel, he advised Balak to allow the Moabite women to prostitute themselves to Israel, and thereby ensnare them in idol worship (see the beginning of Numbers 25). He would not have advised such a thing if he himself did not desire such sexual licentiousness.
The second half of the mishnah teaches the rewards that will be given to the disciples of Abraham and the punishments that will be given to the disciples of Balaam. The verse from Proverbs is understood as referring to Abraham’s disciples since “those who love me” is also used in reference to Abraham (Isaiah 41:18). The verse in Psalms is understood as referring to Balaam since he was murderous, for he advised Balak to seduce Israel and thereby led to the death of 24,000 Israelites (Num 25:9).

BENEFIT IN THIS WORLD. In the sense of “if you benefit from the labor of your hands, you are praiseworthy and it goes well with you” (Psalms 128:2)—“praiseworthy” in this world, as Rashi explains on the mishna in 4:1. For there are many students of Abraham who suffer hunger and thirst in this world. But since they are content and do not need help from others, they are called those who “benefit in this world”.
Alternatively, this is what properly would take place. But G-d is “the G-d [who knows] all thoughts” (1 Samuel 2:3), and he has calculated a person’s deeds and given him a greater inheritance in the World to Come.

"in this world": This is in the way [of] "When you eat [from] the work of your hands, you will be happy" - in this world; as Rashi explained at the beginning of Chapter 4. As if you don't say like that, behold how many students of Abraham, our father - peace be upon him - are hungry and thirsty in this world. But rather, since they suffice and do not depend upon the creatures, they are called eaters in this world. And one could also say [another explanation is] that it is saying [here only according to] the measure of justice, but 'the Lord is the God of knowledge and by Him are actions measured' to have them inherit more [instead of this] in the world to come.

a good eye: He is satisfied with that which he has and does not covet the money of others. As so did we find with Abraham, who said to the king of Sodom (Genesis 14:23), "'That not from a thread to a shoe strap and that I will not take from all that is yours.'"

I HAVE WHAT TO ENDOW THOSE WHO LOVE ME. Rav: in the World to Come. See the mishna in Uktzin 3:12.

inherit Gehinnom (Purgatory): in this world, as it said (Yoma 72b), "Do not inherit two [doses of] Gehinnom" - Midrash Shmuel.

a humble spirit: Extra humility. And so did we find Abraham say (Genesis 18:27), "'and I am dust and ashes.'"

INHERIT GEHINNOM. In this world, as the Talmud says (Yoma 72b), “do not inherit Gehinnom twice!”²³⁵There, Rava speaks to Torah scholars who do not keep the laws carefully enough, and warns them that they will inherit Gehinnom twice: once, in that they suffer in this world in studying Torah, and again when they are punished for their sins in the next.—Midrash Shmuel.

And he is also a "man of deceit," in his doing machinations [to accomplish] evil - Rambam

and a small appetite: Cautiousness and separation from the desires. And we found this in Abraham, as it is written (Genesis 12:11), "'behold now I know that you are a woman of beautiful appearance'" - that until now, he did not recognize [this] from [his] extensive modesty. And with Bilaam, we find an evil eye, as he knew that it was bad in the eyes of the Omnipresent that he should go to Balak, and he went [regardless] in order to take payment, as it is written (Numbers 22:18), "'if Balak give me the fill of his house [with] silver and gold.'"

MEN OF BLOOD. Rav: Balaam, for through his advice he caused the deaths of 24,000 of Israel. Rambam: he is also called the “man of deceit” for employing trickery for evil deeds.

a haughty spirit: since he said (Numbers 24:16), "'Speaks the one who hears the utterances of God and knows the thought of the Most High.'"

and a broad appetite: As if he did not have great desire, he would not have counseled to release the daughters of Moav to promiscuity. And the sages said (Sanhedrin 105a), Bilaam had sexual intercourse with his donkey.

"There is what for those that love Me to inherit": Abraham is called a lover [of God], as it is written (Isaiah 41:8), "the seed of Abraham, who loves me." "There is" - in the world to come; "and their treasuries will I fill" - in this world.

"people of blood": Bilaam is called a man of blood, as he brought down twenty four thousand [men] of Israel with his counsel.

THE BRAZEN [lit. “strong of face”] END IN GEHINNOM. For he brazenly violates the will of his Father in Heaven. Rav writes that brazen people are called “strong of face” based on the verse in Proverbs 21:29, “an evil man’s brazenness is on his face.” And the verse says, “the wicked will return to Sheol” (Psalms 9:18).

Yehudah ben Teimah says, etc. Be brazen like the leopard to rebuke those that commit sins; and to be much involved in Torah. 'You will not grow weary and grow faint.' And so did Yishayahu state (Isaiah 40:31), "But they who hope in the Lord shall renew their strength." When they grow weary, those that hope in the Lord shall have their strength increased and will renew it to be a new strength for them, [with which] to do the work of the Lord still longer.

Even though he said, "[the] brazen-faced [are bound] for Gehinnom (Purgatory), he commanded brazenness in the rebuke of rebels and similar to it. And it is as if he said, "Use a little of the vices in their [correct] place for the will of God, may He be blessed, and His truth." [And it is] like the statement of the prophet (II Samuel 22:27), "and with the perverse, You are wily." However [it is] on condition that your intention is the truth; and that is [the meaning of] his saying, "to do the Will of your Father Who is in Heaven." And from the good things that God, may He be blessed, did for this nation is that they are shamefaced. And so [too], they said (Yevamot 79a) that the signs of the seed of Avraham is that they are shamefaced, merciful and doers of kindnesses. And it stated (Exodus 20:17), "so that My awe be upon your faces, that you not sin." And when he told about the virtues of shame, he requested and said, "Lord, our God - [just] like You have graced us with this virtue, so [too] grace us that Your city be rebuilt, speedily and in our days."

"[The] brazen-faced [are bound] for Gehinnom (Purgatory)": as he makes his face brazen not to do the will of his Father in heaven.

"Be brazen like the leopard": This leopard is born from a wild boar and a lioness. As when it is the season for lions to be in heat, the lioness inserts its head into the brush of the forest and moans and summons the male, but [sometimes] the boar hears its voice and copulates [with] it and a leopard comes out from [the combination of] the two of them. And because it a bastard, it is brazen-faced, even though it does not have so much courage. You too, be brazen and do not be ashamed to ask your teacher what you did not understand, like that which we have learned, "one that is ashamed will not learn."

Introduction From the fact that this mishnah ends in a short prayer, it can be concluded that it was originally the last mishnah in the tractate. The remaining mishnayoth in this chapter, and all of chapter six are addenda added in post-Mishnaic times (I will discuss chapter six later). Judah ben Tema is not mentioned anywhere else in the Mishnah.

BASHFUL PEOPLE [lit. having shame in the face] END IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN. As the Sages say in the Talmud, Nedarim 20a, “one who is bashful will not easily sin, as per the verse ‘in order that fear of Him be upon your faces, that you not sin’ (Exodus 20:17)”—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rabbenu Ephraim.

light like the eagle: "Grow new wings like the eagles."

And it is stated, "May the evildoers return to the grave."

"light like the eagle": to pursue after your studies. And you will not get exhausted, as it is written (Isaiah 40:31), "they shall raise wings like eagles, they will run and not be exhausted."

Judah ben Tema said: Be strong as a leopard, and swift as an eagle, and fleet as a gazelle, and brave as a lion, to do the will of your Father who is in heaven. Judah ben Tema uses images that are taken from the animal world. He at first seems to be making statements about a man’s physical strength. These statements would sound more appropriate in the Greek gymnasium than in the rabbinic study house. It is only at the end of his statement that we learn that these physical attributes are to be used for following God’s will and not for human glory. Strong like a leopard to stand up against people who denounce those who observe the Torah. Others say that this refers to the strength needed to rebuke those who don’t observe the commandments. Swift as an eagle to run away from sin. Others say this refers to ministering to Torah scholars, which should be performed with great speed. Fleet as a gazelle to perform the commandments. Others say that this refers to moving to a place where one can study Torah. Brave as a lion to conquer one’s evil inclination. Others say that this refers to getting up at night to learn Torah.

swift like the deer: He wants to say, "They shall run and not grow weary." Other people get worn out when they run, but they do not get worn for the matter of a commandment. And so [too], towards the matter of a commandment, "they shall march and not grow faint." As [with] other people, when one walks more than what he [generally] walks during the day, he is faint and grows weary.

and [the] shamefaced [are bound] for the Garden of Eden: As the sages, of blessed memory, said, "Any man that has shamefacedness will not quickly sin, as it is written (Exodus 20:17), 'and in order that His fear will be on your faces, so that you not sin'" - Midrash Shmuel.

"swift like the deer": to run towards the commandments.

He used to say: the arrogant is headed for Gehinnom and the blushing for the garden of Eden. The word “arrogant” in Hebrew is the same word used in section one to mean “strong”. Although one should be strong, this is only so if the strength is used for holy purposes, for the sake of Heaven. However, arrogance, which is unjustified demonstrations of strength, leads one to despise those who might legitimately criticize him. An arrogant person will not check his deeds to make sure that he is acting correctly. One who is embarrassed and blushes at his mistakes, will learn from them and will not continue to sin. Judaism does not seek out perfection, but rather moral progress. One who is capable of such embarrassment will, in the end, inherit the garden of Eden.

and mighty like the lion to become stronger towards the commandments. [This is] to say that all of his thought and the actions of his limbs be for the act of God.

"and mighty like the lion": to conquer your impulse from [the doing of] sins.

May it be the will, O Lord our God, that your city be rebuilt speedily in our days and set our portion in the studying of your Torah. According to the Rambam, after having spoken of the virtue of blushing, the mishnah utters a prayer: O our God, even as in Your grace You have bestowed upon us this virtue, so be gracious unto us and have Your city rebuilt speedily in our days.

to do the Will of your Father Who is in Heaven: [This is] to say, so long as it is [in order] to do the Will of your Father Who is in Heaven.

"brazen-faced": Since brazenness is noticeable in the face, as it is written (Proverbs 21:29), "The brazenness of an evil man is in his face": therefore he is called brazen-faced.

brazen-faced: King Shlomo, peace be upon him, stated (Proverbs 14:9), "Guilt intercedes for fools" - as the evil fool will speak about the ugly thing and the guilty thing in a person when he sees them. [That is] like those imbeciles that said, "How foul is that carcass!" But, "among the upright, good will" - they only speak about the praise and the good will. It is like the wise man said [regarding the same carcass], "How white are its teeth!"

"that Your city be rebuilt, speedily and in our days": Meaning to say, in the same way that You have graced us with this trait - since it is a sign [of people being] of the seed of Abraham that they are [easily] ashamed, merciful and doers of acts of loving-kindness (Yevamot 79a) - so may it be Your will that Your city be rebuilt, etc.

HE USED TO SAY: AT FIVE YEARS OLD, ETC. Other versions do not have this mishna. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Yehuda bar Shlomo that these are not the words of R. Yehuda ben Teima and are not part of this tractate. They are the words of Shmuel HaKatan that the Sages have appended here, and some versions have written here the mishna in 4:19, “Shmuel HaKatan says, do not rejoice at the fall of your enemy, etc.”
At the beginning of the following mishna, he writes that some editions have this as the last mishna in the tractate. But this does not seem reasonable, for the tractate would not end with talk of dying and ceasing from the world; we find that the tannaim are very particular about this, as they said (Kelim 30:4), “praiseworthy are you, Kelim, for you started with purity and ended with purity”, and did likewise at the end of tractate Yadayim,²³⁶Which quotes Pharaoh refusing to send the Israelites out of Egypt, and then mentions Pharaoh saying that G-d is righteous to end on a good note. all because of “do not stop at a bad thing” (Ecclesiastes 8:3).

He used to say, etc. Ninety [is the age] for [a] bending [stature] (lashuach): This is [related] to the expression, 'pit (shiach) and cave,' meaning to say that he is fit for burial. And some explain it is from the expression, 'siach' (speaking), as he should only be occupied by words of Torah - since his days are close to dying.

When you calculate the thirteen years that Yaakov [spent] with Lavan after he married Leah, and she gave birth to [Levi] after about two years - as the pregnancies of the three brothers, Reuven, Shimon and Levi, add up to seven months for each one - it comes out that Levi was eleven years old when they left from there. Add upon them six months that he [spent] on the way and eighteen months that he [spent] in Sukkot, summer, winter and summer - which are two years - behold, Levi is thirteen years of age in their going to Shekhem, and he is [still] called a man - Rashi. And he was not precise in his commentary on the Torah, Parshat Vayeshev, on the verse (Genesis 37:34), "and he mourned for his son many days," as [there] he explained that it was six months in Beit El, which is after the story of Shekhem.

"Five years [is the age] for [the study of] Scripture": We learn it from orlah (the prohibition to eat fruit from a new tree), as it is written (Leviticus 19:23-25), "three years will they be orlah, etc. And in the fourth year all of its fruit will be holy praises" - that his father should teach him the shape of the letters and recognition of the vowels [in the child's fourth year]. "And in the fifth year you shall eat its fruit; [so that] you will add to your produce" - from here and onward, stuff him like an ox.

He used to say:
At five years of age the study of Scripture;
At ten the study of Mishnah;
At thirteen subject to the commandments;
At fifteen the study of Talmud;
At eighteen the bridal canopy;
At twenty for pursuit [of livelihood];
At thirty the peak of strength;
At forty wisdom;
At fifty able to give counsel;
At sixty old age;
At seventy fullness of years;
At eighty the age of “strength”;
At ninety a bent body;
At one hundred, as good as dead and gone completely out of the world.
This mishnah gives ages that are appropriate for the different stages in life. We should note that in most places in the Mishnah, the age at which a child is obligated or allowed to do something is dependent not on his true age but either on his/her physical or mental development. Indeed this mishnah, which lists true ages, is probably more of a guide and not to meant to be legally binding. The Meiri states that it is meant as a stimulus to parents to teach their children the right subject at the right time. In modern times we also give rough ages of development but realize that some children will be quicker to reach those milestones and some will be slower.
Although this mishnah begins “he used to say” and therefore seems to be Judah ben Tema’s words, according to the Tosafot Yom Tov it is actually the words of Shmuel Hakatan. As we noted in the previous mishnah, this mishnah and the next two are addenda to tractate Avoth.
At five years of age the study of Scripture: Some interpret this to mean that at five the child should begin formal schooling, where he will first learn how to read the words of Scripture and later understand them. Interestingly, in modern times it is still typical to begin to learn to read at five.
At ten the study of Mishnah: The study of mishnah refers not to the study of the Mishnah as we have it today, but rather to the rote memorization of brief, usually halakhic material, which is the literary format of most of the Mishnah.
At thirteen subject to the commandments: At thirteen a child is liable for his own sins. This was the average age of puberty at the time of the Mishnah. This is the earliest reference to “bar-mitzvah” in Talmudic literature. The concept of a celebration of the bar-mitzvah does not appear until the fifteenth century. The idea of a “bat-mitzvah” does not appear until the 19th century.
At fifteen the study of Talmud: Talmud refers to the learning of the reasons and the Biblical proof of the laws that are “mishnah”. At this age the child is more intellectually developed and can begin to learn the more difficult material. Note that most children probably did not go to school this long. The mishnah is referring to an ideal and not to common practice.
At eighteen the bridal canopy: According to many scholars, this is also an ideal. In practice men (but not necessarily women) got married later.
At twenty for pursuit [of livelihood]: Once he has married a woman and had a child or two, he must pursue means to support his family. By twenty a person should have a profession. Others interpret this to mean that at twenty a person stops learning Torah and begins to work. Still others interpret this to mean that at twenty he pursues the enemy in war. This is the age at which one is liable to join the army, according to the Torah (Numbers 1:3).
At thirty the peak of strength: At thirty a person is at the peak of his strength. In the Torah the Levites only begin to work in the Tabernacle at thirty (see Numbers 4:47).
At forty wisdom: At forty a person’s wisdom comes to fruition. This is traditionally the age at which a person can be considered a “rabbi”. Nowadays people becomes rabbis at a much earlier age.
At fifty able to give counsel: In order to give advice a person needs to be wise but he also needs experience. At fifty a person still has the wisdom he reached at forty, and he now has the experience needed to advise others.
At sixty old age: A person enters old age at 60. Interestingly, the retiring age in our society is usually considered 65 (although in our society, with its advances in nutrition and health care, people are often able to work well past this age).
At seventy fullness of years: David died at 70 years of age, and I Chronicles 29:28 states, “And David died at a full age”.
At eighty the age of “strength”: See Psalms 90:10, which states that the given strength, one can live until 80.
At ninety a bent body: We should note that in the time of the Mishnah it was probably quite unusual to live this long.
At one hundred, as good as dead and gone completely out of the world: In the time of the Mishnah one who lived to one hundred probably could not see or walk, and was probably extremely senile. This mishnah considers such a person as good as dead. If you are over one hundred and you are reading this or even having someone read it to you, a hearty Mazal Tov. You have outlived the mishnah’s wildest dreams. And for the rest of you, may you live and continue to learn until 120!

AT TEN YEARS OLD, THE MISHNA. Rav: the Talmud says, a student that hasn't seen any success in five years of learning will not succeed, per the verse, “and this is for the Levites: from twenty-five years and up he shall join the legion of the service” (Numbers 8:24). Rashi: and a different verse (Numbers 4:3) says “from the age of thirty and up”—how should this be reconciled? At twenty-five he would come to study until thirty.²³⁷All this is per the Talmud, Chullin 24a.

There are only sixteen [mentions of the word,] 'man' found. And in the explanation of Rashi, [it is found] that 'man' is written eighteen times until "as from the person (eesh) was this taken." To here [are this words]. And one must say that [the word,] person is also in the count.

"Ten [is the age] for [the study of] Mishnah": As he studies Scripture five years, and Mishnah for five years, and Talmud for five years, as the Master said (Chullin 24a), "Any student who has not seen a positive sign in his study for five years will not see one further [than that]" - as it is written (Numbers 8:24), "This is [the rule] among the Levites; from twenty-five years and above, he should come to be of the service," that he should come to learn the laws of the service for five years and at thirty, he should serve.

AT THIRTEEN, THE COMMANDMENTS. Rav: for the verse says, “should a man or woman commit one of the sins of man” (Numbers 5:6), and in the story of Shechem the verse says “and the two sons of Jacob, Simon and Levi, the brothers of Dina, each [Heb. ish] took their swords” (Genesis 34:25), and Levi was thirteen at the time, and is called ish, a man. Rashi: consider that Jacob spent another thirteen yars with Laban after marrying Leah. If one allows seven months for each of her pregnancies, then since Levi was the third pregnancy, he was born about two years in. He would then have been eleven years old when they left. Add to that the six months they spent on the road and the eighteen months—a summer, a winter, and another summer—that they spent in Sukkot, which makes two years altogether, and it turns out that Levi was thirteen years old when they arrived at Shechem, and was called ish, a man. In his commentary on the Torah, in parashat Vayeshev, on the verse “and he mourned his son many days” (Genesis 37:34), Rashi is not being precise when he writes that six months of that two-year period were spent in Beit El, as that happened after the incident in Shechem. [*See Zavim, 2:1.]

[Rabbi Bartenura's second explanation is] in Midrash Rabbah, Parshat Korach. And it appears to me that it is from that which we find by those that died in the wilderness that they were not punished [when] less than twenty years old.

"Thirteen [is the age] for [observing] commandments": As is written (Numbers 5:6), "a man or a women who have done from all of the sins of man." And regarding Shekhem, it is written (Genesis 34:25), "and the two sons of Yaakov, Shimon and Levi, took - each man - his sword." And at that time, Levi was thirteen years old, and [still, the verse] calls him a man.

AT EIGHTEEN, THE CHUPPAH. Rav: the word adam appears nineteen times in parashat Bereshit, from “G-d said, let us make man” (Genesis 1:26) to “and G-d, the Lord, built the side” (Geneis 2:22). I counted them and even included the two written in the verse “and G-d, the Lord, built the side” and could only find sixteen. Rashi writes that adam appears eighteen times from the beginning of Bereshit until the verse “for this one was taken from man [Heb. ish]” (Genesis 2:23). We must say that he included the word ish in the count.

Gemara. And it appears to me that it wants to say that Israel at the time of the giving of the Torah were converts and a convert is similar to an infant that was [just] born. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"Eighteen [is the age] for the [wedding] canopy": [The word,] man is written nineteen times in Parshat Bereshit (the beginning of Genesis) from, "And God said, 'let us make man'" (Genesis 1:26), until "And the Lord God built the side" (Genesis 2:22, when Eve was created). One [use of the word, man] is for itself [such that] eighteen remain to be expounded [in this way].

AT TWENTY, CHASING. The Rav’s second explanation is that the heavenly court only begins to punish a person at 20. This is taken from Bemidbar Rabbah 18:4. It seems this was based on the fact that only those who were twenty years old at the incident of the spies died in the desert (Numbers 14:29).

"In elders (beyishishim) there is wisdom," [the first word of which is a type of] acronym for one of sixty (ben shishim) - Ritva. And even according to our textual variant, an elder (zaken) is zeh she'kanah chocmah (the one who acquired wisdom) - Midrash Shmuel. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"Twenty [is the age] for pursuit": of his sustenance. After he has studied Scripture, Mishnah and Talmud, and married a woman and produced children, he must seek out sustenance. A different explanation: Twenty [is the age] of his being pursued from the Heavens and to punish him for his deeds; as the court Above does not punish [someone] less than twenty years old.

AT FORTY, UNDERSTANDING. Rav: for after the Israelites had been in the desert for forty years, Moses said to them, “for G-d has not given you a heart to know, eyes to see, and ears to hear until this very day” (Deuteronomy 29:3). This is from the Talmud, Avodah Zarah 5b. But it is difficult to see how this is a proof, because the people who were in the desert for forty years after the giving of the Torah were much more than forty years old. Perhaps the proof is from the fact that Moses was addressing all of them, even the ones that were children at the giving of the Torah. So the verse reads “for G-d has not given all of you.” For some of them, who were older at the giving of the Torah, had already been granted this by G-d when they reached the age of forty.
One can also answer that at the giving of the Torah the Israelites all converted to Judaism, for the Talmud extracts the law that a convert must immerse from the story of the giving of the Torah, as I wrote on the mishna in Pesachim 8:8, and “a convert is like a newborn child” (Yevamot 22a).

AT SIXTY, OLD AGE. Rav: for the verse says, “you will go to the grave in old age [Heb. bechelach]” (Job 5:26), and the alphanumeric value of bechelach is sixty. Although the bet of bechelach is a preposition, it is counted for the alphanumeric value of the word, as is clear from the Talmud in Moed Kattan 28a where this verse is expounded. Although that passage quotes our verse in connection with the punishment of death by the heavenly court and here Rav understands it to refer to old age, this is because he is using the simple meaning of the verse, which is discussing good things as is clear from the end of it: “as a sheaf is brought in, in its season.” And just before that, “and you will know that there is peace in your tent” (Job 5:24).
Midrash Shmuel writes that some versions have “at sixty, wisdom”. Ritva agrees, and adduces the verse “wisdom is among the old [Heb. bi(ye)shishim]” (Job 12:12). Bi(ye)shishim is read as an abbreviation for ben shishim, sixty years old.
It is possible that even according to our version, the “old age” in the mishna refers to wisdom, for the Talmud (Kiddushin 32b) says that an old person [Heb. zaken] means a wise one, for zaken is an abbreviation for ze shekanah chochma, one who acquired wisdom. See below.

"Thirty [is the age] for [full] strength": As the Levites would put up and take down the Tabernacle and load the carts and carry on their shoulders from [the age] of thirty and above.

"Forty [is the age] for understanding": Since after forty years that Israel was in the wilderness, Moshe said to them (Deuteronomy 29:3), "'And the Lord did not give you a heart to know and eyes to see and ears to hear until this day.'"

AT NINETY, BENDING [Heb. lashuach]. Rav: some say this word comes from “a deep pit [Heb. shuchah]” (Proverbs 22:14). Midrash Shmuel objects in the name of Chasid Ya’avetz that if so, the mishna should have said leshuchah, to the pit. Also, we never find the grave being called shuchah. Also, if one is already buried at ninety, how does he die at a hundred?
The last objection is not a strong one, for the mishna simply means that at that age one is fit to be in the grave. One must say the same of Rav’s commentary to “at sixty, old age”, where the verse in Job must mean not that he will die at sixty, but that he will die in old age, and that if he dies at sixty that is considered having reached old age.

"Fifty [is the age] for [giving] counsel": As it is stated with the Levites (Numbers 8:25), "And from fifty years, he shall return from service and not serve more; and serve his brothers, etc." - and what is the service? That he give them counsel.

"Sixty [is the age] for mature age": As is written (Job 5:26), "You will come in your old age (bekhelach) to the grave." The numerical equivalent of [the letters in] bekhelach is sixty.

"Seventy [is the age] for a hoary head:" As is written about David (I Chronicles 29:28), "And he died with a good hoary head"; and the days of his life were seventy years.

"Eighty [is the age] for [superadded] strength (gevurot)": As is written (Psalms 90:10), "and if with great strength (gevurot), eighty years."

"Ninety [is the age] for [a] bending [stature]": He walks stooping and bent over. And some say, it is an expression [similar to its usage in Proverbs 22:14], "A deep pit."

BEN BAG BAG. Perhaps he and Ben Hey Hey did not live long, as Rav writes on the mishna in 4:1-2 concerning the names Ben Zoma and Ben Azai. Midrash Shmuel, however, writes that Rashbam writes that he heard from his uncle, R. Yehudah the son of Rosh, that they were converts and were called this to protect them from informers.²³⁸Who would have revealed their location to the government. This explanation presumes that conversion to Judaism was a crime under the Romans. Although Constantine made this the official rule of the empire only in 329 C.E., individual adverse reactions to conversion are attested (Dio Cassius reports that in 19 C.E. the Jews were expelled from Rome for “converting many of the natives to their ways”). They were thus the children of Abraham and Sarah, to whose names a hey was added and who were the first converts, for which reason all converts are considered their children. The alphanumeric value of Bag is five, as is that of the letter hey, and the two names are thus the same kind of name, with Ben Bag Bag being more cryptic and hidden; they gave them two different names to differentiate between the two.

Search in it, etc.: Review the words of Torah, as all the wisdom of the world is included in it.

He said about the Torah that one should search in it and meditate upon it, as everything is in it. And he said, "And in it should you see (techezei)," meaning to say the truth. [The explanation is that] you will see the truth with the eye of the intellect, like the [Aramaic] translation of vayira (and he saw) is vechaza. And afterwards he said, "and grow old and be worn in it" - to say, occupy yourself with it until the time of old age; and even then, do not veer from it to something else.

Ben Bag Bag: [That he is known by his patrimonial (Ben x)] can be explained as because he did not have length of days. But Rashbam explained that they were converts; and they are children of Abraham and Sarah, who had a [letter], hey added onto their names - and all converts are called their children. And the numerical equivalent of [the letters in] Bag is five (hey). And they called [Ben Bag Bag and Ben Hey Hey], one differently than the other, in order to recognize between one and the other - Midrash Shmuel.

"Search in it and search in it": in the Torah.

Ben Bag Bag said:
Turn it over, and [again] turn it over, for all is therein.
And look into it;
And become gray and old therein;
And do not move away from it, for you have no better portion than it.
According to legend, Ben Bag Bag and Ben He He (the author of the next mishnah) were converts. In order to hide them from the Roman authorities who forbade conversion, they were called by nicknames (these are obviously not real names). Both nicknames are in essence the letter “heh”, which is the letter that was added to Sarai and Avram’s, the first two converts, names. Bag Bag is in gematria (numerical value) five (bet is two and gimmel is three), which is equivalent to He He, the fifth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The language of the next two mishnayoth is Aramaic, as are the sayings of Hillel that we saw in chapter one, mishnah thirteen. It is possible that these two sages are from the same time period as Hillel.
Ben Bag Bag’s four statements all refer to the study of Torah. The first statement teaches that one should continuously study Torah, turning it over and over, for all wisdom is contained in it. He also comes to warn man not to be satisfied with superficial learning of the Torah. Rather he must study it over many times to delve into its deeper meanings.
One should continue to look into Torah even after he has gotten old. Torah study does not end in youth but is a lifelong endeavor.
One should not leave the Torah for there is nothing better in the world than the study of Torah.
This mishnah is a quintessential example of how precious the study of Torah was in the eyes of the rabbis. It is one of the most studied books in human history and no people has ever developed such a devotion to the study of texts as have the Jews.

TURN IT OVER AND OVER, ETC. Rav: the Torah.
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rabbenu Ephraim that because Torah is something that people greatly need, Ben Bag Bag said his dictum in Aramaic, which everyone knew upon their return from Babylon. Hillel did so as well, in the mishna of “and he who does not learn” (1:13).
Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that they were converts and they thus spoke Aramaic. He also writes that because the Torah was not given to the angels and they cannot receive reward for performing commandments, Ben Bag Bag said his dictum in Aramaic, which the angels do not understand.

And because words of Torah are a great need for people, [Ben Bag Bag] would say this in the Aramaic language, since they all understood it when they ascended [to Israel] from Babylonia - Midrash Shmuel. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"since everything is in it": as you will find everything in it.

TURN IT OVER AND OVER. The repetition is to strengthen the point and to teach the need for constant and great exertion. “Turning over” refers to reviewing what one has learnt.

"and search": The repetitive language is to strengthen and teach about [its] constancy and emphasis. And the matter of searching, itself, is the review of learning.

and grow old and be worn in it": Even until your old age and hoary-headedness, do not leave it.

AND IN IT YOU WILL SEE [Aram. techeze]. I.e., the truth. The meaning is that you will see the truth with the eyes of the mind, as the Targum translates “and G-d saw” by vechaza—Rambam.
Rashi has “and in it you should be”—that is, regularly.

"should you look (techeze)": ["It"] means to say the truth. The explanation is, and you should see the truth with the eye of the intellect, like the [Aramaic] translation of "and He saw," "vachaza." And see Tosafot Yom Tov.

"and from it do not move": [such] that you not say, "I have learned the wisdom of Israel, I will [now] go and learn Greek wisdom." As it is not permissible to learn Greek wisdom, except in a place that is forbidden to contemplate words of Torah - for example, in a bathhouse or in a bathroom. As they asked Rabbi Yehoshua, "What is [the law regarding] teaching one's son Greek wisdom?" He said to them, "He should teach it at a time which is not day and not night, as behold, it is written, 'and you will meditate upon them day and night.'"

AND DO NOT MOVE [Heb. lo tazua] FROM IT. Rav: you should not say, I have learnt the wisdom of Israel, now let me go learn chochmat yevanit.²³⁹Commonly translated as “the wisdom of the Greeks”. Rashi and Rambam, however, do not explain it this way whenever it comes up in the Talmud, writing rather that it is a kind of Greek cleverness of speech. Tosafot Yom Tov, in referring to Rav's commentary to the mishna in Sanhedrin, seems to see Rav as indeed understanding the phrase to mean “the wisdom of the Greeks”. See Rav’s comments on “outside books” in the mishna in Sanhedrin 10:1.
Some texts have lo tazuz.²⁴⁰A more standard verb meaning “to move”.

"greater than it": such that you not say that through the learning of Greek wisdom, "perforce I will learn from them politics and administration and virtues (good characteristics)." For this [reason], it said that "there is no characteristic greater than it," as all of the virtues are set up in all [that is in it] and preserved in it - Midrash Shmuel.

FOR THERE IS NO BETTER TRAIT [Heb. middah]²⁴¹Tosafot Yom Tov understands the word as “trait” or “characteristic”, the way it is indeed used in other contexts. The simple understanding of the word here, however, would be something like “way” or “lot”. THAN THIS. You should not think that through learning the wisdom of the Greeks you will certainly learn proper behavior and good character. The mishna says “there is no better trait than this”, for all good character traits are arranged and included in it. Alternatively, our tanna is addressing all of the ethical teachings of the Sages and saying that, from among all of the good character traits that the Sages have advised you to acquire and perfect yourself in, none is like this trait about which I have advised you, for it is the greatest of them all—Midrash Shmuel.

THE REWARD IS COMMENSURATE WITH THE SUFFERING. Rav: as much as one suffers in the learning of Torah and doing of commandments, so much will his reward be greater. This is the reward for the suffering and labor, for if one suffers and labors much the reward will be proportionally greater. But nobody knows the reward for the commandment itself, as the mishna says in 2:1—Maharal in Derech Chaim. See my comments there.

And Ben Hey Hey said [that] according to that which you are in pain with Torah will be your reward. And they said that only that which you study with exertion, labor and fear from the teacher will endure; but reading of enjoyment and leisure has no endurance to it and [so] no point in it. And they said in the explanation of his statement (Ecclesiastes 2:9), "even (af, which can also be understood as anger) my wisdom remained with me" - the wisdom that I studied with anger remained with me. And because of this, they commanded to place fear upon the students; and they said (Ketuvot 103b), "Throw fear upon the students."

Ben Bag Bag says, etc.: Since above it warns severely about Torah study and even until old age and hoary-headedness, and even if it causes great pain and it weakens his strength, he should not move from it; Ben Hey Hey comes to console a person and to speak to his heart, that he should not be concerned about his great pain, as According to the pain is the reward.

And this is about the reward for the pain and bother itself - that if it is great, its reward will be great. But [regarding] the reward for the [performance of the] commandments themselves, you do not know the gift of their reward, as we learned at the beginning of Chapter 2 - Derekh Chaim.

"According to the pain is the reward": According to the greatness of the pain, that you endure in the study of Torah and in the performance of the commandments, will your reward be great.

Introduction In the previous mishnah we learned that one must continuously study Torah. In our mishnah Ben He He adds that one must work hard at Torah study in order to gain the greater reward of true understanding.

Ben He He said: According to the labor is the reward. This might remind us of the modern saying, “no pain, no gain.” The difference between the two statements is that the mishnah refers to study whereas our modern saying refers to physical exercise. Wisdom which is acquired with great labor will last longer than that which is acquired through casual reading. We might experience this if we notice that things upon which we are tested are easier to remember than the casual reading we might do on our own.