Комментарий к Авот 3:2
רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי מִתְפַּלֵּל בִּשְׁלוֹמָהּ שֶׁל מַלְכוּת, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא מוֹרָאָהּ, אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ חַיִּים בְּלָעוֹ. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן תְּרַדְיוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁנַיִם שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין וְאֵין בֵּינֵיהֶן דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹשַׁב לֵצִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים א) וּבְמוֹשַׁב לֵצִים לֹא יָשָׁב. אֲבָל שְׁנַיִם שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין וְיֵשׁ בֵּינֵיהֶם דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, שְׁכִינָה שְׁרוּיָה בֵינֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ג) אָז נִדְבְּרוּ יִרְאֵי יְיָ אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ וַיַּקְשֵׁב יְיָ וַיִּשְׁמָע וַיִּכָּתֵב סֵפֶר זִכָּרוֹן לְפָנָיו לְיִרְאֵי יְיָ וּלְחֹשְׁבֵי שְׁמוֹ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שְׁנַיִם, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד שֶׁיּוֹשֵׁב וְעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא קוֹבֵעַ לוֹ שָׂכָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איכה ג) יֵשֵׁב בָּדָד וְיִדֹּם כִּי נָטַל עָלָיו:
Р. Чанина, адъютант первосвященник, говорит: молись о благополучии царя [даже царей народов]. Ибо если бы не его [(монархический)] страх, один человек проглотил бы своего товарища живым, [как написано (Аввакум 1:14): «И Ты сделал человека подобным морским рыбам»—Так же, как с морскими рыбами, все, кто больше других, глотают других, так и с мужчинами. Если бы страха царя не было на них, все, кто был сильнее другого, поглотили бы другого.] Р. Чанина бен Терадйон говорит: «Если двое сидят и между ними нет слов Торы, это называется« место » насмешников, «как написано (Псалтирь 1: 1):« И он не сидел на месте насмешников. ((2): Ибо в Торе Господа есть его желание и т. д. ») Но если два сидят, и между ними есть слова Торы, между ними Шехина, как написано (Малахия 3:16): «Тогда поклонники Господа говорили друг с другом [(подразумеваются два)], и Господь слушал и слышал, и перед Ним была написана книга памяти для поклонников Бога и мыслителей от Его имени ". Это говорит мне только о двух. Откуда я узнаю, что даже если кто-то сидит и изучает Тору, Святой Благословен, Он откладывает награду за него? Из (Eichah 3:27): «Он будет сидеть один и молчать, [учась сам" тихим, тихим голосом "], потому что он взял это на себя" [то есть, это как если бы он отдавал вся Тора была для него одного.]
Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot
FOR THE WELFARE OF THE GOVERNMENT [Heb. malchut]. Malchut refers to the king and the ministers and advisors running his kingdom and executing law in the land. Hence, the mishna chose the word malchut, “kingdom,” instead of melech, “king.” So the commentaries.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rabbeinu Yonah on Pirkei Avot
Rabbi Chanina, the Deputy High Priest, says: Pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear of it: As it is harsh upon us.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rambam on Pirkei Avot
His proof that any session wherein they did not speak words of Torah is called a session of scorners is from the end of the verse (the verse after the one he cites), wherein he states (Psalms 1:2), "But rather the Torah of the Lord, etc." [It is] as if he said that because his desire was in the Torah of the Lord, he [axiomatically] did not sit in the session of scorners within which there is no Torah of the Lord.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ikar Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot
"Government:" That [means] the king and his ministers and his advisors who run his kingdom and administer law in the land[. And that is why it did not say, "for the welfare] of the king." So did the commentators explain.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Pirkei Avot
"For the welfare of the government:" and even [that] of the nations of the world.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Pirkei Avot
Introduction
The first section of this mishnah contains a teaching of Rabbi Hanina who was the vice-high priest, (he would fill in for the high priest when he couldn’t serve). Rabbi Hanina lived through the destruction of the Second Temple. Perhaps there is a connection between his statement and the great political turmoil he witnessed during his lifetime.
The second section contains the teaching of Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradion, who was a contemporary of Rabbi Akiva’s. He was martyred by the Romans during the Bar-Kochva revolt. Legend has it that he was wrapped with a Torah scroll and then burned alive. This legend is part of the Yom Kippur liturgy, contained in a section called the martyrology.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot
THIS IS A GATHERING OF SCOFFERS. For there can be no greater scoffer than one who is told that as many gold coins as he can count out of a pile in an hour will be his and sits idly. He certainly scoffs at the gold coins and disdains them. So is one who idles instead of studying Torah. For since he knows the great reward for its study, he must simply be a scoffer.
This is the meaning of the tanna’s saying (Avot 6:2) “woe unto the people on account of the insult to Torah”—the tanna calls abandoning Torah study “insulting” the Torah. So Midrash Shmuel in the name of Chasid Ya’avetz.
He also focuses on the phrase “and there is no Torah among them.” He explains that even though each of them individually is studying Torah, there is no Torah “among them,” i.e. they do not study together. This is solely because each one thinks nothing of the learning of the other and feels there would be nothing to gain from joint study. Such people are certainly scoffers, even if no words of mockery come out of their mouths.
Rambam: the tanna’s proof that any gathering that does not involve words of Torah is a gathering of scoffers comes from the verse immediately following the one quoted, which says “for his desire is only for G-d’s Torah, etc.” (Psalms 1:2). The inference is that because his desire is only for G-d’s Torah he would not join a gathering of scoffers, which must therefore have none of G-d’s Torah.
This is the meaning of the tanna’s saying (Avot 6:2) “woe unto the people on account of the insult to Torah”—the tanna calls abandoning Torah study “insulting” the Torah. So Midrash Shmuel in the name of Chasid Ya’avetz.
He also focuses on the phrase “and there is no Torah among them.” He explains that even though each of them individually is studying Torah, there is no Torah “among them,” i.e. they do not study together. This is solely because each one thinks nothing of the learning of the other and feels there would be nothing to gain from joint study. Such people are certainly scoffers, even if no words of mockery come out of their mouths.
Rambam: the tanna’s proof that any gathering that does not involve words of Torah is a gathering of scoffers comes from the verse immediately following the one quoted, which says “for his desire is only for G-d’s Torah, etc.” (Psalms 1:2). The inference is that because his desire is only for G-d’s Torah he would not join a gathering of scoffers, which must therefore have none of G-d’s Torah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rabbeinu Yonah on Pirkei Avot
man would swallow his fellow alive: This matter is wanting to say that a person should pray for the peace of the whole world and be in pain about the pain of others. And this is the way of the righteous ones, as David, peace be upon him, stated (Psalms 35:13), "As for me, when they were ill, my dress was sackcloth, I afflicted myself in fasting." As a person should not make his supplications and his requests for his needs alone, but rather to pray for all people, that they be at peace. As with the welfare of the government, there is peace in the world.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rambam on Pirkei Avot
From where [is there proof that] that even [when there is only] one [person] sitting, etc.: In the first chapter of Berakhot 6a, it states in this language, "And from where is it derived that one who sits and engages in Torah [study], the Divine Presence is with him? As it is stated: 'In every place where I cause My Name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you' (Exodus 20:21); Since even one, was it necessary [to say] two? [With] two, their words are written in the book of remembrance; with one, his words are not written in a book of remembrance. And since even two, was it necessary [to say] three? Lest you say that judgment is merely peace, and the Divine Presence does not come. [Instead,] we understand that sitting in judgment is also Torah. And since even three, was it necessary [to say] ten? [With] ten, the Divine Presence precedes [them] and comes; [with] three, not until they sit." And the explanation of "he is silent (vayidom)" as being from the hidden speech is from "a still (demamah) small voice" (I Kings 19:12). And from this [idea] did the [Onkelos' Aramaic] translation explain, "And Aharon was silent" (Leviticus 10:3) [as] "And Ahaon praised." And his proof that he is like one that observed the entire Torah completely is from his saying, "since he takes it on himself" (Lamentations 3:28) - it is as if the giving of the entire Torah was only for his sake.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ikar Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot
"this is a session of scorners:" As there is no greater scorn than one to whom they say, "Count gold coins for an hour, and every thing that you count will be yours;" and he is idle [from doing this. Such a one] certainly scorns the gold coins and disgraces them. So [too] is one who is idle from words of Torah - since he knows [its] great reward, he is nothing but a scorner. And he said "there are no [words] between them," [by which] he means to say that even though they are involved in Torah [study] each one by himself, there is however [nothing] "between them," since each one is foolish and is scornful in his heart about the knowledge and learning of his fellow and thinks that he has nothing to gain from his company with him, etc. Certainly they are called scorners, even though no one opens his mouth [and calls them on it]. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Pirkei Avot
"would swallow alive:" As it is written (Habakkuk 1:14) "And you make man like the fish of the sea" - just like the fish of the sea, each one that is bigger than his fellow swallows his fellow; so too people, were it not for the fear of the government, each one who is bigger than his fellow would swallow his fellow (Avodah Zarah 4a).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Pirkei Avot
Rabbi Hanina, the vice-high priest said: pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear it inspires, every man would swallow his neighbor alive. One should pray for the welfare of the government, even a non-Jewish government. For without government anarchy reins, and people could not peacefully pursue their course of life. Rabbi Hanina is aware that governments are not perfect, as he certainly was witness to the tyranny of being ruled by a foreign government. Nevertheless, in this statement he recognizes that even the sometimes oppressive rule of the Roman is preferable to anarchy.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot
THE SHECHINA DWELLS AMONG THEM. As opposed to the scoffers, who are called “the group that does not see the face of the shechina” [as in Sotah, 42a]. For even after their death, the shechina remains distant from the scoffers, all the more so while they are alive. And the shechina dwells among these even when they are living, all the more so after their death—Midrash Shmuel.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rabbeinu Yonah on Pirkei Avot
Rabbi Chananya ben Teradyon says: Two who are sitting together and there are no words of Torah [spoken] between them, this is a session of scorners, as it is said (Psalms 1:1): “[Happy is the man who has]... not sat in the session of the scorners”: Two things are called scorning (leitsanut). One is evil speech: one who speaks badly about his fellow, to disgrace him and to debase him among people - that he be considered scornful in their eyes. And this is from the great sins 'that a man commits and is guilty.' And this trait is only [found] among those that act wickedly. And about it Shlomo, peace be upon him, stated in his wisdom (Proverbs 21:24), "The malevolent, conceited man - scorner is his name - acts in a frenzy of malevolence." He meant to say that these two evil traits - malevolence and conceit - both them or are included in the scorner. And a malevolent man is one who speaks about his fellow and debases him in the eyes of the world; [whereas] conceit is in thought, such that [another] person is not thought of as anything in front of him. And one 'crowned' with these two things - his name is scorner. And lest you say, he [may] not watch his tongue, but his hands are tied, he does not sin with them; about this he said, "he acts in a frenzy of malevolence" - when this man that "scorner is his name" comes to action, it will be with anger and cruelty. This is because scorning indicates about him the sin of being one who commits evil deeds. And Shlomo, peace be upon him, would console those that hear the insult of the scorners but do not respond and stated (Proverbs 3:34), "At scorners He scorns, but to the lowly He shows grace." He meant to say [that] God scorns those that scorn you and they will lose more with their scorn than you - the listener. "But to the lowly" that are silent and endure them and don't respond, the Holy One, blessed be He, "shows grace." But the verse that he [cited in the mishnah], "not sat in the session of the scorners," is not speaking about the scorners that we discussed - as that is [already] either in the category of sinners or in the category of evildoers that are stated in the beginning of the verse. Rather, it called "the session of the scorners" the opposite of what is written after it: "Rather, in the Torah of the Lord is his desire, and he meditates upon His Torah day and night.' [That is] those that purposely establish sessions to speak about empty words, and forsake words of Torah. As they remove the yoke of Torah from upon [them], since during the time that they don't have work [and] they also don't have to speak about their affairs, they establish a session for their idle words - hence it is called a session of scorners. And this thing is spoken concerning the refraining from Torah [study], since this chapter is speaking about the topic of refraining from Torah [study].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ikar Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot
"the Divine Presence rests with them": [This is] the opposite of the scoffers, as [the latter] are the group that do not see the face of the Divine Presence. However these are the opposite: as the scoffers - even in their death - the Divine Presence distances Itself from them; all the more so during their lives. And these - even during their lives - the Divine Presence dwells with them; all the more so in their death - Midrash Shmuel.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Pirkei Avot
“'those who feared the Lord one with another'": Behold, there are two here [that this verse is speaking about].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Pirkei Avot
R. Hananiah ben Teradion said: if two sit together and there are no words of Torah [spoken] between them, then this is a session of scorners, as it is said: “nor sat he in the seat of the scornful…[rather, the teaching of the Lord is his delight]” (Psalms 1:1); but if two sit together and there are words of Torah [spoken] between them, then the Shekhinah abides among them, as it is said: “then they that feared the Lord spoke one with another; and the Lord hearkened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that feared the Lord and that thought upon His name” (Malachi 3:16). Now I have no [scriptural proof for the presence of the Shekhinah] except [among] two, how [do we know] that even one who sits and studies Torah the Holy One, blessed be He, fixes his reward? As it is said: “though he sit alone and [meditate] in stillness, yet he takes [a reward] unto himself” (Lamentations 3:28). From the verse in Psalms used as a prooftext we can see that the opposite of a gathering of scorners (synonymous with sinners) is a gathering for the study of Torah. Therefore any gathering in which Torah study is completely absent is considered a gathering of scorners. Furthermore, the statement is that there must be between them words of Torah. It is not sufficient that each studies or meditates upon Torah on his own. The words of Torah should be shared with others. However, even two people who gather to study Torah cause the Shekhinah, the Divine Presence, to abide amongst them. This is learned from the verse in Malachi, which implies that when the group of God-fearers gathered, God hearkened to their words, for He dwelled amongst them. Finally, even one who studies on his own, receives a reward for such study.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot
STUDIES TORAH. A person sitting by himself doesn’t usually say words of Torah out loud. The mishna therefore cannot say “words of Torah” the way it does in the case of two people, who speak to one another.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rabbeinu Yonah on Pirkei Avot
But two who are sitting together and there are words of Torah [spoken] between them, the Divine Presence rests with them, as it is said (Malachi 3:16): “Then those who feared the Lord spoke one with another, and the Lord hearkened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for those who feared the Lord and for those who thought upon His Name”: And the simple understanding of the verse is about the righteous in the future to come: when people will see their lofty status and say, "For what did this thing come to them," they will answer, "Because earlier 'they spoke one with another' in words of Torah and it was written 'in the book of remembrance' and He is now giving them the reward for their activity."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ikar Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot
"[studying Torah,] etc.": Since an individual [who is alone] is not accustomed to putting out words of Torah from his mouth, therefore it is not relevant to say with him, "[studying] words of Torah (divrei Torah);" as it is with two, who are speaking one with the other.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Pirkei Avot
“'and is silent (vayidom'": It is a term [related to the usage], kol demamah dakah (a still-small voice). As the way of one who learns alone is to learn while whispering.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot
...THAT G-D SETS ASIDE REWARD FOR HIM? FROM THE VERSE “LET HIM SIT ALONE AND BE SILENT, FOR HE HAS TAKEN IT [Heb. natal] UPON HIMSELF.” Rav: it is as if the giving of the Torah was entirely for his sake. So also Rambam. But they had the version quoted by Maharal in Derech Chaim and by Midrash Shmuel in the name of Ramah: whence do we see that scripture considers even one person who sits and studies as if he has upheld the entire Torah? From the verse “let him sit alone and be silent, for he has taken it upon himself.”
As for the text printed in our editions, we prefer the explanation of Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rambam, that “he has taken it upon himself” means that he has been paid his reward in full, or that he has already taken his reward, for it had been prepared for him. Cf. the commentary of Rashi that I will quote shortly for a different take.
I see Midrash Shmuel quotes Rav the way we have it and explains that natal here has the meaning of “covering, shielding,” because Onkelos translates the word “you shall cover [Heb. vesakota]” (Exodus 40:3) as vetatel. He renders natal as “He has covered,” meaning that the shechina covers him to save him from all manner of evil, to be a protective shade over his head. In our editions Rav writes this as an explanation of mishna 6.
I also see that Midrash Shmuel, in quoting Rashi’s commentary to our mishna, writes that he found written in Rashi’s commentary to mishna 6 the following: “...and be silent, etc.” For he has taken for himself reward for that deed. And some say that it is a term of covering or protection, as in the verse vesakota etc.89 Midrash Shmuel seems to suggest that this commentary, while printed on mishna 6, properly belongs here. Tosafot Yom Tov will dispute this. The commentary of Rashi as printed in Maharal’s Derech Chaim also includes this explanation. If I were not afraid to say so, I would say that this explanation properly belongs there on mishna 6 and not here, and that Rashi had the text from the verse, “let him sit alone and be silent, for he has taken upon himself” and not “wherever I cause my name to be mentioned, I shall come to you and I will bless you”. For it is there, in that mishna, that we say that the shechina dwells even with one person. I further claim that Rashi had the text “wherever etc.” in our mishna, for which reason he wrote no commentary on this part of the mishna, because none is necessary. For the verse explicitly says “and I will bless you,” and there can be no greater setting aside of reward than this. So it seems to me. Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that in our editions the text reads and whence do we know that G-d sets aside reward even a single person studying Torah, and that the shechina is with him? From the verse, let him sit alone, etc. If we accept this version, we may say that Rashi here is explaining that the Hebrew natal is like vesakota.90In which case, Tosafot Yom Tov agrees with Midrash Shmuel that the commentary belongs here.
The Talmud in Berakhot 6a: since this is true even of a single person, what need is there to say it of two people? [The answer is:] The words of two people studying are “written in the book of rememberance,” while the words of one are not.91The Talmud evidently saw in our mishna that the shechina dwelt even with one person, supporting the version adduced in Derech Chaim above. And our mishna adds to the case of a single person that “G-d sets aside reward for him” not beause two don’t get reward, but because in the case of one the verse says so explicitly, as it says, “for he has taken for himself.” Both ideas—that of reward, and that of the shechina dwelling—are derived from the word natal, which is explained using vesakota as above and according to the meaning “to take,” i.e. to take reward. The reason the verse says this of a single person is because it will then be understood to be true all the more so in the case of two people.
As for the text printed in our editions, we prefer the explanation of Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rambam, that “he has taken it upon himself” means that he has been paid his reward in full, or that he has already taken his reward, for it had been prepared for him. Cf. the commentary of Rashi that I will quote shortly for a different take.
I see Midrash Shmuel quotes Rav the way we have it and explains that natal here has the meaning of “covering, shielding,” because Onkelos translates the word “you shall cover [Heb. vesakota]” (Exodus 40:3) as vetatel. He renders natal as “He has covered,” meaning that the shechina covers him to save him from all manner of evil, to be a protective shade over his head. In our editions Rav writes this as an explanation of mishna 6.
I also see that Midrash Shmuel, in quoting Rashi’s commentary to our mishna, writes that he found written in Rashi’s commentary to mishna 6 the following: “...and be silent, etc.” For he has taken for himself reward for that deed. And some say that it is a term of covering or protection, as in the verse vesakota etc.89 Midrash Shmuel seems to suggest that this commentary, while printed on mishna 6, properly belongs here. Tosafot Yom Tov will dispute this. The commentary of Rashi as printed in Maharal’s Derech Chaim also includes this explanation. If I were not afraid to say so, I would say that this explanation properly belongs there on mishna 6 and not here, and that Rashi had the text from the verse, “let him sit alone and be silent, for he has taken upon himself” and not “wherever I cause my name to be mentioned, I shall come to you and I will bless you”. For it is there, in that mishna, that we say that the shechina dwells even with one person. I further claim that Rashi had the text “wherever etc.” in our mishna, for which reason he wrote no commentary on this part of the mishna, because none is necessary. For the verse explicitly says “and I will bless you,” and there can be no greater setting aside of reward than this. So it seems to me. Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that in our editions the text reads and whence do we know that G-d sets aside reward even a single person studying Torah, and that the shechina is with him? From the verse, let him sit alone, etc. If we accept this version, we may say that Rashi here is explaining that the Hebrew natal is like vesakota.90In which case, Tosafot Yom Tov agrees with Midrash Shmuel that the commentary belongs here.
The Talmud in Berakhot 6a: since this is true even of a single person, what need is there to say it of two people? [The answer is:] The words of two people studying are “written in the book of rememberance,” while the words of one are not.91The Talmud evidently saw in our mishna that the shechina dwelt even with one person, supporting the version adduced in Derech Chaim above. And our mishna adds to the case of a single person that “G-d sets aside reward for him” not beause two don’t get reward, but because in the case of one the verse says so explicitly, as it says, “for he has taken for himself.” Both ideas—that of reward, and that of the shechina dwelling—are derived from the word natal, which is explained using vesakota as above and according to the meaning “to take,” i.e. to take reward. The reason the verse says this of a single person is because it will then be understood to be true all the more so in the case of two people.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rabbeinu Yonah on Pirkei Avot
I have no [Scriptural support for this] except [in a case of] two. From where [is there proof that] that even [when there is only] one [person studying Torah], the Holy One, blessed be He, determines a reward for him?: He means to say one who sits and thinks about Torah. Since reward is given for thought as it is for one involved in speech.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ikar Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot
And [like Rabbi Bartenura] did Rambam explain. However his textual variant was "From where [is there proof that] that even [when there is only] one [person studying Torah], the verse considers it as he kept the Torah? As it is said, 'He sits alone. etc.'” And according to the textual variant that we have, [the correct understanding] appears to be that which is written in Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rashbam, who explains that "since he takes [a reward]" [means] that a full reward is sent to him; or that behold, he is like one who has already taken his reward, as it is [already] prepared. He also wrote here like the words of Rabbi Bartenura at the end of Mishnah 6. And it appears to me that Rashi has a textual variant that has "'In every place, etc.'" here, and later in Mishnah 6 he has a variant [that reads], "'since he takes, etc.'" And in the gemara [it is written], "And since even one, do I need [to say] two? [With] two, their words are written in the Book of Remembrance; [with] one, his words are not written." And see Tosafot Yom Tov.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Pirkei Avot
"'since he takes [a reward] for it'”: As if the giving of the entire Torah was for his sake alone.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rabbeinu Yonah on Pirkei Avot
As it is said (Lamentations 3:28): “He sits alone and is silent, since he takes [a reward] for it”: As one who is silent and thinks about Torah is as if he takes on the yoke of Torah in oral meditation. But Rabbi Meir HaLevi follows the textual variant, "From where [is there proof that] that even [when there is only] one [person studying Torah], the verse equates it for him as if he fulfilled the whole entire Torah, as it is said (Lamentations 3:28): 'He sits alone and is silent, since he takes [a reward] for it.'" And how is it implied that the expression "and he is silent" is [about] speech? [From] "since he takes" [which refers] to the yoke of speech - as he preaches in front of [the people].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy