Комментарий к Авот 5:7

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.