קבל מהלל ושמאי. בשלשלת הלל לא הוצרך להזכיר שממנו קבלו. ועכשיו מזכיר ברבן יוחנן בן זכאי שלא היה מבני בניו ועוד שהוא היה לו תלמידים הרבה ורבתה המחלוקת מהם ואחריהם הזכיר שאע"פ שנחלקו בכמה דינים מ"מ עיקר התורה קבלוה וכמו שזכרתי בריש פרק קמא: RECEIVED THE TRADITION FROM HILLEL AND SHAMMAI. While the Mishna was recording the teachings of the line of Hillel, there was no need to mention that those sages had received the tradition from him, but now it is necessary to do so before the teachings of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, who was not a descendant of Hillel. Also, because he had numerous students and legal disputes proliferated thenceforth, the mishna points out that although there were several disputes their Torah was in the main a received tradition, as I mentioned at the beginning of the first chapter.
כי לכך נוצרת. לשם כך יצאת לאויר העולם כדכתיב (בראשית א׳:י״ג) ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום הששי [שבת פ"ח.] מלמד שהתנה הקב"ה עם מעשה בראשית שאם אין מקבלין ישראל את התורה יחזיר העולם לתוהו ובוהו נמצא עכשיו שחובה גדולה מוטלת עליו ולא בטובה הוא עושה. רש"י: AS YOU WERE CREATED FOR THIS PURPOSE. For the sake of this you came into the world, as per the verse “and there was evening, and there was morning, on the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31), which the Talmud expounds (Shabbat 88a): this teaches that G-d stipulated with Creation that should Israel not accept the Torah, the world will return to chaos. So it turns out that he has a tremendous responsibility and is not doing this as a favor—Rashi.
חמשה תלמידים היו לרבן יוחנן ב"ז. לא מנה רק הגדולים שנמסרה להם הקבלה. אמנם הרבה תלמידים אחרים היו לו. מד"ש בשם הרשב"ץ: RABBAN YOCHANAN BEN ZAKKAI HAD FIVE STUDENTS. The mishna mentions only the greatest ones, the ones to whom the tradition passed, but he had many other students—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rashbatz.
אליעזר בן הורקנוס. לפי שתלמידיו היו קוראם בשמן. רש"י. ELIEZER BEN HYRKANOS. He mentions them by name without honorifics because they were his students—Rashi.74The print before Rashi and the Tosafot Yom Tov did not have honorifics in the text. Our text does.
בור סיד ונ"א סוד. וכתב הר"ב דהכי גרס ולא בור סיד. כי בור סיד ר"ל בור של סיד ומה שבח יש בזה אבל בור סוד שסדוה יפה ומעמיד המים שלא יבלעו בקרקע. ובשלמותו סיוד ובא חסר יו"ד כדרך נחי העין. מדרש שמואל בשם הרשב"ץ. ובפירש"י פ"ד דע"ז דף נ"ה הועתק בור סיד כגרסת הספר: A PLASTERED CISTERN. The Rav reads bor sud, “plastered,” and not bor sid, “a plaster cistern.” Midrash Shmuel explains in the name of Rashbatz: this is because a bor sid, “a plaster cistern,” means “a cistern made of plaster,” and what is the great praise in being compared to a cistern made of plaster? A plastered cistern, on the other hand, is one that has been plastered well and holds in all its water, preventing it from seeping into the earth. The word is properly sayud, in the present passive participle, but appears here as sud because of the hollow root.75The root of sid is samach, yud, daled, called a “hollow root” because the middle letter is yud. The paradigm of the passive present participle is 1a2u3, where the numbers represent the consonants of the root, so the passive present participle of the verb “to plaster” should appear as sayud. But hollow verbs are irregular and their passive present participle appears as 1u3, in our case sud.
In Rashi’s commentary to Avodah Zarah 55a the text of our mishna is quoted as bor sid, as it appears in our printed editions.
שאינו מאבד טפה. כלומר לענין זה הוא שדומה לבור סוד ולא בכל בחינותיו לפי שיש בבור הזה נמי לגריעותא שאין מימיו מתוקים כמו באר מים חיים הואיל ואלו אינם אלא מכונסים ולא נובעים כלל ועוד ששואבים מטעם הסיד ולפיכך הוצרך לבאר שאינו מאבד טפה. מדרש שמואל: WHICH DOES NOT LOSE A DROP. This means to say that he is only like a plastered cistern in this respect but not in others, as a plastered cistern also has deficiencies. Its water does not taste as good as water from a well, both because cistern water is contained and well-water is flowing and because the water in the cistern absorbs the bitter taste of the plaster. The mishna therefore had to point out that only in this respect, in that he does not lose a drop, is he to be compared to a plastered cistern—Midrash Shmuel.
חסיד. פירש הר"ב שעושה לפנים משורת הדין. ועמ"ש בסוף מסכת סוטה: PIOUS [Heb. chasid]. Rav: he goes beyond the letter of the law. Cf. what I wrote on Sotah 9:15.
ירא חטא. פי' הר"ב מחמיר על עצמו וכו' דאל"כ מאי רבותיה וכו' כדלעיל מ"ה ועמ"ש בסוף [מסכת] סוטה: FEARS SIN. Rav: he acts according to the most stringent interpretation of the law and forbids himself the things that are permitted out of fear that he come to sin. Otherwise, what is his great virtue? For even an ignoramus can be fearful of sin. As per mishna 5.76There: an unlearned person cannot be fearful of sin, and an ignoramus cannot be pious. The implication is that an ignoramus, while he cannot be pious, can be one who fears of sin. Cf. what I wrote at the end of Sotah (9:15).
ואליעזר בן הורקנוס אף עמהם. כתב הר"ב שמצא כתוב דאבא שאול לא נחלק על ת"ק וכו' ומ"מ כיון שדברי אבא שאול באו על דברי ת"ק הוצרך להזכיר כי אף אליעזר בן הורקנוס שאתה שבחת אותו אפי' הוא בכלל וכו'. אבל הת"ק שדבריו ראשונה באו לא הוצרך לפרש. שכשאמר וכל חכמי ישראל ממילא אף אלעזר בן ערך עמהם בכלל. מדרש שמואל: EVEN IF ELIEZER BEN HYRKANOS WERE WITH THEM. Rav: I saw written that Abba Shaul does not disagree with the first tanna, and both things came from Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai and are both true. For with regards to breadth of learning and memory, Rabbi Eliezer was superior, and with regards to sharpness and argumentation Rabbi Elazar ben Arach was superior. Since Abba Shaul was commenting on the words of the first tanna he had to mention that even Eliezer ben Hyrkanos, whom he had praised, is included on the other side of the scale. But the first tanna, whose words came first, did not need to explain himself, because when he said “all the Sages of Israel” it was understood that even Elazar ben Arach was included—Midrash Shmuel.
