Pirkei Avot 4:1 (9.5.2019)

(1) Ben Zoma said:Who is wise? He who learns from every man, as it is said: “From all who taught me have I gained understanding” (Psalms 119:99). Who is mighty? He who subdues his [evil] inclination, as it is said: “He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that rules his spirit than he that takes a city” (Proverbs 16:3). Who is rich? He who rejoices in his lot, as it is said: “You shall enjoy the fruit of your labors, you shall be happy and you shall prosper” (Psalms 128:2) “You shall be happy” in this world, “and you shall prosper” in the world to come. Who is he that is honored? He who honors his fellow human beings as it is said: “For I honor those that honor Me, but those who spurn Me shall be dishonored” (I Samuel 2:30).

(1) WHO IS WISE. Rav explains the question as “which wise person can take pride in his wisdom?” At first, this might seem like a contradictoin to what Jeremiah said: “Let not the wise man take pride in his wisdom, nor the strong man take pride in his strength, nor the rich man take pride in his riches—only in [Heb. ki im] this should one take pride: understanding and knowing Me” (Jeremiah 9:22). It is not, however, because our tanna understands the verse as follows. When Jeremiah says “only in this” he is speaking of the abovementioned things themselves. What he means to say is that the wise man should not take pride in his wisdom, unless [Heb. ki im]¹³⁰The Hebrew can mean “only in” or “only if”, the latter rendered here as “unless”. it be to understand and know Me; the strong man should not take pride in his strength, unless it be to understand and know Me; the rich man should not take pride in his riches, unless they be to understand and know Me. Our tanna therefore asks “which is the wise person” and so on as a question in response to the verse—since the verse says that there are wise, strong, and rich people that can take pride in their accomplishments but does not specify who they are, we must now ask to whom the verse refers.
The tanna has investigated the matter and found that the wise person in question is the one who learns from every man. Rav explains that this shows that his intent in acquiring wisdom is purely for the sake of Heaven, which would be precisely in order to “understand and know Me.” The strong man is he who subdues his desires. This is strength for the sake of Heaven, i.e. in order that one not sin before G-d, and there can be no greater “understanding and knowing Me,” as the purpose of this “knowing” is to fear G-d and keep his commandments. And the rich man who is satisfied with his lot and does not chase after wealth uses his time to engage in the service of Heaven, which is also “understanding and knowing Me.” The mishna therefore says of him “you are praiseworthy in this world, and it will go well for you in the next.” And the Talmud says in Berachot 8a that “whoever eats the fruits of his labor is greater than one who fears Heaven” for the same reason: one who has fear of Heaven but is not content with what he has and chases after wealth will not have time for the service of G-d.,AS THE VERSE SAYS, “I HAVE GROWN WISE FROM ALL MY TEACHERS”. Rav: and the end of the verse says, “for your laws are all my speech.” Which shows that the beginning of the verse means “I learned Torah from all of my teachers.”¹³¹That being the meaning of “growing wise”. The second half of the verse provides a reason for the first. If the reason is “for your laws are all my speech”, i.e. they are what I speak of all the time, the first half of the verse must mean “I have grown wise from all my teachers,” i.e. I have eagerly absorbed their instruction because all my desire was to know your laws. This is contra the following interpretation mentioned and dismissed by Maharal. And we should not read the first half of the verse as “I have grown wiser than all of my teachers,”¹³²The Hebrew supports both readings, because the prefixed mi- in mi-kol melamdai hiskalti can mean either “from” or “more than”. for it is not unexpected that after one learns from a teacher he becomes sharp and understanding in the subject, and it is no surprise if he gets to understand more than what his teachers taught him¹³³Precisely this rejected interpretation is offered by Ibn Ezra ad loc.—Maharal in Derech Chaim.
Rav: “for your laws are all my speech”, my intent is entirely for the sake of Heaven. I.e., since all my speech is of Torah, it is clear that my intent is entirely for the sake of Heaven.¹³⁴The reasoning is: I have learned Torah from all my teachers because my study was for the sake of Heaven, and it is evident that my study was for the sake of Heaven because it was the subject of all my speech. The middle premise, that my study was for the sake of Heaven, is implied by the two extremal premises. Rav assumes it and Tosafot Yom Tov clarifies the syllogism, which, written in syllogistic form, would go: 1. If Torah is all my speech, my study is for the sake of Heaven. 2. If my study is for the sake of Heaven, I learn from all my teachers. Therefore, since Torah is all my speech, I learn from all my teachers.,ONE WHO SUBDUES HIS INCLINATION. The inclination to evil [Heb. yetzer hara] is called “inclination” [Heb. yetzer] without qualification, as it precedes the desire for good, at which point it rules over the body alone—Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yosef Karo. He also writes that this inclination is more particular to a person and a more basic part of his essence than the inclination to good, as the nature of man is to incline to evil. Cf. what I wrote on 3:9 on “anyone whose fear of sin etc.”,AS THE VERSE SAYS, “BEING SLOW TO ANGER IS BETTER THAN BEING STRONG.” Rav: the meaning of the verse is that it is better to be slow to anger as a function of the strength involved in subduing one's inclination, not because of a lack of appetite. For if the verse means simply that being slow to anger is better than being strong, we would wonder why that is, as being slow to anger because of lack of appetite is not better.¹³⁵It is just not comparable—one is an act of strength, and the other a lack of a quality.,YOU ARE PRAISEWORTHY IN THIS WORLD. Rashi: for he will not need to take from others. And in the next world because he enjoys the fruits of his labor and does not end up stealing, and will inherit both worlds.

(2) AS TO A WEIGHTY ONE [Heb. kevachamura]. Other versions do not have this word, and the ones that do mistakenly inserted it due to the similarity of our mishna to the mishna in 2:1: “be as careful with a light commandment as with a weighty one [Heb. Kevachamura].” And the texts that do have it should read kelachamura.¹³⁶“As to a weighty one,” not “as with a weighty one”, which has no meaning in our mishna. I saw a manuscript copy of Avot from the Land of Israel that does not have the word kevachamura.,FROM SIN. The mishna does not say “from a light sin” the way it says “to a light commandment” because “light” here has the sense that it is easy for a person to do, but all sins are easy for a person to do as they are all enjoyable; it is therefore not possible to say “from a light sin”—Maharal in Derech Chaim.,THE REWARD OF SIN IS SIN. G-d leaves him in the hands of his evil nature. But G-d will not aid him in sinning, the way that Rav writes. He would aid someone in performing a commandment, as the Talmud says: “One who wishes to purify himself receives G-d’s aid; one who wishes to become impure receives His permission” (Yoma 38b). So also Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rabbenu Yonah.

(3)

(4) BE [VERY] LOWLY OF SPIRIT. Midrash Shmuel has “before every man”. See mishna 10 (s.v. “before every man”).,THE HOPE [Heb. tikvat] OF MAN [Heb. enosh] IS THE WORM. Rambam: he should consider his end and his return to the worm. I found a similar approach in Rashi’s commentary to the verse “the only desire of the righteous is the good, and the hope of the wicked is wrath” (Proverbs 11:23): they are assured of and hoping for Gehinnom. This shows that once a person is sure that something will happen it can be said to be “his hope”.
Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that the mishna does not say “for your hope is the worm” because no person hopes to be eaten by the worms. It says instead “for the hope of man is the worm”, i.e. that every person is destined to be eaten by the worms.¹³⁷The “hope of man” refers not to any actual person’s hope but to the fate of every person insofar as he is human, per the use of “hope” Tosafot Yom Tov has established above. Saying “your hope” would imply a personal hope, which is not true. He also writes that the alphanumeric value of “man” [Heb. enosh, אנוש] is the same as the alphanumeric value of the sum of two other synonyms for “man”, אדם and איש. It is because of the joining of earth, אדמה, and the essence, i.e. potential, of man, אישות, that a person is the flesh, בשר, which is eaten by worms. He did not concern himself over the difference of one between the two values¹³⁸The value of אנוש is 357, and the value of אדם + איש is 356. [because one alludes to the joining of earth and the essence of man].
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Chasid Ya’avetz that the mishna means “be lowly of spirit” before those who insult you, and do not answer them becase “the hope of [the] man” who insults you is the worm, and why should you care what he says? He then says that this is based on the words of the prophet Isaiah: “Do not fear the disparagement of man, and do not be broken by their insults; for like a garment, a moth will eat them, and like wool, a worm will eat them” (Isaiah 51:7-8).
Midrash Shmuel also writes that “hope” here is to be understood literally, and explains the mishna as saying that the hope and desire of a person is that he receive a proper burial and not be buried like a donkey. I say that although everyone hopes to have a proper burial befitting a person, it cannot be said that his hope and desire is to be eaten by the worm. If he were to be buried and not eaten by any worms, that would be best. Not only that, we find the Sages mentioning people whom the worms did not touch (Bava Batra 17a) and, we find the story of R. Elazar bar Shimon in Bava Metzia 83b.¹³⁹In this story, R. Elazar bar Shimon’s daughter stores his body in her attic. One day she sees a worm coming out of his ear. He appears to her in a dream and explains that he once heard someone insulting a Torah scholar and did not sufficiently protest; the worm is a punishment for this. The import of the story is that worms only eat bodies that were engaged in sin, and it is possible to hope to be sinless and therefore not subject to worms.
I say that what caused the commentators all this difficulty is their understanding of the word tikvah as coming from the root k.v.h, meaning “to hope”. But this is not so, and the root is in fact k.v, as in the verse “kav by kav” (Isaiah 28:10). The second tav in the word tikvat is not in place of a hey¹⁴⁰If the word in our mishna is “hope” from the root k.v.h., “to hope”, then we understand tikvat as the word tikvah appearing in the construct state and we read tikvat enosh as “the hope of man”.; it is simply a suffix, of the kind that appears in the words tif’eret, tilboshet.¹⁴¹The roots of which are p.’.r. and l.b.sh., respectively—the tav at the end is a suffix added on to the root. Tosafot Yom Tov suggests that our word tikvat should be understood similarly, the tav being a suffix. We find this word in the verse “the line [Heb. tikvat] of scarlet cord” (Joshua 2:18). We understand the kav in Isaiah the same way—as a measuring cord, with the verse meaning that one receives measure for measure. We also explain the verse in Proverbs 11:23, tikvat enosh `evra, to mean that the wicked are judged by the measuring cord and condemned to the wrath and rage of G-d. And this is what our tanna means when he says tikvat enosh rimah: the measuring cord by which punishment will be dealt out to a person is the worm. [I later saw a passage in Bereshit Rabbah 5:1 on the verse yikavu hamayim, “let the waters be gathered” (Genesis 1:9): he shall make a measure for the water, as the verse says, “a kav [line] shall be stretched over Jerusalem.],ANYONE WHO DESECRATES G-D’S NAME IN PRIVATE. Rav explains in Yoma 10:8 that “desecrating G-d’s name” means sinning and causing others to sin, and I wrote there that this means that others learn from the sin to sin themselves, as Rav himself writes on the mishna later in 5:9. If so, how is it possible to do this in private?
One approach is that of Maharal in Derech Chaim, that “in private” means that few people know about it, not that it is truly in private. He also gives the case of ten Torah scholars who are together and one of them steals or enters a brothel, and it is unclear who it was.
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rabbenu Yonah that the desecration of G-d’s name in private here refers to someone who worships other gods, which is desecration because he does not acknolwedge the true G-d, or someone who swears falsely, concerning which the verse says “and do not swear falsely in My name, such that you desecrate the name of your G-d” (Leviticus 19:12). He also writes in the name of Rabbenu Ephraim that our mishna is discussing a Torah scholar sinning in private, who, had he sinned in public, would have caused others to learn from his sin and would have desecrated G-d’s name. [*This seems very forced to me, because in the end he did not sin in public and didn’t cause an actual desecration of G-d’s name, and the language of the mishna does not support this reading. Anytime somebody sins in private there is no desecration of G-d’s name, and the mishna speaks specifically of a desecration of G-d’s name.
As for what the case of the mishna would then be, I say that it would be the case of a sin that cannot be done without another’s participation, such as illicit relations and the like. The woman is forced,¹⁴²In which case he desecrates G-d’s name because she comes to despise Torah scholars and Torah itself. or even if she is seduced, she has only agreed to it because she reasons that there must not be any sin involved if he is willing to do it, causing a desecration of G-d’s name. Whereas when someone eats a forbidden food or the like and nobody sees him this does not cause any desecration of G-d’s name.],THERE IS NO DIFERENCE BETWEEN INTENTIONAL AND UNINTENTIONAL SINS. Rambam: you already know from Scripture that even when one sins unintentionally, he has still sinned and requires atonement through a sacrifice, and G-d says that “he shall be forgiven for the sin that he sinned” (Leviticus 19:22).¹⁴³So he clearly is considered having sinned, and required forgiveness. But he is not the same as one who sins intentionally. G-d forbid that the just ways of G-d would treat an unintentional sinner like an intentional one in any way. The mishna here simply means that the punishment for the desecration of G-d’s name, whether it happened in public or in private, will be in public. The punishment will be the one appropriate for the case, whether he sinned intentionally or unintentionally, but either way it will be in public. Rashi also writes that the intentional and unintentional sins are only treated equally in terms of the publicity, not in terms of the punishment itself. He brings a proof from the case of the Jews who deserved to be destroyed for bowing down to the statue of Nebuchadnezzar and were not destroyed, which the Talmud explains is because “they only did this outwardly; G-d likewise only appeared to be destorying them” (Megillah 12a).
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Moshe Almosnino that it is fitting to treat the intentional and unintentional sinner equally with regards to the publicity of his punishment, because the one who sinned in private was sinning in public as far as the One against Whom he sinned is concerned, for nothing is hidden from His eyes. The mishna then repeats “in the desecration of G-d’s name” to clarify that it is for this reason that the unintentional and intentional sinner are treated equally with public punishments; a sin that desecrates G-d’s name is a sin against Him before whom all is revealed.¹⁴⁴The reasoning seems to be that since every sin against G-d is like a sin in public, and the punishment for desecrating G-d’s name would happen publicly, a sin which (in public) would be a desecration of G-d’s name is likewise treated as though it happened in public at least in regards to the publicity of the punishment.

(5) ONE WHO STUDIES IN ORDER TO TEACH. “To teach” does not mean to the exclusion of actually doing, for of such a one “G-d says, Why should you speak of my laws?” (Psalms 50:16).¹⁴⁵The verse there discusses a wicked person. Cf. what I write below in the name of Kesef Mishne.,IS GIVEN THE ABILITY TO BOTH STUDY AND TEACH. I.e., he is given the ability to study and to fulfill his plan of teaching. The mishna needs not speak of one who studies in order to learn, for his good intent to study will certainly come to fruition. Our case tells us something more: when his intent is to teach, he is given the ability to teach and his own studies will also succeed, so that neither will suffer, for G-d will give him wisdom¹⁴⁶Based on Proverbs 2:6.—so Midrash Shmuel.
Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that one who studies only in order to learn for himself does not need much learning, and is indeed not given the ability to do all that he plans, for even if he learns a single law he has learnt.¹⁴⁷If his only intent is to learn, he will not receive Divine assistance to do anything more than the bare minimum of learning. If his intent is to teach, however, he will be given much more; see Derech Chaim.
Kesef Mishne writes in Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:10 that “in order to teach” here means that he does not study for learning’s sake but to gain honor by becoming a rosh yeshiva, based on the Talmud in Nedarim 62a: “To love Hashem, your G-d, to listen to His word and cleave to Him”—a person should not say, “I will study Tanach in order that people call me chacham; I will study the Mishna and Talmud in order that people call me rabbi; I will continue my studies so that I will be one of the elders and sit in council.” Alternatively, his intent is to study and earn money the way that one would in learning any trade. In this case, he is given the ability to study and teach as he planned, but not more. Whereas one who studies in order to do is studying with pure intentions. R. Tzadok then tells us that it is sinful to study only in order to teach, which is what he means by “do not make them into a crown, etc.”¹⁴⁸ Kesef Mishne there says that the two parts of R. Tzadok’s warning apply to the two kinds of intent he mentioned earlier: learning in order to gain honor (making Torah into a crown), and learning in order to earn money (making Torah into a spade).,TO KEEP AND TO DO. Even though his intent was only “to do”, he is given the ability “to keep” away from sin, in order that he not be “one who immerses while holding a rodent”¹⁴⁹Touching a rodent makes one impure. To purify himself he must immerse in a mikveh. Immersing in the mikveh while holding the rodent is an exercise in futility, as he is still touching the rodent and remains impure. In the rabbinic idiom, one who “immerses while holding a rodent” is acting in order to achieve some outcome while simultaneously doing something else that prevents the outcome. Here, the desired outcome of performing positive commandments, doing G-d’s will, is being counteracted by the regular transgression of negative commandments.—so Midrash Shmuel.
In a copy of Avot from the land of Israel the word “to keep” does not appear, and this seems to be the correct text. For “to do” would obviously include keeping away from sin; as I wrote earlier, far be it that that doing positive commandments but not keeping away from negative ones be good in G-d’s eyes and an expression of His will! “To do”, rather, means simply to keep all the laws of the Torah.,DO NOT MAKE THEM INTO A CROWN ETC. Not to gain honor through them and not to earn money through them, and both are necessary to say—Maharal in Derech Chaim.,NOR A SPADE WITH WHICH TO DIG. Rav: it is forbidden to take money for teaching Torah, as the verse says “and G-d commanded at that moment to teach you laws and statutes” (Deuteronomy 4:14), and another verse earlier¹⁵⁰Tosafot Yom Tov clarifies that these are two separate verses that Rav wrote as one. says “...as Hashem my G-d commanded me” (Deuteronomy 4:5)—just as I learnt for free, you must learn for free. This is based on the Talmud in Nedarim 37a, where Ran writes (s.v. uchtiv re’eh): “As He commanded me.” I.e. he commanded me to teach for free. Otherwise, to what could “as He commanded me” be referring to? We cannot say that it means “[as He commanded me] to teach for pay”, for how could Moses say “as he commanded me”—had G-d commanded him this? Is it impossible to teach without taking pay? We also cannot say that he meant G-d commanded him these things and they were not of his own invention, for the people certainly would not have entertained such doubts, as the verse says “they will believe in you forever” (Exodus 19:9). We must say, rather, that “as He commanded me” must mean that He commanded me to teach for free.
Rav also writes: similarly, a judge may not take money for rendering judgment… and if [he does], his rulings are void. This is a mishna in Bechorot 4:6, see our comments there.
Rav also writes: the Torah has allowed him to benefit… in that his merchandise should be sold in the market first, and that the first customers in the market be directed to him.¹⁵¹Our editions of Rav do not have this second benefit, but Rambam includes it in his commentary on the mishna, which is Rav’s source. Rambam in his commentary here: ...for merchants regularly honor one another by doing these two things, even though there is no learning among them. A Torah scholar is not worse than a respected ignoramus.
Rav also writes: he is also exempt from all taxes and burdens. This is based on a verse in Ezra 7:24: “We also declare to you that it is unlawful to levy minda, b’lo, and halach¹⁵²Types of taxes. on all the priests and Levites, singers and gatekeeprs, Nethinim and whoever serves in this Temple of God.”,AS HILLEL USED TO SAY. 1:13.,WHOEVER DERIVES BENEFIT FROM WORDS OF TORAH TAKES HIS LIFE FROM THE WORLD. Rambam: whoever benefits from the honor of Torah in this world takes his life from “the world”, i.e. the World to Come.

(6)

(7) AND POINTLESS OATHS [Heb. shvuat shav]. Rav writes in his second explanation: the tanna calls a false oath a pointless oath. This is based on the Talmud, Shevuot 20b, where Rav Dimi says in the name of R. Yochanan that a pointless oath is when one swears that he has eaten or not eaten, and the opposite is true. Rashi ad loc. explains: shav here means “nothing”, as in the verses “cords of nothingness [Heb. chavlei shav]” (Isaiah 5:10) and “I have struck your children for nothing [Heb. leshav]” (Jeremiah 2:30); in this instance, as well, the oath has left his mouth for nothing. The souce for the prohibition is “Do not mention the name of Hashem, your G-d, in vain [Heb. leshav]” (Exodus 20:7).
I first wondered at this, because the mishna in Shevuot 3:8 asks “What is an oath of shav?” and does not list the case of one who makes an oath about past events. We can answer this as follows. The Talmud there says that Ravin disagrees with Rav Dimi and calls the oath of “I have eaten/I haven’t eaten” a false oath [*see my comments on Temurah 1:1, s.v. sofeg], while a pointless oath is one that involves an obviously false claim, such as “this is a woman” of a man. He holds that one who makes a false oath receives lashes, and the Talmud traces the source for this to the double use of the word shav in the verse in Exodus 20:7: one shav indicates that a pointless oath incurs lashes; the second shav, which now seems unnecessary, indicates that even a false oath incurs lashes. How, the Talmud asks, does Ravin know that a false oath is about a past event? It answers that, since the Torah clearly compares the false oath to the pointless oath, it is reasonable to assume that just as the pointless oath concerns a past event, a false oath concerns a past event. Rashi ad loc. explains that a pointless oath is about a “past event” because it makes a claim that is obviously false, as opposed to an oath about doing or not doing something in the future.
We can similarly say that Rav Dimi would agree that any oath about a past event would follow logically from the classic case of a pointless oath, which is making an obviously false claim. Because the term “pointless oath” refers most directly to an oath claiming the opposite of what is well-known, the mishna defines a pointless oath as “making an oath claiming the opposite of something well-known,” but indeed, any false oath concerning a past event would be included in this.
[*But there is a simpler approach. The Talmud says there (Shevuot 21b) that one who makes the oath “I have/haven’t eaten” is obligated to bring a sacrifice of atonement, whereas the abovementioned mishna says that one who makes a pointless oath is not obligated to bring a sacrifice. For this reason, the end of that same mishna says “this is the ‘pointless oath’ which one who makes intentionally must receive lashes for, but for which one who makes it unintentionally need not bring a sacrifice,” and the Talmud says that “this” means to exclude the case of “I have/haven’t eaten” which would require a sacrifice, as I wrote on that mishna (Shevuot 3:8, s.v. zo hi). Now even though the Talmud was in the middle of defending Ravin’s position, it is clear that even Rav Dimi agrees to this detail, as the Talmud says in Shevuot at the beginning of page 21a that Rav Dimi holds that swearing “I have/haven’t eaten” falsely would obligate one to bring a sacrifice.¹⁵³This is why that mishna could not include the case of swearing about a past event in the “pointless oath”, even though it actually is—the mishna means to list those pointless oaths that would not obligate one to bring a sacrifice, and a false oath about a past event, even though it is included in the category of pointless oaths, does obligate one to bring a sacrifice.]
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan that our mishna mentions pointless oaths and not false oaths because even when the law requires an oath and the one swearing is telling the truth, such an oath is considered a pointless oath as far as the litigant is concerned because he knows what is true, and making a true oath of something that is already known is called a pointless oath. If so, our mishna would be following the opinion of those who argue with Rav Dimi and hold that “I have/haven’t eaten” goes in the category of false oaths, which are forbidden by “do not swear falsely in My name” (Leviticus 19:12).¹⁵⁴According to Midrash Shmuel, the mishna's warning is not that involvement in court cases will cause one to swear falsely. It is rather that even the legitimate oaths one makes in court have a dimension of pointlessness to them, and so our mishna is discussing piously refraining even from legitimate oaths as opposed to refraining from truly transgressing any prohibitions. If so, shav refers exclusively to these somewhat “pointless” oaths and not to any truly problematic ones, and cannot include false oaths. As such, it cannot be following the opinion of Rav Dimi, according to whom the word shav includes false oaths about past events; it must be following the opinion of those who argue and hold that the word shav simply means “pointless”, and can therefore be borrowed to describe these somewhat pointless oaths. Rambam follows this opinion in Hilchot Shevuot 1:3. Cf. Rav’s commentary on on 5:9.,A FOOL, WICKED, AND ARROGANT. A fool, because he causes others to hate him. Wicked, because it bothers him little if he causes the innocent party to pay or make needless oaths. He is also arrogant, because it is out of arrogance that he wishes to judge and issue rulings, that he may become famous and have the kind of reputation the great men of the land have—Midrash Shmuel.

(8) DO NOT JUDGE A CASE ALONE. Rav writes that this even applies to a single expert judge, who is authorized to judge cases alone, as Rav writes in Sanhedrin 3:1. [*Rav also writes: but if the litigants accepted him as a judge, even one who wishes to act piously can judge the case alone. I don’t see the logic here, for even in this case it is better to work the ruling out with others. Additionally, when there are three judges the litigant who is ordered to pay doesn’t know which of the judges decided against him; in considering each judge individually, he can always assume that this judge ruled in his favor but was overruled by the other two. Maharil uses this in the Likutim to explain Shmuel's saying¹⁵⁵Sanhedrin 3a. that although the ruling of a court that convenes with only two judges is valid, the court is called a “brazen court”: they are brazen and do not care that the litigant they order to pay will know that neither of them ruled in his favor.
Indeed, Tur writes at the beginning of Choshen Mishpat 10 that “through much back-and-forth, the judge will penetrate to the depth of the case.” The word “back-and-forth” usually means discussion with another person, not internal back-and-forth, and it does not seem reasonable to distinguish between expert and non-expert judges in this respect.

(9) ANYONE WHO UPHOLDS THE TORAH IN POVERTY [Heb. me`oni]. Rav: he is tight on food and still puts his work aside in order to study Torah. The mishna does not says “anyone who studies” because of the second section. There, the mishna did not want to say “anyone who does not study Torah” because we might understand this to refer to one who does not study Torah out of arrogance on account of his wealth. The mishna therefore says “anyone who leaves aside the Torah because of wealth,” i.e. because he needs to busy himself with it he leaves aside his Torah study. In the first section, as well, when the mishna says “anyone who upholds the Torah in poverty” it means that his business needs do not cause him to cast aside his study; instead, he maintains his study—Maharal in Derech Chaim. If we go with this approach that the first section of the mishna was so worded under the influence of the last section, we can also understand the use of the word me`oni, which really means “because of poverty”. Though it would have been more natural to say be`oni, “in poverty,” the mishna used the me- prefix under the influence of the second section which says me`osher, meaning “because of wealth”.¹⁵⁶Where the meaning really is “because of wealth”, as Maharal has explained.,WILL EVENTUALLY UPHOLD IT IN WEALTH. Experience has shown that this is often untrue,¹⁵⁷I.e., that such people don’t always become wealthy. as in the story of the poverty-stricken R. Elazar ben P’dat in Ta`anit 25a, whom G-d asked: “would you like me to remake the world, so that perhaps you will be born in a time of plenty?” Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that our mishna is discussing a person with average luck.¹⁵⁸Heb. mazal, a term with complicated theological connotations. And sometimes this happens to a person so that wealth not take him away from his studies,¹⁵⁹Even though the person in question deserves the wealth promised to him by the mishna, G-d keeps it from him in the knowledge that if he gets to be wealthy he will abandon his Torah study. The mishna’s promise, then, is only fulfilled for the kind of person that will not abandon his studies. as in the midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Mishlei 934): the Torah said before G-d: the verse says “In its left are wealth and honor” (Proverbs 3:16)—why then are there Torah scholars in poverty? G-d answered, “To cause those who love Me to inherit what truly is”¹⁶⁰This seems to be how the midrash is reading the verse. (Proverbs 8:21)—why are they poor in this world? In order that they not busy themselves with other things and forget the Torah, as the verse says “for a wise man praises poverty, and the mindless fool, gifts”¹⁶¹This seems to be how the midrash is reading the verse. Unlike the commentators, who see עשק as the subject and חכם as the object, and understand the verb יהולל to mean something like “make foolish, mad” (from הוללות), the midrash sees עשק as the object and חכם as the subject, and understands the verb יהולל to mean “to praise”. This sets up a nice parallelism for the second half of the verse. (Ecclesiastes 7:7).
And sometimes this is the result of a sin, for which suffering atones. Of such a case King Solmon says, “honor G-d with your wealth, etc”, and immediately afterwards, “do not despise G-d’s disciplining” (Proverbs 3:9, 3:11). Rabbenu Yonah ad loc. explains the juxtaposition of the two verses as follows: if, in doing good, you do not see a life of success, do not doubt G-d and do not despise G-d’s discipline, my son, etc.

(10) DO LESS BUSINESS [Heb. be`esek] AND BUSY YOURSELF WITH TORAH. This seems obvious. Perhaps the mishna means to say that one should spend less time on business not because it is too difficult or because on is lazy, but specifically in order to study Torah—Maharal in Derech Chaim.
Rav has `esek without a bet,¹⁶²Which would make the phrase “do little business”. and the text of the Mishna I have from the land of Israel was thus emended.,BEFORE EVERY MAN. Rav: and learn even from one who is below you in wisdom. This agrees with the version of mishna 4 quoted by Midrash Shmuel: “be lowly of spirit before every man”—that mishna is in terms of arrogance, while our mishna is in terms of learning.
But Rambam explains our mishna in terms of arrogance. This agrees with the text of mishna 4 in our editions, which does not have the words “before every man”.¹⁶³The difference between mishna 4 and our mishna would then be one of degree. Indeed, Rambam explains that our mishna emphasizes that one must be lowly of spirit not just in the presence of great men (as one might have concluded from mishna 4), but “before every man”.,IF YOU HAVE LABORED MUCH IN TORAH. And exerted yourself and expended great effort on it, “there is much reward, etc.”, because the reward is commensurate with the effort and exertion and not with the learning. This is why the mishna says “if you have labored,” not “if you have learned”; everything depends on the labor, whether one has learned much or little. The mishna in 5:23, “the reward is commensurate with the suffering,” is a proof to this—Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yehuda Lerma. See my comments on 2:16, s.v. if you have learned.

(11) HE WHO PERFORMS ONE COMMANDMENT ACQUIRES ONE ADVOCATE [Heb. praklit]. Aruch (s.v. praklit) notes that the Targum translates “my advocates, my friends” (Job 16:20) as praklitai, chavrai.,REPENTANCE AND GOOD DEEDS. Rambam: “repentance” after evil deeds, or “good deeds” to begin with. Midrash Shmuel adds that the mishna puts “repentance” before “good deeds” based on the Talmud, Berachot 34b: “even the perfectly righteous cannot stand where those who have totally repented stand.” He also writes in the name of Chasid Ya`avetz that Rashbam reads “Torah and good deeds,” for every action is included in “good deeds”—if a person confesses his sin to G-d, he has merely fulfilled what the Torah has commanded: “and they shall confess” (Numbers 5:7). The same is true if he returns what he has stolen or receives lashes prescribed by law. But Chasid Ya`avetz notes that all of the versions have “repentance”, and says that “repentance” refers to regret and contrition, which are the main components of repentance, for confession without contrition is nothing. This is the meaning of the verse in Leviticus 26:40, which is now to be read “and they shall confess their sins”—but without regret, which is the meaning of “in the treacherous way that they betrayed Me”. Then, “I will bring them to the land of their enemies,” and “perhaps then their uncircumcised heart will be humbled and they will gain appeasement for their sin”, and their repentance will be complete. Cf. my comments below.,LIKE A TRIS. A shield; the word appears in the Aramaic translation of the verse “he will not approach it with a shield” (2 Kings 19:32). Some explain it as deriving from the shutters that were used to lock up storefronts [Heb. trisei chanuyot]. Both explanations are quoted by Aruch.,FROM PUNISHMENT. The statement of the Talmud in Yoma 86a that “repentance and Yom Kippur 'suspend' the punishment and suffering completes the atonement” does not contradict our mishna, for the “shield” in the mishna is that very “suspension” the Sages were referring to. The idea is that people are not entirely destroyed, but suffer just enough for their sins to be atoned for and for them to return to their previous states, as much as is judged necessary by the account of the G-d who knows every individual's circumstances. In short, they serve as a shield that protects people from complete destruction—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Abarbanel.
I say that the “punishment” in our mishna is not the punishment for a sin but the afflictions and misfortunes of daily life, and I will prove that this is the case. We mentioned earlier that Rambam explains “good deeds” as referring to good deeds done before any sin has been done. If so, since he has not sinned and no punishment for sin is forthcoming, to what end would he need this shield? We must conclude that “punishment” here refers to the accidents and ills that occur in the world. Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that we follow the opinion in the Tamud, Shabbat 55b that “there is suffering without sin”. And even according to the opinion that “there is no suffering without sin” all that is required is a minor sin for punishment to come, as is evident from the Talmud in Berachot 5b; repentance is a shield from that punishment.
[*Maharal felt it necessary to justify his position even according to the opinion that “there is no suffering without sin” because when the Talmud concludes that “there is suffering without sin” it is doing so because this is one of two statements made by R. Ami, the other of which is “there is no death without sin”; the latter having been disproven, it was assumed that the former was as well. The truth of the matter, however, might be that since the former was never explicitly rebutted it stands. In fact, Tosafot write ad loc.: “We conclude there is death without sin and there is suffering without sin”—even though the statement “there is no suffering without sin” was not rebutted.,WILL BE ESTABLISHED IN THE END. Rashi: the resolutions they make will endure and succeed. Midrash Shmuel explains “will be established” as referring to the assembly itself, which is why the mishna says sofah, meaning “its end”.¹⁶⁴The Hebrew is sofah lehitkayyem, lit. “its end is to endure”. There is no antecedent for “its” other than “assembly”. The mishna means that even if the assembly seems to be faring poorly at the beginning, in the end it will be well-established. And an assembly that is not for the sake of Heaven, even if it initially seems to be successful, in the end will not endure. And do not be bothered by the verse “an assembly of idols is Ephraim; let him be” (Hosea 4:17), for they also did not endure in the end.¹⁶⁵ Midrash Shmuel is reading the words chavur atzabim as “an assembly of idols”. None of the commentators understand it this way; they all read these words to mean “attached to idols”. ,WHICH IS NOT FOR THE SAKE OF HEAVEN. Even if the assembly is for a good purpose, if there is any disqualifying intent behind it—such as arrogance, which is common among public activists—it is called “not for the sake of Heaven.” For this reason the mishna does not say “which is for the sake of sin.”¹⁶⁶The mishna could have drawn a contrast between and assembly which is “for the sake of Heaven” and one which is “for the sake of sin” but did not do so; the contrast is instead a much more subtle one: it is between an assembly which is “for the sake of heaven” and one which is “not for the sake of heaven”.

(12) THE HONOR OF YOUR STUDENT SHOULD BE AS DEAR TO YOU AS YOUR OWN. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Meiri that the text is “as dear to you as your colleague’s.” R. Moshe Almosnino likewise writes that Rashi has “as your colleague’s” and that this is the correct version. Maharal in Derech Chaim agrees with our editions because for any given person it is unclear how dear a colleague’s honor is, so it should not be used for comparison. Cf. my comments on 2:10.,AND THE HONOR OF YOUR COLLEAGUE AS THE FEAR OF YOUR MASTER. As the Talmud says in Bava Metzia 33a: the Torah scholars in Babylon stand for one another, rend their garments in mourning for one another, and deliver eulogies for one another. Rashi ad loc. explains: as a student must do for his master; for they sit together in the study hall, raise difficulties and resolve them together, and learn from one another—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Abarbanel. He also writes in the name of the commentators that the mishna does not mean to totally equate the two things, for then any distinction would be erased; it equates them only in that the two things should be equally beloved. That is, honoring a colleague should be as dear to him as it is naturally beloved and dear to him to honor or fear someone at a greater level than he is. If so, the word “dear” applies to the entire mishna.¹⁶⁷I.e., when the mishna says “and the honor your colleague as the fear of your master” it means “and the honor of your colleague [should be as dear to you] as the fear of your master.”,AND THE HONOR OF YOUR COLLEAGUE AS THE FEAR OF YOUR MASTER. Rav: for Aaron said to Moses, “I beg you, my lord” (Numbers 12:11). He was older than Moses, and yet called him “my lord”. So also in Avot deRabbi Natan 27. Rashi also quotes this at the end of parsahat Beshalach. These sources do not use the earlier verse “let my lord not be angry” from parashat Ki Tisa (Exodus 32:22) as one could deflect the proof by saying that perhaps Aaron called Moses “my lord” at that point because he was afraid of his wrath. But when he said “I beg you, my lord” he was speaking not for himself but on account of his sister, at which point there was no reason to call Moses “lord”; it is clear, then, that the honor of a colleague should be as the fear of the master.
As for what Rav writes about Aaron being older, which is also mentioned in Avot deRabbi Natan, the intent is that even though Moses was his master Aaron had the point of being his older brother, and the Talmud says in Ketubot 103a that “[honor your father] and your mother” (Exodus 20:11) means to include an older brother. Moses and Aaron then come out equal in terms of honor and would have the status of colleagues with regards to one another, and yet Aaron calls Moses “my lord”.
And it seems that all of this is merely drash and asmachta¹⁶⁸Meaning, these laws are not actually a straightforward interpretation of the verses; they are a pious behavior for which a hint has been found in the verses. and a teaching for the pious. As such, the Talmud asks in Kiddushin 33b whether a person whose son is his master should stand before the son or vice versa and does not bring any conclusive proof one way or another; if our mishna were saying a full-fledged halacha the Talmud should have quoted it as proof.¹⁶⁹For even though Aaron was Moses’ older brother, since Moses was his master he treated him as such. Rambam’s ruling in Hilchot Mamrim 6:4 that a father does not stand for his son who is his master would be even more difficult, as it would be a contradiction¹⁷⁰Whereas the Talmud in Kiddushin simply does not quote our mishna, Rambam would be openly contradicting it. to our mishna, which would seem to obligate the older brother to honor and fear the younger brother who is his master.
It is possible that the obligation to honor one’s father, which is explicit in the verse, differs from the obligation to honor one’s older brother, which is only midrashically read into the verse; indeed, Rambam calls this latter obligation “the words of the Scribes” in that same chapter. This is consistent with his approach in labeling any law that emerges from a midrashic reading of a verse as “the words of the Scribes”, as I have written on Eruvin 1:2.

(13) BE CAREFUL IN YOUR STUDIES. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Ritva that some versions have “be careful with your student,” meaning that one should take care to teach the student well, because otherwise the student’s mistaken ruling will be considered intentional on the part of the one who taught him.,[*THE CROWN OF A GOOD NAME ETC. Rav is quoting the Talmud in Yoma, towards the top of 71b: The Rabbis taught: once, the high priest left the Temple with the people in tow. Once they saw Shemaya and Avtalion they left him and followed Shemaya and Avtalion. When Shemaya and Avtalion turned to the high priest to take their leave of him, he said: Go in peace, sons of the nations! This is an insult, for they were descendants of Sennacherib, as Rav writes on 1:10. They said to him: the sons of the nations who act like Aaron will go in peace, but the son of Aaron who does not act like Aaron will not go in peace. Rashi explains ad loc.: you have insulted us, and a baraita (Bava Metzia 58b) says that “Do not pain one another” (Leviticus 25:17) refers to paining one with words; people should not say to a descendant of proselytes “Remember what your ancestors did?” as the mishna says in Bava Metzia 4:10.]

(14) BECAUSE YOUR COLLEAGUES WILL TEACH IT TO YOU. Rav: do not rely on your colleagues to come from the master’s house and teach you the Torah. If so, the entire mishna reads as one thing: Exile yourself… and do not say that it will come after you because your friends will teach it to you. Some editions have “and that your friends will teach it to you,” as Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Abarbanel.

(15) NEITHER THE TRANQUILITY OF THE WICKED ETC. Rav: we do not know why the wicked succeed or why the righteous are crushed with suffering. The mishna’s two cases then go from the lesser to the greater: not only do we not understand the tranquility of the wicked, who we know are wicked and whom we see doing well, we don’t understand the suffering of the righteous, who might only appear to be but not truly be righteous; this is why the mishna uses “nor even”—Midrash Shmuel in the name of the commentators.
According to Rav’s second explanation,¹⁷¹“We in exile have neither the tranquility that G-d would grant the truly wicked in order to deny them any portion in the World to Come, nor the suffering that is brought upon the righteous which is likewise for their good—we are somewhere in between, being neither fully wicked nor fully righteous.” the reason the mishna says “nor even” is because the first part—that we do not have tranquility—is obvious to us who strain in the exile.
One might ask: according to Rav’s second explanation, what is R. Yannai telling us? What is the purpose of this mishna? Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rabbenu Ephraim and Ramah that this is so that we do not despair and see ourselves as totally wicked people with no hope, G-d forbid; neither should we think we are righteous and have done all that we are supposed to in terms of studying Torah and keeping the commandments.,BE AT THE TAIL OF LIONS ETC. Rav: people greater than yourself. For this will be of benefit to you, as Rambam writes.
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Meiri that the text of the mishna should include: “as the verse says, ‘he who walks with the wise will grow wise, and he who befriends fools will end badly’ (Proverbs 13:20).” Rabbenu Yonah does not have this verse in his text of the mishna but does quote it as a proof to the mishna. He explains that the word “with” implies that he is secondary to them, while the word ro`eh, “befriend” here connotes that he is a master over them, as the ro`eh¹⁷²The word also means “shepherd”. is always at the head.,AND NOT AT THE HEAD OF FOXES. Lions seem appropriate for the first part of the parable, as they are the most honorable of and rule over all the animals, and possess great strength and courage; they appropriately stand for the great and famous men, who possess the great strength it takes to bear the yoke of the Torah. Foxes, however, do not seem as appropriate. There are certainly lesser animals, so why use them in the parable?
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Yehuda Lerma that the parable conveys that one should not be lazy and abandon the study of wisdom to the point that he must get his victories through cunning and trickery—for example, by mocking a colleague and thereby causing him to fumble his arguments and other such tricks. For such a one is like the foxes, who must be victorious over the other animals through their cunning because of their lack of strength.
I say that “at the head of foxes” is discussing people who have not yet learned enough to answer legal questions, of whom the verse says “she has felled many dead” (Proverbs 7:26).¹⁷³This is the Talmud’s reading of the verse in Avodah Zarah 19b. They are likened to foxes, for when they decide to occupy the seat of judgment and they wish for people to accept their rulings they must engage in cunning and trickery and fool people.¹⁷⁴Who would not accept them based on the true level of their learning. And the mishna says “at the head of foxes”¹⁷⁵And not just “do not be one of the foxes”. According to Tosafot Yom Tov, the mishna is warning against assuming the position of judge or decisor when one is actually not ready for it. Why, then, does it warn specifically against being “at the head of foxes”? Being one of the foxes is itself the problem. to teach that even if one sees many unqualified people issuing legal decisions and knows that he is a greater scholar than they, i.e. “at their head”, he should not be envious of these sinful people.¹⁷⁶That is, he should not be envious of them because he thinks of himself as being at their head and yet does not have a position. They are unworthy of issuing rulings and their positions were gotten by dishonest means, so he shouldn’t take them into account at all. And I say of them what King Solmon said: “Catch us the foxes, the little foxes destroying the vineyards, for our vineyard is in blossom” (Song of Songs 2:15)—the vineyard being the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts, which is the gathering of the Sages, as I write on the mishna in Eduyot 2:4 which mentions “the vineyard of Yavneh”.¹⁷⁷These were the Sages of Yavneh, called Jamnia in non-Hebrew sources. Seforno on Song of Songs comments that the foxes in question are those who pretend to be scholars.
I subsequently found that Rambam in Hilchot Talmud Torah 5:4 quotes the abovementioned reading of the verse “she has felled many dead” as referring to insufficiently learned students who decide legal questions and then adds: and of them Solomon said in his wisdom, “catch us the foxes, the little foxes destroying the vinyeards”—i.e., the vineyards of the Lord of Hosts. It pleased me that I was able to arrive at the conclusion that someone as great as he had arrived at previously.

(16)

(17) ONE HOUR OF REPENTANCE AND GOOD DEEDS IN THIS WORLD IS BETTER THAN A WHOLE LIFETIME IN THE WORLD TO COME. The first part of the mishna does not contradict the second, because this world is for action and the World to Come is for reward and contentment¹⁷⁸So while this world is “better” in regard to the ability to improve and do more, which cannot be done in th next, the World to Come is better in regard to the actual pleasure that one experiences there.—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rabbenu Yonah.,REPENTANCE AND GOOD DEEDS. Cf. my comment on mishna 11.,THE WORLD TO COME. Abarbanel writes that this could refer to either the World of Souls or the World of Resurrection. As for the “World to Come” mentioned in Sanhedrin 10:1, Rav explains it as referring to the World of Resurrection, see his comments there. So also Maharal in Derech Chaim, see his comments on mishna 16.,CONTENTMENT [Heb. korat ruach]. Rashi: as in the expression “his mind was cooled” [Heb. nitkarerah da`ato], for his mind is cooled and settled because he is happy.

(18) WHILE THE BODY LIES BEFORE HIM. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rashbatz that the mishna should read “do not comfort him while he is in mourning,” and that the versions that read “while the body lies before him” are the result of a deliberate alteration of the text to account for fact that after burial, people would make rows and comfort the mourner, as is mentioned in Avel Rabbati¹⁷⁹Known as tracte Semachot. and in the Talmud in Berachot 16b. He says that there is no reason to change the text, however, because it doesn’t say “during his days of mourning” or “during his mourning process.” The text says “while he is mourning,” i.e. while he is in mournful grief. [*I still feel that this is difficult to reconcile with the practice of making rows. According to this, if the bereaved is indeed in a state of mournful grief they shouldn’t comfort him, and we do not find the Sages making this distinction.]

(19) SHMUEL HAKATAN [lit. Samuel the small]. Midrash Shmuel explains in the name of the Jerusalem Talmud that he was called this because he made himself small.¹⁸⁰He was self-effacing and humble. Alternatively, this name was to distinguish him from Samuel the Prophet, for this Samuel also prophesied at the hour of his death and was worthy of having the shechina dwell with him [Talmud, Sotah 48b] if not for the unworthiness of his generation. In either case, this nickname was meant as praise.,[*YOUR ENEMY [Heb. oyivcha]. This is the keri—the yud is vocalized with a chirik, and the vet is vocalized with a sheva. The ktiv, however, is oyvecha.¹⁸¹“Your enemies”, plural.,AND IN HIS FALTERING [Heb. uvikashlo]. The bet is vocalized with the chirik that should have vocalized the hey which has been ellided.¹⁸²The word is properly uvhikashlo, but due to ellision is uvikashlo.],AND TURN BACK HIS ANGER FROM HIM. From Rambam’s commentary it seems he had the following addition to our text: it does not say “his wrath” [Heb. charon apo], but “his anger” [Heb. apo]. This teaches that G-d forgins him all his sins. Rashi also quotes this version. Midrash Shmuel explains this version in the name of R. Matitya HaYitzhari as follows: the verse does not say that G-d will remove only his charon apo, lit. the “heat of the nose,” but apo, “his nose”, i.e. his entire anger. [*This version seems to be the best one, for according to it Shmuel HaKatan has taught us this subtle point about the verse.]

(20) ONE WHO LEARNS AS A CHILD [Heb. halomed yeled]. Rambam: what one learns as a child endures and is not easily forgotten. If so, the text means “one who learns as a child”.¹⁸³The question is whether to reat the word lomed as “learn” or “teach”. Although the word does not appear frequently with the latter meaning, Tosafot Yom Tov proceeds to quote others who understand it that way here. So also Rav. It is then clear why the mishna likens this to ink written on new parchment, as opposed to one who writes with ink on a new parchment.
Some versions have halomed leyeled, meaning “one who teaches a child”. So Midrash Shmuel, who also writes that even the versions that have halomed yeled can be read this way. Maharal in Derech Chaim explains our mishna this way, and says that the mishna does not liken this to one who writes because the teacher is not like somebody writing, for he does not inscribe the things in the memory of the student. He is like a somebody showing his friend a picture on the wall. This causes the picture to be engraved in the friend’s memory, but we cannot on account of this say that he himself engraved that picture in his friend’s memory.,PAPER THAT HAS BEEN ERASED. For numerous thoughts and calculations having to do with worldly matters have already been engraved in his mind. When he desires to remember words of Torah he will have to erase all of those thoughts, and this is not easy to do well. This is why the mishna speakes of a paper that has been erased as opposed to an old paper, which is the opposite of a new one—Midrash Shmuel in the name of Abarbanel.,LIKE EATING UNRIPE GRAPES AND DRINKING WINE FROM THE VAT. When one eats unripe grapes he detects their bad taste as he chews them, which corresponds to what Rav writes about the learning of a child—that it has not been thought through and is therefore unconvincing. When one drinks wine from the vat he enjoys it because it pleases the palate but it causes him stomach pains afterwards, which corresponds to the other point Rav makes about the learning of a child—that it is mixed with unclear points; ingredients in a mixture are not immediately perceived upon the first examination.
Most commentators explain that grapes refer to the simple meaning of the Torah, and wine refers to the hidden meaning of the Torah. The Sages say (Sanhedrin 38a) that the alphanumeric value of yayin, “wine” is the same as that of sod, “secret”.

(21) ENVY, DESIRE, AND HONOR REMOVE A PERSON FROM THE WORLD. This follows the teaching of R. Yehoshua in 2:11 that an evil eye, the evil inclintion, and the hatred of the people remove a person from the world. Envy comes from having an evil eye, and desire comes from the evil inclination. Honor causes people to hate, for nobody is as hated as somebody who chases honor.¹⁸⁴“Hatred of people” is understood as the hatred that other people have for him. Even though they will honor him in his presence and wil not openly rebuke him, they inwardly hate him and discuss how much they despise him. Midrash Shmuel writes that honor causes one to hate people and reject their company when he feels they are not honoring him sufficiently.¹⁸⁵According to Midrash Shmuel, “hatred of people” is understood as the hatred that he has for other people.,REMOVE A PERSON FROM THE WORLD. Some versions of Rashi have the following: envy, as Korach was envious of Moses and Aaron; desire, as Gehazi desired to take the money of Na`aman; honor, from Jeroboam, as the verse says “if the people go up to Jerusalem, etc.” (1 Kings 12:27).¹⁸⁶These three people do not have a share in the World to Come according to the Talmud in Sanhedrin, 109-111. Whether or not Korach and his followers have a share is the subject of a dispute there; this approach would seem to be taking the position that they do not. The Talmud there sees Jeroboam’s refusal to let the people go to the Temple as stemming from slighted honor.

(22) THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN BORN WILL DIE. Rav explains that they are certain to die eventually, similar to what I wrote on 3:1 on “where you are going”. “And the dead will be brought to life”—the mishna does not say “will live” because it is necessary for some other agent to cause them to live. They are not naturally disposed to this, as it is not natural to come to life after death the same way it is for all things to die.,THE LIVING WILL BE JUDGED. Rav’s text has “and live to die”, which is modifying the life after death mentioned earlier.¹⁸⁷The mishna would then read “the dead will live and they live to be judged”.,HE IS THE JUDGE, HE IS THE WITNESS, AND HE IS THE LITIGANT. The mishna arranges the cases from most to least obvious, but chronologically the litigant first makes his claim, then he brings witnesses, and then the judge issues his ruling.,THERE IS NO PARTIALITY. Rav explains that there is no partiality even to a completely righteous person. Rambam adds: as we see from the punishment of Moses for the sin of anger. And similarly G-d does not deal unfairly even with a completely evil person, as Esau received reward for honoring his father and mother, and Nebuchadnezzar for honoring G-d, as the Talmud says in Sanhedrin 96a.,AND NO TAKING OF BRIBES. Rambam explains that G-d does not take the fulfillment of a commandment as a bribe to overlook a sin, etc. For to say that G-d does not take bribes to rule unjustly is unnecessary, as it is utter foolishness and completely meaningless, for what would it mean to bribe G-d, and what could the bribe possibly be? The subsequent commentators raised the point that if so, the words “for all is His” do not provide a reason for not taking the “bribe” of a fulfilled commandment. Midrash Shmuel answers that even the doing of a commandment is included in “all is His” [*per the Talmud in Yoma 72a and Shabbat 104a], for “G-d aids one who wishes to purify Himself,” and “a commandment is only known by the name of the one who completes it” (Devarim Rabbah 8:4).¹⁸⁸As G-d made the doing of the commandment possible, he is, in a sense, the one who “finished” or “completed” it; therefire, it is His. Cf. my comments to Kiddushin 1:10.
And this is no contradiction to the idea that G-d accepts repentance, for repentance is not some separate commandment but directly deals with the sin and pushes it away. See also what Rav writes on the mishna in Yoma 8:8 [s.v. al aseh].,TAKING [Heb. מקח]. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Rabbenu Ephraim that the mem should be vocalized with a chirik.¹⁸⁹Making the word mikach. Some read makach, with a patach under the mem. Both are correct, for one is Biblical Hebrew and the other is Rabbinic Hebrew. So far his words.
He means that we find the word vocalized with a chirik in the Bible, in 2 Chronicles 19:7: וְעַתָּה יְהִי פַחַד יְהוָה עֲלֵיכֶם שִׁמְרוּ וַעֲשׂוּ כִּי אֵין עִם יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ עַוְלָה וּמַשֹּׂא פָנִים וּמִקַּח שֹׁחַד. I say that it is unnecessary to resort to the distinction between Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew, for even though we never find the word makach itself with a patach, we do find words vocalized according to this paradigm, for example the word masa` in 1 Kings 6:7: אֶבֶן שְׁלֵמָה מַסָּע and the word matan in Proverbs 18:16: מַתָּן אָדָם יַרְחִיב לוֹ.<sup>190</sup>Since the paradigm ma-X-X exists in the Bible, we may consider the spelling makach an acceptable Biblical spelling, i.e. one that would have been considered grammatical in Biblical Hebrew, even though the word never appears spelled that way.
But we never find this word or any similar word vocalized with a segol. This is because the initial mem is a prefix and the first letter of the triliteral root has been ellided,<sup>191</sup>The root of makach being l.k.ch, of masa` being n.s.`, and of matan being n.t.n. so the second letter in the word has been geminated to compensate. One may therefore only vocalize the word with a patach, but not a segol.<sup>192</sup>Gemination refers to the doubling of a consonant. Mikach, properly, is mikkach. In order for the kuf to be doubled, it must become the end of a closed syllable, i.e. it must now close the syllable that precedes in—formerly just mi, now to be mik—in addition to being the first letter in the next syllable, kach. If the vowel of the first syllable were a long vowel such as tzeireh (making the word mekkach) the consonant following it would have to be vocalized with a shva na`, making the word mek’kach. Geminated consonants, however, are not pronounced as two separate consonants with a vowel inbetween but as one long one, as in Italian libretto. Of the five short vowels, three are acceptable for vocalizing the prefixed mem: patach, chirik, and segol (the other two only appear in pariticipial prefixes, while our mem is a noun (or verbal noun) prefix). It is unclear what rule Tosafot Yom Tov is referring to when he says that segol is unacceptable here, although it is true that segol almost never appears before a geminated consonant, coming only before suffixes like -nu.,THAT SHE’OL. I.e., the grave.,FOR YOU ARE CREATED AGAINST YOUR WILL, ETC. Rambam: take note of this, for the mishna mentions natural processes in which man’s free will plays no role, concerning which the Sages said “everything is in the hands of Heaven aside from fear of Heaven” (Berachot 33b). The mishna does not, however, say that one sins or passes or walks or stands or the like against one’s will, for these are all things that depend on a person’s decision and are not compulsory.,AND YOU ARE BORN AGAINST YOUR WILL. Rav explains that at birth the fetus does not want to leave the womb. Rashi adds: because he sees from one end of the world to another, as the verse says [Job 29:3] “when His lamp would shine over my head”.¹⁹³Niddah 30b.