Pirkei Avot V: Tosafot Yom Tov Tzurat Habayit, Chidushei Halevana and 5th Chapter Highlights

(1) BEREISHIS 1:14-19

(2) God said, “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heaven to make a distinction between the day and the night; and they shall serve as signs, for appointed times, for days, and years. Let them serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heaven to radiate light upon the earth;” and it was so. God made the two great luminaries; the great luminary to rule the day, and the small luminary to rule the night, and the stars. God placed them in the expanse of the heaven to radiate light upon the earth, to rule during the day and during the night, and to make a distinction between the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

(3) BEREISHIS RABBAH 6:3

(4) R Yudan in the name of R. Tanchum ben R. Chiya, and R. Pinchas in the name of R. Simon said: After God called both luminaries great, would He then demean one, stating, “The large luminary to rule the day, and the small luminary to rule the night?!” This is a source of wonderment. The reason is because the moon entered into its neighbor’s domain.¹Although the moon is primarily seen at night, since at times it can also be seen in the day, it can be seen as encroaching, as it were, upon the domain of the sun. The words for which a different typeface are used are translator’s interpolations to facilitate the comprehension of the text. R. Pinchas said: With regard to all other additional offerings, it is written,²Bamidbar 28:22, et al. “And one goat for a sin-offering,” whereas with regard to Rosh Chodesh, it is written,³Ibid. 28:15. “And one goat for a sin-offering for God.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said: “Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon, for it was I who caused it to enter its neighbor’s domain.” Now, if the moon, which entered the sun’s domain with license from God, was nevertheless demeaned by Scripture, how much more so does this apply to one who enters another person’s domain without permission!

(5) ZOHAR CHADASH, SHIR HASHIRIM, P. 70B-71A

(6) It is written:⁴Bereishis 1:14. “God created⁵This is the wording cited by the Zohar Chadash even though the actual wording of the verse is different. The pagination of the Zohar Chadash also differs in certain printings. the two great luminaries.” Originally, both luminaries were coupled as one⁶The text cited by Tosfos Yom Tov differs slightly from the standard published version of the Zohar Chadash. and they were of equal importance.⁷We have translated the word שיקולא, which literally means, “weight,” as, “importance.” Hence, they were both called “great.” As explained previously, the intent is not that the moon was originally greater and superior to its present state. Instead, as long as the moon would stand together with the sun in one mystical bond, as a result of this, it was called “great” along with it, for even the tail of a lion is part of the lion and is called a lion. Nevertheless, the moon said before the Holy One, blessed be He: “Is it possible for one king to use two crowns at once? This one should be distinct and this one should be distinct.” He told it: “I see that you desire to be the head of foxes.⁸The Zohar Chadash is continuing the metaphor of the sun as a lion. In comparison to the sun, the stars, which are lesser luminaries, are merely foxes. Go and diminish yourself. Even though you will become their head, you will be less than what you are now.” This is what is meant by the moon’s statement,⁹Shir HaShirim 1:7. Shir HaShirim serves as an analogy for the ongoing love relationship between God and His bride, the Jewish people. The Jewish people are also identified with the moon. “Tell me, You whom my soul loves, where will You pasture Your flocks?” i.e., how is it possible to conduct the world wearing two crowns at once?

(7) ZOHAR, VOL. III, PARSHAS PINCHAS, RAYA MEHEMNA, P. 247B

(8) “On your Rashei¹⁰Rashei is the plural term of rosh, meaning “head.” Chodashim…” Does the moon have several heads? Instead, they refer to two points arranged in the following manner: There is a point below; that is the moon. Its two heads¹¹A possible interpretation is that the moon has two “heads” when it is crescent-shaped. The two “heads” of the moon are the two points of its crescent. are the two upper points of the vocalization mark, segol ֶ  . Originally, there was a crown on two kings in this manner, , in the shape of the cantillation note segolta. After the moon inquired: Is it possible for two kings to use one crown, the Holy One, blessed be He, told it, “Go and diminish yourself,” it then descended below the feet of the two kings in this manner, ֶ , i.e., a segol. What was originally a segolta became a segol. For this reason, God said, “Bring an atonement offering for Me.”

(9) CHULIN 60B

(10) R. Shimon ben Pazi (others attribute this teaching to ben Azzai) pointed out a contradiction between the verses. One verse says: “And God made the two great luminaries,” but it is also written, “the great luminary” and “the small luminary”. The moon said before the Holy One, blessed be He, “Master of the world, is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?” God answered: “Go and diminish yourself.” The moon replied, “Master of the world, because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” God answered, “Go and ‘rule during the day and during the night.’” The moon responded, “Of what value will that be? Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?”¹²I.e., when the sun is shining, of what value will the moon’s light be? God answered, “Go. Israel will reckon by the days and the years according to you.” The moon countered, “That is impossible without the sun for the reckoning of the seasons,¹³Our translation of the Gemara follows Rashi’s commentary. The moon is responding that the seasons are entirely dependent on the sun. Since the Jewish calendar is to some extent bound by the seasons (e.g., Pesach must always be celebrated in the spring), the Jewish calendar is not totally dependent on the lunar cycle. as it is written: ‘And let them be for signs, and for appointed times, and for days and years.’”¹⁴Bereishis 1:14. God replied, “‘Go. The righteous will be called by your name. Thus Yaakov is referred to as “the smaller one;”¹⁵Amos 7:2. Shmuel is referred to as “the smaller one;”¹⁶This reference to Shmuel is problematic, for as will be mentioned later in the text (p. 64), there is no Biblical reference to Shmuel the prophet as small, and it is difficult to say that this statement is referring to the Sage, Shmuel HaKatan. and David is referred to as “the smaller one.”¹⁷I Shmuel 17:14. God saw that the moon would not be consoled. Hence, the Holy One, blessed be He, said: “Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon.” This is reflected in the teaching of R. Shimon ben Lakish who said, “Why is the wording describing the goat offered on the new moon different, for it is written concerning it, “a sin-offering for God”? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, said: “Let this goat be offered as atonement for Me for diminishing the moon.”

(11) Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi quotes this passage in his Halachos at the end of the first chapter of Tractate Shevuos and writes: The intent is that since the Holy One, blessed be He, told the moon that it would “rule during the day and during the night,” and yet the moon remained agitated, the Holy One, blessed be He, told it: “I will honor you in a manner that will calm you because I diminished you. What will that be? Every month, on Rosh Chodesh, the Jews will offer a sacrifice to atone for their sins.” The Holy One, blessed be He, thus said: Bring an atonement offering before Me every Rosh Chodesh to atone for yourselves so that you will bring a complete atonement offering before Me. This is the honor I promised to grant the moon because I diminished it. This is the meaning of the phrase, “Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon.”

(12) The compiler of Ein Yaakov¹⁸Shevuos 9a. quotes Rashba,¹⁹This quote appears in responsa 369 of a new volume of Rashba’s responsa published recently from manuscript editions. who writes: R. Alfas interpreted the words “for Me” as meaning “to Me,” as in the word ילא, for the alef is substituted for the ayin. Later, in the appropriate place, I will elaborate on this concept. Nevertheless, I found it necessary to cite it here, because every reader will be bewildered by the phrase, “Bring an atonement offering for Me.” Therefore, I cited the interpretation of Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi here rather than delay it until later when I will interpret the passage in detail, with God’s help.

(1) The two passages cited from the Zohar conclude with the interpretation of the concepts according to the Kabbalah. Therefore R. Moshe Cordevero¹R. Moshe Cordevero [5282 (1522 CE) – 5330 (1570 CE)], was one of the leading Kabbalists in the city of Safed. in his text Pardes Rimonim, which is based entirely on the teachings of Kabbalah, in the portion entitled Shaar Miut HaYarei’ach (“The Portal of the Diminishment of the Moon”), cited these two passages at length. He interpreted them – and continuing that approach, also the passage from Tractate Chulin cited above – according to the teachings of Kabbalah. I, however, will do the opposite, for the passage in Chulin lends itself (more) to an interpretation according to its simple, literal meaning (pshat). True, the concluding portions of the passages from the Zohar follow the approach of the Kabbalah. Nevertheless, I found it possible to understand the initial portions of these passages according to their simple, literal meaning, and it is proper to do so. Although Scripture alludes to sublime realms, it speaks about matters on this lowly, earthly plane.²The wording used by Tosfos Yom Tov is found in the commentary of Ramban (Bereishis 1:1) and Rabbeinu Bachaya (Bamidbar 32:3). In contrast to this, Rama of Fano [R. Menachem Azaria of Fano, [5308 (1548 CE) - 5380 (1620 CE)], a leading Italian sage and Kabbalist in his text Asarah Maamaros (the maamar entitled Chikur Din, sec. 3, ch. 22) and Shalah [R. Yeshayahu HaLevi Horowitz 5325 (1565 CE) – 5390 (1630 CE), a sage who lived in Prague at the same time as Tosfos Yom Tov, but later moved to Eretz Yisrael] in his text Shalah, (p. 13b ff., 161a ff.), switched the order of those words. These sages phrase the quote: “The Torah speaks in the sublime realms and alludes to this lowly earthly plane.” Thus, Rama and Shalah imply that the primary dimension of the Torah is its mystical truth that reveals a higher spiritual reality. That spiritual reality is reflected in the events and laws recorded in the Torah.
By emphasizing the original wording used by Ramban, Tosfos Yom Tov is highlighting that the wording Rama and Shalah used could lead to a wrong approach. One could understand that their intent is that the ultimate truth of the Torah is the teachings of Kabbalah, and the Written Law and the mitzvos are mere reflections of those sublime truths.
Furthermore, by basing his text on pshat, Tosfos Yom Tov underscored that it is the Torah as it exists on this physical plane – the simple, literal meaning of the narrative and the laws – that deserves precedence. Certainly, the simple meaning of the Torah’s narrative and laws reflects higher truths, but those higher truths are expressed through study and observance on this physical plane. This is reflected in the approach of most commentaries, and is summarized in the above-quoted principle that “The interpretation of a Scriptural phrase never departs from its simple, literal meaning,” as Mar bar Ravina³ The standard printed text of the Talmud attributes this teaching to Mar bar Rav Huna. However, there are texts which attribute it to Mar bar Ravina. Apparently, Tosfos Yom Tov was referring to these texts. recorded in Tractate Shabbos.⁴Shabbos 63a. If so, everything said concerning any verse should be interpreted according to its simple, literal meaning.

(2) Moreover, our lot is not to teach mystical secrets in public, as the mishnah⁵Mishnah Chagigah 2:1. states: “Maaseh Bereishis (‘the mysteries of Creation’) should not be expounded upon to two people and Maaseh Mercavah (‘the mysteries of the Divine chariot’) should not be expounded upon even to one person.”

(3) And at its very outset, Midrash Rabbah⁶Bereishis Rabbah 1:5. states: “Let the lying lips be dumb;”⁷Tehillim 31:19. this means, “Let them be bound”⁸The verse in Tehillim cited by Bereishis Rabbah uses the word te’alamna (תאלמנה). The root of te’alamna, אלם, is also the root for the Hebrew words ileim, i.e. “dumb” or “unable to speak”, and me’aleim, “bind.” The Midrash is explaining that the verse should not be understood as meaning that the liars will literally be dumb. Rather, the lips of the liars will be bound closed.…. “which speak against the righteous” – this refers to the Ultimate Righteous One, He Who is the Life of all worlds, “insolent words” – this refers to teachings that He has withheld from His creation.⁹The verse in Tehillim cited by Bereishis Rabbah uses the word assak (עתק), which means “insolence”. This word is also the root of the word he’etik (העתיק), which means “withheld.” Thus, the Midrash is explaining the phrase “insolent words” as referring to the words people use when expounding Torah teachings that God desired to be withheld. “with pride” – It is as if God says: “I am amazed that in order to boast and say, ‘I can discourse on the mysteries of creation….’ “and with contempt” – “a person will treat My Glory with contempt.” For R. Yossi ben R. Hanina said: “Whoever aggrandizes himself through his fellow man’s degradation has no share in the World to Come. How much more so does this apply when it is done at the expense of the Glory of the Omnipresent.”¹⁰ Speaking about these mystical secrets publicly demeans God, for the common people who hear these teachings will misunderstand them and speak about God in manner that in truth deprecates Him.What is written after this verse? “How abundant is Your goodness which You have stored away for those who fear You.”¹¹Tehillim 31:20. The Midrash is praising those who refrain from teaching mystical secrets because of their awe of God and their fear to create misconceptions in the minds of their listeners. “For those who fear You,” and not for those who degrade Your manifold awe. Let them not have a portion in that “abundant goodness.”

(4) There are public speakers who permit themselves to speak openly about reincarnation because the philosophers of the early eras¹²Tosfos Yom Tov is referring to Greek philosophers like Pythagoras who introduced the concept of reincarnation (metempsychosis) into Western thought. believed in that concept, as reflected in the writings of Rav Yitzchak Abarbanel¹³Rav Yitzchak Abarbanel was a scholar who lived from 5197 to 5268 (1437 CE – 1508 CE). Rav Yitzchak Abarbanel lived in Portugal, Spain, and Italy. He left Spain with his brethren in 5252 (1492), and settled in Italy. in the passage concerning yibbum.¹⁴See Devarim 25:5, the commentary of Rav Yitzchak Abarbanel there. Tosfos Yom Tov’s intent appears to be that since even non-Jewish philosophers had made the concept of reincarnation popular, these scholars saw no need for restraint in publicizing the Kabbalistic understanding of this idea. I do not accept this license, for even though those philosophers believed in the concept of reincarnation, they nevertheless did not understand it in all of its ramifications, nor did they grasp several mystical points associated with it. How much more so do these words of censure apply to those public speakers who, based on their own intuition describe this-and-this person as a reincarnation of so-and-so through allusions that they perceive from Scripture. Their listeners will accept these allusions as if they were received from Sinai, and this is not so. Indeed, the responsa of Rav Levi ibn Chaviv¹⁵Rav Levi ibn Chaviv lived between 5240 (1480 CE) – 5305 (1545 CE) and is known by the acronym RaLBaCh. Ralbach served as the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem from 5285 (1525 CE) until his death in 5305 (1545 CE). Ralbach’s father was the redactor of the Ein Yaakov. (responsa 8 and 75) explicitly forbade speaking publicly about reincarnation. This should be sufficient. Moreover, I say that undoubtedly this is the intent of the author of ….¹⁶The name of the work is missing in the original printed text. Some scholars have intimated that Tosfos Yom Tov is referring to Akeidas Yitzchak, a fundamental work of derush written by R. Yitzchak ben Moshe Arama [5180 (1420 CE) – 5254 (1494 CE)], a Spanish sage who promulgated that mode of Biblical interpretation. to show us a path to understand the passages of the Midrashim and to explain them in public in a manner that they can be understood solely according to their simple meaning. Therefore, I will follow this path in interpreting these four Midrashic passages according to the simple, straightforward explanation.

(5) Now, the author of Pardes Rimonim did not cite the passage from Midrash Rabbah. It cannot be said that he was unaware of it, for he was thoroughly knowledgeable as is well known. It appears to me that this passage does not accept the concept of the diminishment of the moon.¹⁷I.e., according to this Midrashic passage, the size of the moon was not diminished. Or if this Midrashic passage does accept that the moon was diminished in size, it nevertheless interprets the Scriptural passage in a different manner,¹⁸I.e., even if the Midrash does accept the concept that the size of the moon was actually diminished, it does not focus on that point. Instead, the Midrash focuses on the ethical lesson – that one should not encroach on the domain of another person – that can be derived from the passage. as it is said,¹⁹Zohar, Vol. I, p. 47b, et al. “There are seventy approaches to interpreting the Torah.” In contrast, in that source, the author of Pardes Rimonim highlights the subject of the diminishment of the moon exclusively. Indeed, he named that section of his book, The Portal of the Diminishment of the Moon. For this reason, he did not cite the passage from Midrash Rabbah, because that is not his focus.

(6) I, Yom Tov, who is referred to as Lippman, the son of my revered father, R. Nassan HaLevi of blessed memory, saw that God granted me the potential to interpret these passages fittingly, in particular, the passage from Tractate Chulin. In the process, I also offered an interpretation for scattered verses, an entire psalm from the book of Tehillim, and the entire passage describing the fourth of the Six Days of Creation. I cherished this discourse dearly and gave it a distinctive name that reflects its content, Chiddushei HaLevanah, “The Cycles²⁰20. We have translated the title as The Cycles of the Renewal of the Moon, instead of simply The Renewal of the Moon because the Hebrew title, Chiddushei HaLevanah, employs the plural term Chiddushei. With this choice of words, Tosfos Yom Tov is highlighting the fact that the moon continuously renews itself, and will experience a drastic renewal in the Ultimate Future. of the Renewal of the Moon.”

(7) I maintain that these passages differ with regard to the titles with which Scripture refers to the luminaries. Initially, it refers to both luminaries as “great,” but then refers to one of them as “small.” On this basis, our Sages’ analyses of that passage differed in two respects. Firstly, each of the Sages derived a particular insight from the variation of terms found in the passage.

(8) They also differed with regard to the extent of the deviation from the initial pattern of creation – was it great or small, i.e., was there a major difference between the present size of the sun and the moon and the manner in which they were originally created, or perhaps the change was minimal, or maybe there was no change at all.

(9) Based on these concepts, I will give a general overview of each passage. Afterwards, I will focus on an analysis of the details of the passage from Tractate Chulin. I will cite all the commentaries I have seen regarding that passage and review them, explaining them according to my understanding and my study, with God’s help.

(10) On the basis of the above, I will explain the passage concerning the fourth day of Creation after first elucidating Psalm 8 of Tehillim. Afterwards, I will derive particular points and insights following the path established by all commentaries and lecturers.

(1) With ten utterances the world was created. And what does this teach, for surely it could have been created with one utterance? But this was so in order to punish the wicked who destroy the world that was created with ten utterances, And to give a good reward to the righteous who maintain the world that was created with ten utterances.

(2) [There were] ten generations from Adam to Noah, in order to make known what long-suffering is His; for all those generations kept on provoking Him, until He brought upon them the waters of the flood. [There were] ten generations from Noah to Abraham, in order to make known what long-suffering is His; for all those generations kept on provoking Him, until Abraham, came and received the reward of all of them.

(3) With ten trials was Abraham, our father (may he rest in peace), tried, and he withstood them all; to make known how great was the love of Abraham, our father (peace be upon him).

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

(4) Ten miracles were wrought for our ancestors in Egypt, and ten at the sea. Ten plagues did the Holy one, blessed be He, bring upon the Egyptians in Egypt and ten at the sea. [With] ten trials did our ancestors try God, blessed be He, as it is said, “and they have tried Me these ten times and they have not listened to my voice” (Numbers 14:22).

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

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

(5) Ten wonders were wrought for our ancestors in the Temple: [1] no woman miscarried from the odor of the sacred flesh; [2] the sacred flesh never became putrid; [3] no fly was ever seen in the slaughterhouse; [4] no emission occurred to the high priest on the Day of Atonement; [5] the rains did not extinguish the fire of the woodpile; [6] the wind did not prevail against the column of smoke; [7] no defect was found in the omer, or in the two loaves, or in the showbread; [8] the people stood pressed together, yet bowed down and had room enough; [9] never did a serpent or a scorpion harm anyone in Jerusalem; [10] and no man said to his fellow: the place is too congested for me to lodge overnight in Jerusalem.

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

(6) Ten things were created on the eve of the Sabbath at twilight, and these are they: [1] the mouth of the earth, [2] the mouth of the well, [3] the mouth of the donkey, [4] the rainbow, [5] the manna, [6] the staff [of Moses], [7] the shamir, [8] the letters, [9] the writing, [10] and the tablets. And some say: also the demons, the grave of Moses, and the ram of Abraham, our father. And some say: and also tongs, made with tongs.

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

(7) [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.

(8) Seven kinds of punishment come to the world for seven categories of transgression:When some of them give tithes, and others do not give tithes, a famine from drought comes some go hungry, and others are satisfied. When they have all decided not to give tithes, a famine from tumult and drought comes; [When they have, in addition, decided] not to set apart the dough-offering, an all-consuming famine comes. Pestilence comes to the world for sins punishable by death according to the Torah, but which have not been referred to the court, and for neglect of the law regarding the fruits of the sabbatical year. The sword comes to the world for the delay of judgment, and for the perversion of judgment, and because of those who teach the Torah not in accordance with the accepted law.

(9) Wild beasts come to the world for swearing in vain, and for the profanation of the Name. Exile comes to the world for idolatry, for sexual sins and for bloodshed, and for [transgressing the commandment of] the [year of the] release of the land. At four times pestilence increases: in the fourth year, in the seventh year and at the conclusion of the seventh year, and at the conclusion of the Feast [of Tabernacles] in every year. In the fourth year, on account of the tithe of the poor which is due in the third year. In the seventh year, on account of the tithe of the poor which is due in the sixth year; At the conclusion of the seventh year, on account of the produce of the seventh year; And at the conclusion of the Feast [of Tabernacles] in every year, for robbing the gifts to the poor.

(10) There are four types of character in human beings: One that says: “mine is mine, and yours is yours”: this is a commonplace type; and some say this is a sodom-type of character. [One that says:] “mine is yours and yours is mine”: is an unlearned person (am haaretz); [One that says:] “mine is yours and yours is yours” is a pious person. [One that says:] “mine is mine, and yours is mine” is a wicked person.

(11) There are four kinds of temperments: Easy to become angry, and easy to be appeased: his gain disappears in his loss; Hard to become angry, and hard to be appeased: his loss disappears in his gain; Hard to become angry and easy to be appeased: a pious person; Easy to become angry and hard to be appeased: a wicked person.

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

(12) There are four types of disciples: Quick to comprehend, and quick to forget: his gain disappears in his loss; Slow to comprehend, and slow to forget: his loss disappears in his gain; Quick to comprehend, and slow to forget: he is a wise man; Slow to comprehend, and quick to forget, this is an evil portion.

(13) There are four types of charity givers. He who wishes to give, but that others should not give: his eye is evil to that which belongs to others; He who wishes that others should give, but that he himself should not give: his eye is evil towards that which is his own; He who desires that he himself should give, and that others should give: he is a pious man; He who desires that he himself should not give and that others too should not give: he is a wicked man.

(14) There are four types among those who frequent the study-house (bet midrash): He who attends but does not practice: he receives a reward for attendance. He who practices but does not attend: he receives a reward for practice. He who attends and practices: he is a pious man; He who neither attends nor practices: he is a wicked man.

(15) There are four types among those who sit before the sages: a sponge, a funnel, a strainer and a sieve.A sponge, soaks up everything; A funnel, takes in at one end and lets out at the other; A strainer, which lets out the wine and retains the lees; A sieve, which lets out the coarse meal and retains the choice flour.

(16) All love that depends on a something, [when the] thing ceases, [the] love ceases; and [all love] that does not depend on anything, will never cease. What is an example of love that depended on a something? Such was the love of Amnon for Tamar. And what is an example of love that did not depend on anything? Such was the love of David and Jonathan.

(17) Every dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will in the end endure; But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, will not endure. Which is the controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korah and all his congregation.

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

(18) Whoever causes the multitudes to be righteous, sin will not occur on his account; And whoever causes the multitudes to sin, they do not give him the ability to repent. Moses was righteous and caused the multitudes to be righteous, [therefore] the righteousness of the multitudes is hung on him, as it is said, “He executed the Lord’s righteousness and His decisions with Israel” (Deut. 33:21). Jeroboam, sinned and caused the multitudes to sin, [therefore] the sin of the multitudes is hung on him, as it is said, “For the sins of Jeroboam which he sinned, and which he caused Israel to sin thereby” (I Kings 15:30).

(19) Whoever possesses these three things, he is of the disciples of Abraham, our father; and [whoever possesses] three other things, he is of the disciples of Balaam, the wicked. A good eye, a humble spirit and a moderate appetite he is of the disciples of Abraham, our father. An evil eye, a haughty spirit and a limitless appetite he is of the disciples of Balaam, the wicked. What is the difference between the disciples of Abraham, our father, and the disciples of Balaam, the wicked? The disciples of Abraham, our father, enjoy this world, and inherit the world to come, as it is said: “I will endow those who love me with substance, I will fill their treasuries” (Proverbs 8:21). But the disciples of Balaam, the wicked, inherit gehinnom, and descend into the nethermost pit, as it is said: “For you, O God, will bring them down to the nethermost pit those murderous and treacherous men; they shall not live out half their days; but I trust in You” (Psalms 55:24).

(20) Judah ben Tema said: Be strong as a leopard, and swift as an eagle, and fleet as a gazelle, and brave as a lion, to do the will of your Father who is in heaven. He used to say: the arrogant is headed for Gehinnom and the blushing for the garden of Eden. May it be the will, O Lord our God, that your city be rebuilt speedily in our days and set our portion in the studying of your Torah.

(21) He used to say: At five years of age the study of Scripture; At ten the study of Mishnah; At thirteen subject to the commandments; At fifteen the study of Talmud; At eighteen the bridal canopy; At twenty for pursuit [of livelihood]; At thirty the peak of strength; At forty wisdom; At fifty able to give counsel; At sixty old age; At seventy fullness of years; At eighty the age of “strength”; At ninety a bent body; At one hundred, as good as dead and gone completely out of the world.

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

(22) Ben Bag Bag said: Turn it over, and [again] turn it over, for all is therein. And look into it; And become gray and old therein; And do not move away from it, for you have no better portion than it.

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

(23) Ben He He said: According to the labor is the reward.