(א) עֲקַבְיָא בֶן מַהֲלַלְאֵל אוֹמֵר, הִסְתַּכֵּל בִּשְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים וְאִי אַתָּה בָא לִידֵי עֲבֵרָה. דַּע מֵאַיִן בָּאתָ, וּלְאָן אַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ, וְלִפְנֵי מִי אַתָּה עָתִיד לִתֵּן דִּין וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן. מֵאַיִן בָּאתָ, מִטִּפָּה סְרוּחָה, וּלְאָן אַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ, לִמְקוֹם עָפָר רִמָּה וְתוֹלֵעָה. וְלִפְנֵי מִי אַתָּה עָתִיד לִתֵּן דִּין וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן, לִפְנֵי מֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא:
(1) Akabyah ben Mahalalel said: mark well three things and you will not come into the power of sin: know from where you come, and where you are going, and before whom you are destined to give an account and reckoning. From where do you come? From a putrid drop. Where are you going? To a place of dust, of worm and of maggot. Before whom you are destined to give an account and reckoning? Before the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He.
(ב) רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי מִתְפַּלֵּל בִּשְׁלוֹמָהּ שֶׁל מַלְכוּת, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא מוֹרָאָהּ, אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ חַיִּים בְּלָעוֹ.
(2) Rabbi Hanina, the vice-high priest said: pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear it inspires, every man would swallow his neighbor alive.
The Kaufmann manuscript breaks this mishnah into two, and it makes sense given that there are two different sages named Hanina speaking. Hanina the vice-high-priest is our sage for today. He lived through the destruction of the second Temple, and so his opinion of the need for government can be understood in that lens. “A person would eat another alive” is a strong statement on the tendencies of humans to indulge in their lowest impulses. Even if governments aren’t perfect, they are better than having no government. Those who saw Madmax probably agree. The Vilna Gaon brings Habakuk 1:14 and its treatment in the Talmud Avodah Zara 4b, which is saying that we are likened to fish in the sea, as fish swallow the small ones, so too, humans. Avigdor Shinan brings Jeremiah 29:7: “Seek the prosperity of the city to which I have exiled you and pray to God in its behalf for in its prosperity you shall prosper”. Nowadays we would say: a rising tide lifts all boats.
(ב) רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן תְּרַדְיוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁנַיִם שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין וְאֵין בֵּינֵיהֶן דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹשַׁב לֵצִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים א) וּבְמוֹשַׁב לֵצִים לֹא יָשָׁב. אֲבָל שְׁנַיִם שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין וְיֵשׁ בֵּינֵיהֶם דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, שְׁכִינָה שְׁרוּיָה בֵינֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ג) אָז נִדְבְּרוּ יִרְאֵי יְיָ אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ וַיַּקְשֵׁב יְיָ וַיִּשְׁמָע וַיִּכָּתֵב סֵפֶר זִכָּרוֹן לְפָנָיו לְיִרְאֵי יְיָ וּלְחֹשְׁבֵי שְׁמוֹ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שְׁנַיִם, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד שֶׁיּוֹשֵׁב וְעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא קוֹבֵעַ לוֹ שָׂכָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איכה ג) יֵשֵׁב בָּדָד וְיִדֹּם כִּי נָטַל עָלָיו:
(2) R. Hananiah ben Teradion said: if two sit together and there are no words of Torah [spoken] between them, then this is a session of scorners, as it is said: “nor sat he in the seat of the scornful…[rather, the teaching of the Lord is his delight]” (Psalms 1:1); but if two sit together and there are words of Torah [spoken] between them, then the Shekhinah abides among them, as it is said: “then they that feared the Lord spoke one with another; and the Lord hearkened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that feared the Lord and that thought upon His name” (Malachi 3:16). Now I have no [scriptural proof for the presence of the Shekhinah] except [among] two, how [do we know] that even one who sits and studies Torah the Holy One, blessed be He, fixes his reward? As it is said: “though he sit alone and [meditate] in stillness, yet he takes [a reward] unto himself” (Lamentations 3:28).
Our mishnah brings another Hanania, Rabi Hanania ben Teradion. In the Munich manuscript and in the Vilna edition the name is Hanina. Hanania ben Teradion was one of the Ten Martyrs, killed under the Hadrianic persecutions (132-136 CE). If you go to a traditionally minded service for Yom Kippur you might have heard his name mentioned in the Eleh Ezkereh, in the additional service, Musaf. Hanania is seen in the Talmud as the epitome of honesty. In Avodah Zarah 17b we read that he, who was appointed as the administrator of community tzedakah funds, once mixed up Purim donations with his money, and gave extra so as to make sure all money was distributed. In that same sugya we learn that he used to study Torah alone, which helps explain his teaching in this mishnah.
His teaching is softened in Yachin, who brings the proviso that we are talking about people who are not under stress, and have nothing preventing them from studying Torah. Given the historic context, I find this unlikely. The word “scorners” is a synonym of “sinners”. If two people do study Torah, the Shechinah, God’s presence, abides between them. Mishnat Eretz Israel (Safrai family, 21st c) reminds us that this saying makes a lot of sense if one thinks of the symposium, which was the Greco-Roman meal of lying in couches, in which a lot of food, wine and talk happened. The Kaufmann manuscript adds the word עֲסוּקִים, meaning, they busy [themselves] with, which is part of the blessing for Torah study לַעֲסֹק בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה. Some famous rabbis, the Arizal among them, would not use that word, as it gives an impression of Torah being a chore or a dealing. Be as it may, in the Munich manuscript and in the Vilna edition, Rabbi Hanania ben Teradion then adds that the same applies to a person who studies Torah alone. This part is not present in the Kaufmann manuscript. The proof texts brought for the scenarios are not obvious, and hinge on a generalized idea. For the scorners, sitting is the word in which the midrashic movement is done, however in the verse in Psalms 1:1 the idea of studying Torah is not present. Yet sitting is the very idea of studying, as the word Yeshiva indicates. The scenario of two working their way through Torah is connected to the verse in Malachi 3:6 - those who fear God talk to one another and listen, which is also the essence of studying Torah. Finally, the verse brought for the person sitting alone and studying, Lamentations 3:28, actually makes sense only with the verse before it, 3:27, which says that “it is good for a person to bear a yoke when young”. The word yoke is fundamental to the midrashic move, as it indicates the yoke of mitzvot עֹל מִצְווֹת and the yoke of Heaven, עֹל מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם.
(ג) רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁלשָׁה שֶׁאָכְלוּ עַל שֻׁלְחָן אֶחָד וְלֹא אָמְרוּ עָלָיו דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, כְּאִלּוּ אָכְלוּ מִזִּבְחֵי מֵתִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה כח) כִּי כָּל שֻׁלְחָנוֹת מָלְאוּ קִיא צֹאָה בְּלִי מָקוֹם. אֲבָל שְׁלשָׁה שֶׁאָכְלוּ עַל שֻׁלְחָן אֶחָד וְאָמְרוּ עָלָיו דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, כְּאִלּוּ אָכְלוּ מִשֻּׁלְחָנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יחזקאל מא) וַיְדַבֵּר אֵלַי זֶה הַשֻּׁלְחָן אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי ה':
(3) Rabbi Shimon said: if three have eaten at one table and have not spoken there words of Torah, [it is] as if they had eaten sacrifices [offered] to the dead, as it is said, “for all tables are full of filthy vomit, when the All-Present is absent” (Isaiah 28:8). But, if three have eaten at one table, and have spoken there words of Torah, [it is] as if they had eaten at the table of the All-Present, blessed be He, as it is said, “And He said unto me, ‘this is the table before the Lord’” (Ezekiel 41:22).
It is really hard to determine which Rabbi Shimon is speaking in our mishnah. R. Dr. Joshua Kulp believes it is Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, as does Avigdor Shinan. Mishnat Eretz Israel believe that it is R. Shimon ben Azai or Shimon ben Zoma. Be as it may, this saying is brought because of its topical connection with the previous mishnah. In terms of content, eating can become a sacred occasion as long as Torah is included. Yachin points outs that we eat to live, and shouldn’t live to eat. The term “sacrifices of the dead” is a general term for idolatrous sacrifices, see Mishnah Avodah Zara 2:3 and Psalms 106:28. The choice of “three” is in part a reaction to the previous mishnah that mentions “two”, and also the minimum quorum to say the zimmun, the call for blessing of the Birkat Hamazon, the prayer of thanks for a full meal. Bartenura brings an interesting connection, which is to the Three Mothers: Torah, Prophets and Writings. Midrash Shmuel proposes that three here is because the context of the verse (Isaiah 28:6-8) brought as proof has three: sage (judge), priest and prophet. The proof text for the second scenario, when three do talk about Torah in a meal, has a beautiful midrashic move, in which “no space is left” is read as no Space, as God’s name is also מָקוֹם, Place. God is seen as the Place of the Universe, and not the universe as a place for God (see Bereshit Rabbah 68:9). The desire to bring about a spiritual connection to mundane actions is well known through the Jewish tradition, and while the Birkat Hamazon brings a few words of Torah and traditionally is a collection of blessings instituted by Moshe, Yehoshua and King David, it is difficult to maintain that this is what Rabbi Shimon has in mind. Rav Avi Novis-Deutsch brings that any real encounter with a person is a moment of Torah,and Emmanuel Levinas would probably agree with that.
(ד) רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן חֲכִינַאי אוֹמֵר, הַנֵּעוֹר בַּלַּיְלָה וְהַמְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ יְחִידִי וְהַמְפַנֶּה לִבּוֹ לְבַטָּלָה, הֲרֵי זֶה מִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ:
(4) Rabbi Hananiah ben Hakinai said: one who wakes up at night, or walks on the way alone and turns his heart to idle matters, behold, this man is mortally guilty.
The words of today’s mishnah come from Rabbi Hananiah (or Hanina) ben Hakinai, a student of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon, being active between 110 and 135 CE. Known for his complete devotion to his studies (he left his family for 12 years to study, see Ketubot 62b) and his mysticism (see Hagigah 14b), he was one of the Ten Martyrs.
While his words seem harsh, it is important to remember a few things about the times in which they are written. The main idea behind them, according to Bartenura, is the belief in demons, which were more likely to attack a person at night and alone. The defense against those forces are words of Torah, and thinking about idle matters would then not protect a person. Even if one does not believe in demons, it is possible to understand the ideas behind what Hananiah ben Hakinai is saying: the best time to study Torah is at night, according to many sages (Eruvin 65a), including Maimonides (who barely slept). Waking up at night, alone, does arise many darker feelings, and it is no wonder that nowadays, with electric lights, the cities barely sleep, if at all. The antidote to those dark thoughts is Torah, or searching for meaning. Tosfot Yom Tov brings Rashbam who points out that walking on the way and not thinking of constructive things can happen even during the day. Another reading is “one who forcefully distances oneself from Torah” – and that is losing your chance in living a life of meaning, similar to what Yachin brings. Rabbi Avi Novis-Deutsch brings up the possibility of these words describing the natural consequences of lack of sleep and lack of concentration: one can die.
(ה) רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֹל תּוֹרָה, מַעֲבִירִין מִמֶּנּוּ עֹל מַלְכוּת וְעֹל דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ. וְכָל הַפּוֹרֵק מִמֶּנּוּ עֹל תּוֹרָה, נוֹתְנִין עָלָיו עֹל מַלְכוּת וְעֹל דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ:
(5) Rabbi Nehunia ben Hakkanah said: whoever takes upon himself the yoke of the Torah, they remove from him the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly concerns, and whoever breaks off from himself the yoke of the Torah, they place upon him the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly concerns.
The mishnah for today brings the words of Nechunya ben Hakana (~80 CE to ~110 CE). R. Nechunya ben Hakanah was a contemporary, not a student of, R. Yochanan ben Zakkai. He directed his own academy and has a short prayer that appear in the Talmud attributed to him (see Yerushalmi Brachot 4:2:1, Mishnah Brachot 4:2). Highly respected by his peers, with a large retinue of servants, he was meek and forgiving, and attributed his unusually advanced age to the fact that he never attained honor by degrading others and was liberal in his giving tzedakah (Megilah 28a). Sefer HaBahir, Sefer haTemunah, and Sefer ha-Peli'ah are all attributed to him, as well as the Ana BeKoach prayer (Otzar Midrashim s.v.)
To understand this saying, it is important to define the idea of yoke – there will always be external impositions on a person, rules and norms under which one lives, just as a yoke forces or guides the animals in agriculture. Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah posits that one who accepts the yoke of Torah is actually free from behavioral norms and government regulations. Both Bartenura and the Vilna Gaon bring a interesting midrash, found in Eruvin 54a, in which the word engraved חָרוּת (see Exodus 32:16), which describes the tablets, is actually read as חֵירוּת, freedom. One could say that discipline brings freedom. Yachin affirms that the fact that one gives their life over to mitzvot, which is above nature, makes it possible for miracles, which are also above nature, to happen in one’s life. Rabbeinu Yona sees “worldly concerns” as the unbridled search for possessions, and affirms that not studying Torah, that is, not searching for meaning above oneself, makes for a psychological dependency on accumulating material things. Avigdor Shinan points out the three yokes, as a continuation of “three things”. He explains the yoke of government as paying taxes, and the yoke of “worldly concerns” as making a living – those ideas nowadays are front and center of discussions about the place of haredim in Israeli society. I understand where this reading comes from, and yet there are many examples of rabbis, from Mishnaic times onwards, that had professions themselves besides being devoted to the study of Torah. Rav Avi Novis-Deutsch believes that Nechunya ben Hakana’s saying is brought here because Hananya ben Hakinai’s words came before, and the two first names share the root ח.נ.נ., grace.
(ו) רַבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא בֶן דּוֹסָא אִישׁ כְּפַר חֲנַנְיָה אוֹמֵר, עֲשָׂרָה שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין וְעוֹסְקִין בַּתּוֹרָה, שְׁכִינָה שְׁרוּיָה בֵינֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים פב) אֱלֹהִים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת אֵל. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ חֲמִשָּׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (עמוס ט) וַאֲגֻדָּתוֹ עַל אֶרֶץ יְסָדָהּ. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ שְׁלשָׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים פב) בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ שְׁנַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ג) אָז נִדְבְּרוּ יִרְאֵי ה' אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ וַיַּקְשֵׁב ה' וַיִּשְׁמָע וְגוֹ'. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כ) בְּכָל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת שְׁמִי אָבֹא אֵלֶיךָ וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ:
(6) Rabbi Halafta of Kefar Hanania said: when ten sit together and occupy themselves with Torah, the Shechinah abides among them, as it is said: “God stands in the congregation of God” (Psalm 82:1). How do we know that the same is true even of five? As it is said: “This band of His He has established on earth” (Amos 9:6). How do we know that the same is true even of three? As it is said: “In the midst of the judges He judges” (Psalm 82:1) How do we know that the same is true even of two? As it is said: “Then they that fear the Lord spoke one with another, and the Lord hearkened, and heard” (Malachi 3:16). How do we know that the same is true even of one? As it is said: “In every place where I cause my name to be mentioned I will come unto you and bless you” (Exodus 20:21).
Today’s mishnah brings the wisdom of Rabbi Chalafta ben Dosa from Kfar Chanania (~ 130-170 CE). It is important to see that the root ח.נ.נ., grace, appears three times in the names or the sages. He might be the father of Yosi ben Chalafta, one of the important sages of the Mishnah. Chalafta ben Dosa seems to have attained advanced age, from a snippet found in Shabbat 115a, in which he tells Rabban Gamliel III what his grandfather Gamliel I said.
His saying concerns the presence of God in different grous of individuals, beginning with 10 and going down to 1. A similar saying is found in the Mechilta of Rabbi Ishmael however there the number 5 is missing. The proof texts are the subject of commentary, since there are different versions of which proof text is used for which number. Every version I saw has the same proof text for the number ten, which is based on the word עדה, edah, meaning, congregation. Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:6 makes that connection clear, using the story of the ten spies (Numbers 14:27). The same thing happens wth two people or one person. “Two” is proven by Malachi 3:16, a verse we saw used in a similar fashion back on Avot 3:2. One listens to another, so that’s two. For “one” the proof text might be opaque for English speakers, as you can be both singular and plural, but the Hebrew makes the distinction clear, and so Exodus 20:21 is speaking to the individual. The verses for “three” and “five” are flipped in some manuscripts. In the Vilna edition and in the Munich manuscript, the verse to prove three is Psalms 82:1, since three is the minimum amount of judges, and that seems to be straightforward. But that verse is brought to prove “five” in the Kaufmann manuscript, and the explanation is that for judgment to actually happen there has to be three judges and two litigants, making five. The verse brought to prove three, in the Kaufmann manuscript, is Amos 9:6, the word is agudah, band. Bartenura, who has that version but has seen others, explains that band is “fire and water” and “upon the earth” makes three; also “band of hyssop” is used in Exodus 12:22, and explained as three stalks. The fact that he needs to bring two explanations shows that it is not a straightforward verse. In terms of message, this is a comforting one: God’s presence is always there, as long as the people involved are involved in Torah. We are never truly alone.
(ז) רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אִישׁ בַּרְתּוֹתָא אוֹמֵר, תֶּן לוֹ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, שֶׁאַתָּה וְשֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְכֵן בְּדָוִד הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברי הימים א כט) כִּי מִמְּךָ הַכֹּל וּמִיָּדְךָ נָתַנּוּ לָךְ.
(7) Rabbi Elazar of Bartotha said: give to Him of that which is His, for you and that which is yours is His; and thus it says with regards to David: “for everything comes from You, and from Your own hand have we given you” (I Chronicles 29:14).
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, הַמְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְשׁוֹנֶה, וּמַפְסִיק מִמִּשְׁנָתוֹ וְאוֹמֵר, מַה נָּאֶה אִילָן זֶה וּמַה נָּאֶה נִיר זֶה, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ מִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ:
Rabbi Shimeon said: if one is studying while walking on the road and interrupts his study and says, “how fine is this tree!” [or] “how fine is this newly ploughed field!” scripture accounts it to him as if he was mortally guilty.
Since the Vilna edition combines two sages in this mishnah, and the Kaufmann manuscript keeps them separate, we will focus on the saying of Rabbi Yaakov. The Vilna edition brings “Rabbi Shimeon” but both the Kaufmann and the Munich manuscripts have this in the name of Rabbi Yaakov. Obviously, having just he first name, it is quite difficult to know who is talking – even though Rabbi Dr. Joshua Kulp affirms this is THE Rabbi Yaakov, teacher of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Avigdor Shinan points out that Shimon ber Yochai already had his turn, so Rabbi Yaakov is a better version. The Munich manuscript adds “and how beautiful this house [דירה dirah] is”.
This saying is, on a first glance, quite harsh. The term “mortally guilty” appeared in 3:4, then indicting those who wake up or walk and neglect the study of Torah altogether. Here we have a softening addition “as if”. Interrupting the learning to appreciate nature or surroundings (note the increasing proximity to human accomplishments in the Munich edition) is to be taken as a serious matter. Learning, here, is repeating orally – the term shoneh שׁוֹנֶה is specific for the type of learning in the times of the Mishnah, done orally to remember each word. Bartenura will say this has to do with any idle talk, and the examples are not necessarily exact – one could be talking about the weather, for instance. He brings the possibility that even though you could say a blessing over what you see, interrupting studies is unbecoming. Yachin will remind us that delving deeply into Torah while walking is forbidden, but the idea is that we would be engaged in simple remembering of text. He also makes the distinction of interrupting studies for pleasure and doing so for livelihood or taking care of house affairs. And saying a blessing for pleasure has to do with appreciating the outsides, and not being engaged with the words of the Living God. It is not about shunning the physical existence, as there are many blessings for all sorts of natural occurrences, but interrupting Torah – as the study of Torah is first and foremost in Rabbinic Judaism, in many instances being seen as the one thing that protects people from harm. The term “scripture” here is used loosely, and there is no actual verse being brought as a support. Of course, Derech Chayim (Maharal of Prague) will remind us that the idea of enjoying the world without a blessing is an anathema – and this makes the pairing of these two mishnayot make sense, given the previous one.
(ח) רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַשּׁוֹכֵחַ דָּבָר אֶחָד מִמִּשְׁנָתוֹ, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ מִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ד) רַק הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ וּשְׁמֹר נַפְשְׁךָ מְאֹד פֶּן תִּשְׁכַּח אֶת הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר רָאוּ עֵינֶיךָ. יָכוֹל אֲפִלּוּ תָקְפָה עָלָיו מִשְׁנָתוֹ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שם) וּפֶן יָסוּרוּ מִלְּבָבְךָ כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ, הָא אֵינוֹ מִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ עַד שֶׁיֵּשֵׁב וִיסִירֵם מִלִּבּוֹ:
(8) Rabbi Dostai ben Rabbi Yannai said in the name of Rabbi Meir: whoever forgets one word of his study, scripture accounts it to him as if he were mortally guilty, as it is said, “But take utmost care and watch yourselves scrupulously, so that you do not forget the things that you saw with your own eyes” (Deuteronomy 4:9). One could [have inferred that this is the case] even when his study proved [too] hard for him, therefore scripture says, “that they do not fade from your mind as long as you live” (ibid.). Thus, he is not mortally guilty unless he deliberately removes them from his heart.
Rabbi Dostai ben Yannai (~ 135-170 CE) seems to have been a student of Rabbi Me’ir, appearing in midrashim and the Talmud as a teacher of aggadot, or homilies. The connection between this mishnah and the previous one is clear, as is the proof text. He had to defend himself for not defending his colleague against Babylonians (Gittin 14b) and explained the differences between men and women asconnected to the differences between soil and bone (Niddah 31b). Dostai, as a name, is a Greek version of Mataniah. He repeated many laws in the name of other teachers, and has only one opinion credited to him (Tosefta Gittin 7:9) regarding witnesses to a get, so this saying matches his personal history in a way.
Yachin affirms that the case we are dealing with is a learned person who was lazy and did not review their studies. Bartenura affirms that the problem is that by not reviewing one comes to permit what is forbidden. The text does open the space for those whose strength is not intellectual pursuits, and softens the message to “only if one deliberately removes Torah from their heart”. Forgetting and misremembering is a danger in all oral traditions, and reviewing our studies is important, even nowadays when we have access to everything written down.
(ט) רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר, כָּל שֶׁיִּרְאַת חֶטְאוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת לְחָכְמָתוֹ, חָכְמָתוֹ מִתְקַיֶּמֶת. וְכָל שֶׁחָכְמָתוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת לְיִרְאַת חֶטְאוֹ, אֵין חָכְמָתוֹ מִתְקַיֶּמֶת.
(9) Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa said: anyone whose fear of sin precedes his wisdom, his wisdom is enduring, but anyone whose wisdom precedes his fear of sin, his wisdom is not enduring.
The words of Hanina ben Dosa (40-80 CE) are brought next. The connection between this and the previous mishnah seems to be the similarity of the names. He was a student of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai, and while we have no laws attributed to him, we have many stories of his powers regarding miracles, as he prayers were completely effective (Brachot 34b, Baba Kamma 50a). He was incredibly poor and incredibly pious (Taanit 24b-25a), to the point that even his donkey would not eat untithed food (Avot De Rabbi Natan 8:8). As many other rabbis, he restricted demons (Pesachim 112b).
The Kaufmann manuscript breaks 3:9 into two mishnayot, so we will see Hanina ben Dosa’s words today and tomorrow. The same happens to the Munich manuscript, which chooses to highligh Hanina’s name. In his words for today we can see the reverberation of his life, as outlined above. Purely intellectual pursuit of Torah is clearly not enough, a person needs to have an emotional attitude of fearing sin before studying. Bartenura brings the important concept of “the beginning of thought is the end of the matter”, which we sing in Lecha Dodi regarding Shabbat, but the tradition understands as a general principle. R. Dr. Joshua Kulp believes that this means that Torah study is supposed to have an impact in our character, as we begin Judaism by observing and then think or learn about the reasons to do so. Derech Chayim points out the the text does not say generally “fear of sin”, but personalizes it יִּרְאַת חֶטְאוֹ “fear of his sin” – one who has a modicum of self-criticism knows what are their triggers towards bad behavior. Avigdor Shinan brings ADRN that supports Hanina ben Dosa’s words with a verse from Psalms 111:10 – “the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God”. The stress on “enduring” is important: many people decide to change how they live, but those changes are not peremanent. The same happens to wisdom: changing our lives to the better, with a intellectual support and an emotional attitude is what makes it enduring, as we need to chose how to behave until it becomes second nature, as Maimonides puts it in his commentary.
הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, כָּל שֶׁמַּעֲשָׂיו מְרֻבִּין מֵחָכְמָתוֹ, חָכְמָתוֹ מִתְקַיֶּמֶת. וְכָל שֶׁחָכְמָתוֹ מְרֻבָּה מִמַּעֲשָׂיו, אֵין חָכְמָתוֹ מִתְקַיֶּמֶת:
He [also] used to say: anyone whose deeds exceed his wisdom, his wisdom is enduring, but anyone whose wisdom exceeds his deeds, his wisdom is not enduring.
We continue with Hanina ben Dosa’s wisdom, which today focuses on the importance of sustaining wisdom with deeds. Bartenura connects the two sayings and sees the first one (fear/awe) as the willingness to not to transgress negative commandments, and this one (deeds) as the willingness to do positivve ones. Rambam reinforces the idea of habit, which is a theme with him: you begin doing the right actions and you will become a better person, habituated to virtue. Yachin offers the idea that not doing is a sign that the desire for wisdom is really just a desire for self-importance, and that the person in this case is in fact taken over by their baser desires of arrogance – so of course the wisdom does not endures, as it is merely being used as an expression of boasting and condescension. The idea that one needs to be what one studies is brought in a beautiful scene between Yochanan ben Zakkai and Eleazar ben Arach, in which Yochanan ben Zakkai praises Eleazar ben Arach by describing him as someone who “expounds and fulfills” (Chagigah 14b). Derech Chayim (Maharal of Prague) brings the idea that wisdom has two bases, one is the Holy One, and another is the soul of a person, through their actions, and without both being engaged, wisdom does not endure in the world – wisdom is a bridge between the two.
(י) הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, כָּל שֶׁרוּחַ הַבְּרִיּוֹת נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ, רוּחַ הַמָּקוֹם נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ. וְכָל שֶׁאֵין רוּחַ הַבְּרִיּוֹת נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ, אֵין רוּחַ הַמָּקוֹם נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ.
(10) He used to say: one with whom men are pleased, God is pleased. But anyone from whom men are displeased, God is displeased.
(י) רַבִּי דוֹסָא בֶן הַרְכִּינַס אוֹמֵר, שֵׁנָה שֶׁל שַׁחֲרִית, וְיַיִן שֶׁל צָהֳרַיִם, וְשִׂיחַת הַיְלָדִים, וִישִׁיבַת בָּתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת שֶׁל עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ, מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הָאָדָם מִן הָעוֹלָם:
(10) Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: morning sleep, midday wine, children’s talk and sitting in the assemblies of the ignorant put a man out of the world.
Our mishnah for today continues with the words of Dosa ben Harkinas. Both the Munich manuscript and the Kaufman have that as a individual mishnah but the Vilna edition combines his words with the last of Hanina ben Dosa’s. Dosa ben Harkinas was a contemporary of Yochanan ben Zakkai, followed the school of Hilel, was extremely wealthy and died at a ripe old age near 130 CE. Yevamot 16a brings a story in which he learned with the prophet Haggai. The Maharal of Prague (Derech Chayim) raises the possibility of Dosa ben Harkinas being Hanina ben Dosa’s father, and so putting the two sayings together would make sense.
Dosa ben Harkinas brings four things that “take a person from the world”. Rabbi Dr. Joshua Kulp understands this as wasting our precious time on earth in the pursuit of meaningless activities. Keep in mind that when Dosa ben Harkinas was saying this, there was no electric lights, and so sleeping until shacharit was over (around 10 am for daylight beginning at 6 am) was really oversleeping, as people would go to bed much earlier than what we usually do. Bartenura affirms that this is because by sleeping through those hours, one would miss saying the Shema. Avigdor Shinan points out that this indicates that a person was unconnected and not aligned with the cycle of the day, and would not be working. Children’s talk, says Kulp, excludes children’s instruction, of course; Rav Avi Novis-Deutsch believes that “children’s talk” excludes meaningful talk with children, which all who are around children can attest happens every so often. Derech Chayim puts all of the four actions in the context of the three forces in the life of a human being: body, mind and soul. He affirms that the balance of those three forces are what keeps a person alive, and all those actions would be tilting the person towards only one of those things, besides preventing a person from studying Torah. The “assemblies of the unlearned” is quite an interesting case. If you check the Vilna edition, the text implies that Dosa ben Harkinas is talking about synagogues, as the words are , which is an expression for synagogue. But both the Kaufman and the Munich manuscripts bring just the word, meaning, gatherings – so it would be much more akin to loitering or just sitting around, shooting the breeze, as we say in American English. Yachin sees the four actions as symbolic of general ideas. Daylight sleep is the general idea of sloth, wine at midday a symbol for going after bodily pleasures, children’s talk a symbol of laughter and jokes, assemblies of the unlearned a symbol for small, meaningless talk. It is interesting that Yachin defends all those as necessary in small quantities – sleep, drinking alcohol, joking around and small talk: the problem is giving all or mot of your life to them, or engaging with them in large quantities.
(יא) רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַמּוֹדָעִי אוֹמֵר, הַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַקָּדָשִׁים, וְהַמְבַזֶּה אֶת הַמּוֹעֲדוֹת, וְהַמַּלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵרוֹ בָרַבִּים, וְהַמֵּפֵר בְּרִיתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם, וְהַמְגַלֶּה פָנִים בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא כַהֲלָכָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ תוֹרָה וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים, אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא:
(11) Rabbi Elazar of Modiin said: one who profanes sacred things, and one who despises the festivals, and one who causes his fellow’s face to blush in public, and one who annuls the covenant of our father Abraham, may he rest in peace, and he who is contemptuous towards the Torah, even though he has to his credit [knowledge of the] Torah and good deeds, he has not a share in the world to come.
Our mishnah for today brings the words of Eleazar haModa’I, or Eleazar of Modi’im. He was active in the generation of Yavne, meaning, up to the Bar Kochba revolt (135 CE). A student of Yochanan ben Zakkai (Baba Batra 10b) he was Bar Kochba’s uncle and, according to the Talmud Yerushalmi (Ta’anit 68d or 4:5) was killed by him, due to intrigues by the Romans.
Eleazar HaModa’I brings five actions that makes a person lose their place in the world-to-come (Bavli Sanhedrin, chapter 10, is particularly interested in this). According to all manuscripts, the first is “one who profanes sacred things”. This is a person who causes animals that would be sacrifced to become impure, uses them for his own benefit, damages them or takes them out of the Temple precints. Nowadays we could see the misuse and corruption of public funds as analogous. The legend of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza involves doing such a thing (Gittin 55b-56a). “One who despises the festivals” comes next: these are those who work during festivals above what is permitted (cooking and carrying alone, not work in other instances). Avigdor Shinan brings the possibility of simply pretending the festiva is not happening, ie, not doing the prescribed things for the festival, like listening to the shofar on Rosh Hashanah. “One who embarasses one’s fellow” comes next, and this is the basis of a famous sugya on embarassing people in public (Baba Metzia 58b), affirming that those do not have a place in the world to come. Yachin makes a point of saying – your fellow, not your enemy. Embarassing your enemy in anger does not fall in this category. In fourth place comes “One who annuls the covenant of our father Abraham”. This can refer either to a person who does not circumcise their son or a man who undergoes a painful procedure, known in the ancient world, which would hide circumcision. This, of course, makes for hiding one’s Jewish identity, and is seen in the movie Europa, Europa. The fifth and final is translated here as one who is “contemptuous of words of Torah”, but the Hebrew brings simply “uncovers faces of the Torah not according to Jewish Law”. The piece “not according to Jewish law” seems to be a later addition. Bartenura brings that another way to understand this is someone who is brazen in their transgression, doing that in public.
The Kaufmann manuscript has a change in the order of the five things, putting והמאדים את פני חבירו, one who embarasses one’s fellow, at the end, and is missing the words שֶׁלֹּא כַהֲלָכָה “not according to Jewish Law” regarding those who “uncovers faces of the Torah”. This addition might be just to make a point that we are not talking about new understandings of Torah, but rationalizing transgressions – meaning, not being seized by the yetzer hara to commit a transgression, but proving that it was not really a transgression after all. The Kaufmann is also missing “words of Torah in his hand”, and brings only “good deeds”, in contrast with the Munich manuscript.bartenura will soften this saying, reminding us that one who repents, even at one’s deathbed, “nothing stands in front of repentance”.
(יב) רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי קַל לְרֹאשׁ, וְנוֹחַ לְתִשְׁחֹרֶת, וֶהֱוֵי מְקַבֵּל אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם בְּשִׂמְחָה:
(12) Rabbi Ishmael said: be suppliant to a superior, submissive under compulsory service, and receive every man happily.
Today we are learning the words of Rabbi Yishmael. This is THE Rabbi Yishmael, the head of an academy and intellectual rival of Rabbi Akiva. Both were active between 110 and 135 CE, at a time of harsh Roman persecution, known as Hadrianic persecutions. His teachers were Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Joshua, and Rabbi Nahuniah haKaneh. His teachings are present throughout Jewish law and thought. Most famous among them are his “thirteen rules” which appear in the siddur as one of the learning moments of the beginning of the day. They are exegetical principles, used throughout the Mishnah and Talmud. The midrashic works “Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael” and “Sifrei Bamidbar” are products of his school, and are dated as tannaitic, or from the times of the Mishnah.
In our mishnah, Rabbi Yishmael has a three-part saying about how one should behave in front of those who are in a different position, whether in social level, age and/or in wisdom. This is a difficult mishnah to translate because it has the word תִשְׁחֹרֶת tishchoret, an unusual word interpreted differently by the commentators. There are those, like Bartenura, that understand this to mean “black haired” (from , black) and so Bartenura sees the first part as exhorting us to be respectful of old age (he understands the word “head” as “head of yeshivah”), plaint to those in power, and the second more unyielding to youth, demanding respect. Kulp, translating like Albeck, understands tishchoret as “compulsory service”, and sees the mishnah as exhorting us to be respectful of a person who is superior and not resist being called up for compulsory service, giving this mishnah a more military flavor. Yachin understands the word as meaning taxes, and so if you meet a person who is forced to pay taxes to you, you should be calm and collected towards them, nice, behaving like a father to them so they will love you like a parent. Therefore, Yachin understands the first part as “always show respect to someone who is more important than you, regardless the situation.” Avigdor Shinan understands this to be applying particularly to teachers and political leaders, and reads tishchoret as young people, like Bartenura. The Maharal of Prague, in his Derech Chayim, sees this as how to behave with those higher than you, lower than you and your equals – everyone agrees that the third piece of Rabbi Yishmael’s advice has to do with everyone, and is similar to what Shamai exhorted in mishnah 1:15.
(יג) רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, שְׂחוֹק וְקַלּוּת רֹאשׁ, מַרְגִּילִין לְעֶרְוָה. מָסֹרֶת, סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה. מַעַשְׂרוֹת, סְיָג לָעשֶׁר. נְדָרִים, סְיָג לַפְּרִישׁוּת. סְיָג לַחָכְמָה, שְׁתִיקָה:
(13) Rabbi Akiva said: Merriment and frivolity accustom one to sexual licentiousness; Tradition is a fence to the Torah; Tithes a fence to wealth, Vows a fence to abstinence; A fence to wisdom is silence.
Avot now turns to Rabbi Yishmael’s study partner, Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva was active before and during the Hadrianic persecutions and the Bar Kochba revolt, being one of the Ten Martyrs recalled during Yom Kippur. He is arguably the most influential rabbi in Jewish history, and there are many legends about him. A great book that collects all those legends and makes them into historical fiction is The Orchard, by Yochi Brandes. We will read his advice for a few days, as we have four mishnayot in the Vilna edition all attributed to him.
This first mishnah is quite interesting, in that it opens with a warning and then brings four “fences”. Rabbi Avi Novis-Deutsch points out that in the Parma manuscript there is an added “he used to say” just before the four “fences”, which makes a lot of sense. The warning goes against rabbi Yishmael’s words, in which there seems to be space for lightheartedness between equals – Rabbi Akiva seems to be saying that one should always behave in a circumspect manner. We should note, however, that this might be a warning regarding frivolity with the opposite sex, and not in general. There are many verses warning against too much laughter, such as Job 12:4. Derech Chayim will point out that “laughter” is a euphemism for sex in many places in the Torah, such as Genesis 26:8 and Genesis 39:14. He also reminds us that crossing sexual prohibitions is a sure fire way to detach from the Shechinah, God’s loving presence, as understood in the verse “so that he does not see among you anything of “nakedness”
and turn away from you.” (Deut. 23:15). He also points out that happiness, in general, is not the same as laughter, and so there is space to see Rabbi Yishmael’s and Rabbi Akiva’s words as complementary, and not opposite. Onto the four fences. Note that the Kaufmann manuscript seems to have missed a few words, and is defective in this mishnah, the same happening to the Munich manuscript. The Parma one has all the words, as does the Vilna edition: we being with “tradition” or “traditions” (see Mishnat Eretz Israel) as a fence to the Torah. This, according to Bartenura, are the traditions regarding the ways certain words are written in the Torah scroll, some with missing letters or dots and so on, and the explanations for what is generally called “scribal oddities” nowadays form a basis to make sure that the Torah is explained correctly. One could understand these “traditions” as what is called “Oral Torah”, that is, the rabbinic explanations, which makes us Rabbinic Jews and not extremists. The next fence, tithes as a fence to wealth, is a play in words between the tenth מַעֲשֵׂר (ma’aser) and wealth עשֶׁר (osher). Note that the shin and the sin are interchangeable, so giving tzedakah is how you continue to be rich. The idea is a common one in the Jewish tradition: keeping resources to oneself, hoarding wealth, will eventually bring one to ruin, if not financial, certainly spiritual. The corollary is that by giving tzedakah, one ensures that one’s wealth will prosper, according to the rabbis. The third fence are vows as a fence to perishut, here translated as abstinence. If one’s desires are too strong, one can control them by making vows, and keeping away from what stokes those desires. Certainly this works – the only caveat I would put here is not to force others, who do not have those same tendencies, to observe those fences that one feels are needed. This is particularly true regarding modesty, nowadays, as some people feel the need to force their own fences for sexual desires (how one dresses or behaves) onto others (forcing others to adopt certain behaviors or forms of dressing so as to prevent one’s thoughts to deviate). The fourth and last fence is silence as a fence for wisdom. It is quite interesting how the order is switched, and silence actually has the last word in this mishnah. The same idea was brought in Avot 1:17 - one who tends to silence will always at least seem wiser than one who can’t seem to stop talking.
(יד) הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, חָבִיב אָדָם שֶׁנִּבְרָא בְצֶלֶם. חִבָּה יְתֵרָה נוֹדַעַת לוֹ שֶׁנִּבְרָא בְצֶלֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ט) כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם. חֲבִיבִין יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ בָנִים לַמָּקוֹם. חִבָּה יְתֵרָה נוֹדַעַת לָהֶם שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ בָנִים לַמָּקוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד) בָּנִים אַתֶּם לַה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם. חֲבִיבִין יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּתַּן לָהֶם כְּלִי חֶמְדָּה. חִבָּה יְתֵרָה נוֹדַעַת לָהֶם שֶׁנִּתַּן לָהֶם כְּלִי חֶמְדָּה שֶׁבּוֹ נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ד) כִּי לֶקַח טוֹב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם, תּוֹרָתִי אַל תַּעֲזֹבוּ:
(14) He used to say: Beloved is man for he was created in the image [of God]. Especially beloved is he for it was made known to him that he had been created in the image [of God], as it is said: “for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6). Beloved are Israel in that they were called children to the All-Present. Especially beloved are they for it was made known to them that they are called children of the All-Present, as it is said: “you are children to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1). Beloved are Israel in that a precious vessel was given to them. Especially beloved are they for it was made known to them that the desirable instrument, with which the world had been created, was given to them, as it is said: “for I give you good instruction; forsake not my teaching” (Proverbs 4:2).
We continue to read Rabbi Akiva’s wisdom. Avigdor Shinan points out that in several manuscripts this saying is corrupted to the point that it is impossible to know its original form. This can be seen in the Kaufmann manuscript, specifically, given that there are many corrections on the side. The version presented by the Vilna edition is the version found in the Avot DeRabi Natan 39 (there, however, it is brought in the name of Rabbi Me’ir, who was a student of Rabbi Akiva). Some, like Rabbi Avi Novis-Deutsch, have trouble with these statements, since they read this as a genealogical “choseness” or otherwise a Jewish supremacist take. Even though I can understand how that reading comes about, I do not read it that way given the context of the saying. Historically, R. Akiva lives in a time where the persecution by the Romans is at its highest, and it is also known that conversion to Judaism was happening – Akiva himself is the child of converts (Brachot 27b). For starters, the statements all have the same structure: love is great, but it is even deeper due to the fact that it is “made known”. Here I see a great lesson – love needs to be expressed. And humanity in general is seen as beloved by God. Yachin affirms that this greatness is due to our capacity of chosing between good and evil, and that due to such knowledge any person should strive to do good to one another, and certainly not to damage others, whether in their bodies, monetarily or their honor, and most certainly not to shame anyone. Yachin understands, however, that any human may lose that image of God is they are evil enough, and that Israel would never stoop to that point. Avigdor Shinan points out that the part about Israel is a more intimate relationship with God – God’s children, as Deut. 14:1, the proof text, brings. And that yet this special relationship passes through the acceptance of the Torah, called a “desirable tool” – the idea of Torah being the tool with which the universe was created, or for which the universe exists, or preceeded the whole creation, is quite widespread in Jewish sources, as Bereshit Rabbah 1:1 and 4:2, Shemot Rabbah 34:2, Vayikra Rabbah 19:1, Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer 3:4, Tachuma Buber 5:1, Midrash Lekach Tov Songs of Songs 1 all bring. That Torah observance, or at least knowledge, is the gate through which a Jew becomes a Jew, is a given in the context – it appears to me that Rabbi Akiva would never imagine Jews that are ethnically proud Jews and yet know nothing about Judaism. I should point out, however, that many other sages did understand the relationship of Israel to God to be conditional to the performance of the commandments, and that both of those voices can still be found among modern day Jews.
(טו) הַכֹּל צָפוּי, וְהָרְשׁוּת נְתוּנָה, וּבְטוֹב הָעוֹלָם נִדּוֹן. וְהַכֹּל לְפִי רֹב הַמַּעֲשֶׂה:
(15) Everything is foreseen yet freedom of choice is granted, And the world is judged with goodness; And everything is in accordance with the preponderance of works.
We continue with the wisdom of Rabbi Akiva. In this short mishnah, Rabbi Akiva brings a few basic principles of Jewish theology. The first part (all is foreseen and freedom of choice is given) is a central paradox: God is all knowing and yet we are responsible for our choices, and there is no such a thing as fate, for fate would mean no such a thing as choice. This is the strongest departure of Judaism from the Roman-Greek mythology. Bartenura will add that God knows even out innermost thoughts. Derech Chayim will bring up the connection to the previous mishnah, and affirm that the love that God has for all humanity, and the fact that all humans are made in the image of God brings about this paradox, as God gives humans the ability of self-governing, an ability not given to angels. The Vilna Gaon will point out that a similar statement is brought in Brachot 33b: all is in the hands of heaven, except for fear of heaven. One of the ways of solving this paradox is to accept the idea that time flows differently for us than for God, and that the concept of “eternal” is to be beyond time, and not subject to it. For God everything is always present, but not for us: we are under the progressive force of time, always forward – we have a past an a future, but not God. Another way of solving this paradox is to understand God as knowing all the possibilities of all of our choices, as a complete matrix, with us in only one point of the matrix, not being able to see the totality of what our actions will bring. Knowledge of good and evil, Derech Chayim points out, can only come to the first humans after they sin, and this is how they become “as God, knowing good from evil” (Genesis 3:5). In any instance, Rabbi Akiva moves forward, and says that there is judgment, and that is done with goodness. Good here is seen as “mercy” by several commentators, mercy in the fact that both evil is punished and that each human is judged with a full knowledge by the Holy One of that human’s conditions, something that necessarily escapes most of us, as we are not all-knowing. Mercy is also seen as the ability to repent (Yachin and Derech Chayim). Finally, the text affirms that “everything is according to the majority of deeds”. This statement can be read as connected to the ideas about God and the human, or as an independent statement – mercy here is also this idea, that judgment happens accoring to a full lifetime of deeds. Psalms 25:7 bring a similar idea: God does not pay attention to every single deed, particulaly the ones made in our youth, since God is merciful. Rambam will see here a support for his idea that a person becomes what a person habitually does, seeing this last statement as independent of the rest, and Bartenura will amplify this in his commentary.
(טז) הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, הַכֹּל נָתוּן בְּעֵרָבוֹן, וּמְצוּדָה פְרוּסָה עַל כָּל הַחַיִּים. הַחֲנוּת פְּתוּחָה, וְהַחֶנְוָנִי מֵקִיף, וְהַפִּנְקָס פָּתוּחַ, וְהַיָּד כּוֹתֶבֶת, וְכָל הָרוֹצֶה לִלְווֹת יָבֹא וְיִלְוֶה, וְהַגַּבָּאִים מַחֲזִירִים תָּדִיר בְּכָל יוֹם, וְנִפְרָעִין מִן הָאָדָם מִדַּעְתּוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ, וְיֵשׁ לָהֶם עַל מַה שֶּׁיִּסְמֹכוּ, וְהַדִּין דִּין אֱמֶת, וְהַכֹּל מְתֻקָּן לַסְּעוּדָה:
(16) He used to say: everything is given against a pledge, and a net is spread out over all the living; the store is open and the storekeeper allows credit, but the ledger is open and the hand writes, and whoever wishes to borrow may come and borrow; but the collectors go round regularly every day and exact dues from man, either with his consent or without his consent, and they have that on which they [can] rely [in their claims], seeing that the judgment is a righteous judgment, and everything is prepared for the banquet.
We continue with the wisdom of Rabbi Akiva. In this mishnah, he paints an allegory of human existence with a technique that is like a mosaic, all pieces holding different metaphors and the whole bringing a general picture. As Avigdor Shinan points out, all images are from trade. It is important to notice that the Kaufmann manuscript is missing three words, which correspond to the sentence “and they have that on which they [can] rely [in their claims]”; and the word בערבון (in pledge) is found as בערבין, which changes the meaning from “in pledge” to “with guarantor”.
The opening sentence gives the idea that all a person has is really not theirs – it is grace (receiving something you are not deserving of), as Yachin puts it. Yachin affirms that our very lives, and the lives that all that surround us is such gift from the Holy One – and that gift is eventually going to be recalled, as it is a pledge regarding our own actions. Derech chayim affirms that this is a symbol for our souls, they are the pledge to be recalled, a deposit, and this image is present also in the Zohar (Emor 2, I:88a). Another way of understanding this is that a person’s deeds are their guarantors in the world to come (Bartenura, reading Sukkah 53a), which means that eventually they will pay for their sins (Kulp). This reminds me of the story of the man called by the king and his three friends, only one of which goes in front of the king to defend the man against the judgement, and this friends represent the man’s good deeds – the other two, his riches and his friends and family, leave him to fend for himself. The next sentence – a net is spread – can be read as God’s power (Kulp) from which nothing escapes, as difficulties and death (Bartenura, Vilna Gaon), as traps along life in which a person may fall (Novis-Deutsch, Mishnat Eretz Israel). Yachin points out that it is easier to do wrong than right, and so this is the trap. Avigdor Shinan brings the idea of fish or birds, present in Ecclesiastes 9:12, and that the essence of this saying is that above all existence there is a net from which there is no escaping in the day of judgment. I read this sentence more as an affirmation of our essential connection, more net than trap – all our actions are not just about us, but they reverberate in the net that connects us all, humans, animals, planet. This reading is influenced by the previous mishnah, in which all is judged with goodness.
The next few sentences: the store is open, the shopkeeper gives credit, the hand writes – the worlds as a shop appears in other writings, such as the poem “Tobacco Shop” by Fernando Pessoa. There is a possibility of a play in words between to enjoy ליהנות and store חֲנוּת. The idea of God as the shopkeeper, one who trusts almost infinitely in people’s goodness, but that everything is written in a book – here a pinkas, a notebook, elsewhere books of deeds (Rosh Hashanah 16b). This image of our deeds being written in a book, to be read every year, is present in Jewish thought since the 3rd century, and the idea of us signing the book, just as we would sign a promissory note, is present in our machzorim, using a sentence from the book of Job (37:7). The hand writing can be ours or God’s. The collectors come - Avigdor Shinan sees this as the difficulties in our lives, as does Bartenura. Kulp sees this as our inevitable death. Rambam affirms it’s both, as they are punishments. The fact that no one really knows when the time is up is found in the imagery of the collectors come around collecting every day, with or without a person’s consent. Many live a long life and have the ability to face death in their own terms, and many have their life taken in what for us looks like an unreasonable short time. And yet, continues the sentence, the collectors have on what to support their claims: this, as mentioned, is missing in the Kaufmann manuscript, but present in the Munich manuscript. Still, continues the text, the judgment is righteous. The feast, all agree, is the world to come, in which almost everyone has a share, even evildoers. The image of God as a king invinting people for a feast is well-known and widely used in Jewish sources (Vayikra Rabba 13:3; Bava Batra 75a; Pesachim 119b; Otzar Midrashim, Feast of Gan Eden).
(יז) רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר, אִם אֵין תּוֹרָה, אֵין דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ. אִם אֵין דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, אֵין תּוֹרָה. אִם אֵין חָכְמָה, אֵין יִרְאָה. אִם אֵין יִרְאָה, אֵין חָכְמָה. אִם אֵין בִּינָה, אֵין דַּעַת. אִם אֵין דַּעַת, אֵין בִּינָה. אִם אֵין קֶמַח, אֵין תּוֹרָה. אִם אֵין תּוֹרָה, אֵין קֶמַח.
(17) Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said: Where there is no Torah, there is no right conduct; where there is no right conduct, there is no Torah. Where there is no wisdom, there is no fear of God; where there is no fear of God, there is no wisdom. Where there is no understanding, there is no knowledge; where there is no knowledge, there is no understanding. Where there is no bread, there is no Torah; where there is no Torah, there is no bread.
We now turn to R. Eleazar ben Azariah for his wisdom. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah (110-135 CE) might be a name we remember from the haggadah, where he says “I am like a seventy year old”. This sentence is connected to a story in Berakhot 27b, in which there is a revolution in the Sanhedrin, Rabban Gamliel II is deposed and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah is intituted as a Nasi, and 400 or 700 new benches were added to the beit midrash. R. Eleazar ben Azariah, who was 18 years old, suddenly got a white beard. Besides that colorful story, he was rich, had great family ties, being connected to Ezra the scribe, and generous with tzedakah. He appears in something like 200 other places in rabbinic literature. Modern scholar Tzvee Zahavy affirms that what arrived to us through the historical-literary process show that while R. Eleazar ben Azariah was an important figure, his rulings are peripherical to the processes of law development (see The Traditions of Eleaza ben Azariah, Tzvee Zahavy, 1977, available at Academia.edu).
This is a very long mishnah, clearly divided as two in the Munich manuscript, which we will follow. R. Eleazar ben Azariah has a saying that becomes famous due to its last pair, Torah and food. Yet, with all of them, R. Eleazar ben Azaria is showing a completely symbiotic relationship among all the pairs, neither side can be separated as more important. First: if there is no derech eretz there is no Torah – what is meant by derech eretz is up for grabs. Bartenura understands it as being “wordly occupation”, as does Avigdor Shinan. Yachin understands this as a way of behavior that gives honor to the presence of the soul. Derech Chayim (Maharal of Prague) understands this to be a summary to Rabbi Akiva’s saying in 3:13 “laughter, merriment, licentiousness” – so derech eretz for the Maharal are also the opposite of these, besides being occupation and decent behavior. Yachin points out that many hasidei umot haolam, decent people from the nations, do not observe Torah and yet have decent values and wisdom, and so “Torah” here must mean three basic ideas: there is Wisdom from God, there is a system of reward and punishment and the soul continues despite the death of the body. It is interesting that Yachin expands R. Eleazar ben Azariah’s saying to become an universal idea. Second: if there is no wisdom, there is no awe; if there is no awe, there is no wisdom. R. Eleazar ben Azariah’s saying seems to dispute, or maybe complete, Psalms 111:10, “the beginning of wisdom is awe”. Yachin speaks that awe brings humility, and humility brings the ability to listen to wisdom. The Gra brings Proverbs 2 to help us understand the symbiosis: listening to wisdom opens our hearts to awe, and with Psalms 111:10, awe is also the basis of wisdom. We should also point out that Avot 3:9 brought Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa’s idea that being in fear / awe of sinning is in direct relationship with someone’s wisdom remaining. That is mentioned by Midrash Shmuel. He points out what R. Jeni Friedman affirms – there are words that are thin concepts, everyone agrees that they are imprtant but people usually do not take time defining and thickening that concept. One example is the pair דַּעַת/בִּינָה understanding/discernment. Midrash Shmuel shows that those can be understood in many ways, for instance דַּעַת can be knowing Torah in a generalized way, and Oral Torah is בִּינָה, as one needs to know the basis and the rabbinic understanding of it. He bases that on Megillah 6b, and affirms that anyone who wants to present new understandings of Torah need both. Another way to understand the word דַּעַת is the higher awareness, as per Proverbs 2:5 – you will understand the awe of God. His main idea is that any understanding we actually have does not come just from our intelligence, but is mixed with a presence of heaven. And that is why one who does not have בִּינָה can’t learn of aprehend, really, the secrets of Kabbalah, as they do not come just through our intellect, but that discernment really comes from Above. And the last phrase was what made this mishnah famous, the very well-known phrase “if there is no food, there is no Torah; if there is no Torah, there is no food”. In Mazlow’s pyramid, this is not presented as a symbiosis, and Rav Avi Novis-Deustch brings Virginia Woolf’s “A Room of One’s Own”, in which she affirms that money and independence, as well as the ability of not being interrupted by needs of others, are essential for women to be able to write fiction – I add here as they are for men. Any parent, regardless of gender, knows that to be true: we can only produce knowledge of any kind once we can think uninterrupted. R. Eleazar ben Azariah, however, insists that both of those poles are needed, as many tend to stop at the basic needs and do not see that the gift of having them fulfilled bring about the need to rise above them, and produce. And at the same time, being able to attain knowledge usually brings us to a better financial stance.
הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, כָּל שֶׁחָכְמָתוֹ מְרֻבָּה מִמַּעֲשָׂיו, לְמַה הוּא דוֹמֶה, לְאִילָן שֶׁעֲנָפָיו מְרֻבִּין וְשָׁרָשָׁיו מֻעָטִין, וְהָרוּחַ בָּאָה וְעוֹקַרְתּוֹ וְהוֹפַכְתּוֹ עַל פָּנָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ירמיה יז) וְהָיָה כְּעַרְעָר בָּעֲרָבָה וְלֹא יִרְאֶה כִּי יָבוֹא טוֹב וְשָׁכַן חֲרֵרִים בַּמִּדְבָּר אֶרֶץ מְלֵחָה וְלֹא תֵשֵׁב. אֲבָל כָּל שֶׁמַּעֲשָׂיו מְרֻבִּין מֵחָכְמָתוֹ, לְמַה הוּא דוֹמֶה, לְאִילָן שֶׁעֲנָפָיו מֻעָטִין וְשָׁרָשָׁיו מְרֻבִּין, שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ כָל הָרוּחוֹת שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם בָּאוֹת וְנוֹשְׁבוֹת בּוֹ אֵין מְזִיזִין אוֹתוֹ מִמְּקוֹמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) וְהָיָה כְּעֵץ שָׁתוּל עַל מַיִם וְעַל יוּבַל יְשַׁלַּח שָׁרָשָׁיו וְלֹא יִרְאֶה כִּי יָבֹא חֹם, וְהָיָה עָלֵהוּ רַעֲנָן, וּבִשְׁנַת בַּצֹּרֶת לֹא יִדְאָג, וְלֹא יָמִישׁ מֵעֲשׂוֹת פֶּרִי:
He used to say: one whose wisdom exceeds his deeds, to what may he be compared? To a tree whose branches are numerous but whose roots are few, so that when the wind comes, it uproots it and overturns it, as it is said, “He shall be like a bush in the desert, which does not sense the coming of good. It is set in the scorched places of the wilderness, in a barren land without inhabitant” (Jeremiah 17:6). But one whose deeds exceed his wisdom, to what may he be compared? To a tree whose branches are few but roots are many, so that even if all the winds in the world come and blow upon it, they cannot move it out of its place, as it is said, “He shall be like a tree planted by waters, sending forth its roots by a stream. It does not sense the coming of heat, its leaves are ever fresh. It has no care in a year of drought; it does not cease to yield fruit” (ibid, 17:8).
We continue with the second part of our mishnah, and the second wise saying of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaria. The Kaufmann manuscript does not bring the supporting verses from Jeremiah 17, and that indicates the sofer was working from a different version, the verses might have been added later. The Melekhet Shlomo points out that there are two versions, one with the verses and one without them. There are commentators that affirm that the same idea was brought in mishnah 3:9, such as the Rambam, and that this is brought just because the comparison with a tree is a nice simile (Yachin). That a person is compared to a tree is something we talk about in Tu Bishvat, based on Deut. 20:19 – Rabbi Eleazar’s addition is to compare wisdom with branches and deeds with roots. Deeds, here, are seen as the interpersonal deeds, such as gemilut chasadim and tzedakah (Avigdor Shinan). Yachin, by contrast, affirms that we are talking all mitzvot, and his idea is to do mitzvot without needing to search for a reason. He understands that such a person would get wisdom from doing. He sees wisdom as the external glory of a person, and mitzvot as the core, or the roots, in this simile. The reason a person with too much wisdom and few deeds falls, says Yachin, is because the root of awe of God is not deep in their heart, when the winds of heretical thoughts come blowing – and other winds, too: desires, pride, greed, all those can make us like an uprooted tree, if our good deeds do not anchor us. The verses brought in to support R. Eleazar’s saying are connected explicitly with a person who trusts people above God: “cursed is the man who trusts mortals” (Jer. 17:5) and “blessed is the man who trusts God” (Jer. 17:7). This last verse is sung on Shabbat mincha. Due to this and 3:9, we can assume that part of what worried the rabbis is the quest for wisdom alone, without transferring values to actions. As Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel once put Judaism asks for” a leap of action”, or “the act of believing”.
(יח) רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן חִסְמָא אוֹמֵר, קִנִּין וּפִתְחֵי נִדָּה, הֵן הֵן גּוּפֵי הֲלָכוֹת. תְּקוּפוֹת וְגִימַטְרִיאוֹת, פַּרְפְּרָאוֹת לַחָכְמָה:
(18) Rabbi Eliezer Hisma said: the laws of mixed bird offerings and the key to the calculations of menstruation days, these are the body of the halakhah. The calculation of the equinoxes and gematria are the desserts of wisdom.
Our last mishnah in this chapter brings Eliezer ben Hismah’s words. Active between 80 and 110 CE, he is not a very well known sage, and was a student of Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva. Very poor, due to his science and/or mathemathical accomplishments, he was indicated to be one of the leaders of the academy in Yavneh by Rabban Gamliel (Horayot 10a). There are those who think the “son of” should not be there, and that his name was Eliezer Hasmah (Melekhet Shlomo).
He affirms that there are two different types of law: the “body of law” and the “desserts” – meaning, one is essential to understanding Jewish law and the other are fun, but not essential. In these two categories he puts two different subjects. The first one, called Kinim (nests), has a tractate with that name, which deals with the question of mix-up of bird offerings in the Temple. The second one, Pitchei Niddah, or calculation of menstruation days, is also dealt with in the tractate of Niddah. This is also an area that has the potential for mix up, as there is a need to distinguish between the blood of menstruation and other types of bloody discharges. Yachin affirms that Eliezer ben Hismah’s point is that even very technical issues (since the laws of Kinim apply only when the Temple was standing) and very yucky ones (types of blood, and counting seven or eleven days) are part of what people who want to become conversant with Jewish Law need to deal with. In the “fun yet not essential” category Eliezer ben Hismah puts astronomy and probably geometry (Yachin and Kulp). The word gematria is also used to indicate the art of deriving meaning from the numerical values of words and expressions, and there are those who believe this is what he’s referring to (Bartenura). Given that Torah is seen as the bread for the soul, the soul cannot be satisfied with only butter or spices, it needs the essential pieces as well, says Yachin.