(א) בַּעֲשָׂרָה מַאֲמָרוֹת נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם. וּמַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, וַהֲלֹא בְמַאֲמָר אֶחָד יָכוֹל לְהִבָּרְאוֹת, אֶלָּא לְהִפָּרַע מִן הָרְשָׁעִים שֶׁמְּאַבְּדִין אֶת הָעוֹלָם שֶׁנִּבְרָא בַעֲשָׂרָה מַאֲמָרוֹת, וְלִתֵּן שָׂכָר טוֹב לַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁמְּקַיְּמִין אֶת הָעוֹלָם שֶׁנִּבְרָא בַעֲשָׂרָה מַאֲמָרוֹת:
(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.
We begin a new chapter, and differently from almost every mishnah we have seen before this is the general voice of the Mishnah speaking, just as it did for the first mishnah of the first chapter. There Torah was presented as being given by Sinai, here we listen to a basic Jewish idea: there is infinite worth in this world, just as there is infinite worth in every human being. Bartenura and Rav Avi Novis-Deutsch make the connection between this mishnah and the mishnah in Sanhedrin, 4:5 where we learn how the witnesses are warned in capital crimes. In terms of form, the words וּמַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר “what does this teach” are missing from the Munich manuscript.
The “ten sayings” are an interesting point, which comes from reading closely the story of creation, Genesis 1, in which we read ten times the word וַיֹּ֣אמֶר, “and said”. There are different ways of counting that, so Bartenura and Yachin, for instance, affirm that the word Bereshit counts as one, and that we are only counting the words “and said” as proper creation orders. This is an established idea, see Megillah 21b. Bartenura also affirms that tipping the scales of the world to evil is a form of destruction. Destroying something that took so much to create is more serious than destroying something that was easy to create. In any instance, he reminds us that those who destroy the world, or kill an innocent human being, are destroying their own souls. Recently we’ve seen that so frequently.
Every commentator understands that creation of the world could have been written much shorter, and God could have created the world with just one saying in that story. But by adding all the steps and all the complexity – and that story is deliciously complex – there has to be an idea behind it. That value is the infinite worth of life in the world and of a human being, and how much love comes from the Creator to us and to the world. Derech Chayim points out that since God is infinitely complex, even if God made the world in one utterance – and from God’s perspective that might well be the case – the Word would necessaruly split into parts, as “Isn’t my Word as a hammer splitting a rock?” (Jer. 23:29). We will see that the first 19 mishnayot in this chapter all deal with numbers 10, 7, 4 and the general word “all”. Only in mishnah 20 we will resume the sayings with a sage’s name attached to it.
(ב) עֲשָׂרָה דוֹרוֹת מֵאָדָם וְעַד נֹחַ, לְהוֹדִיעַ כַּמָּה אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם לְפָנָיו, שֶׁכָּל הַדּוֹרוֹת הָיוּ מַכְעִיסִין וּבָאִין עַד שֶׁהֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת מֵי הַמַּבּוּל. עֲשָׂרָה דוֹרוֹת מִנֹּחַ וְעַד אַבְרָהָם, לְהוֹדִיעַ כַּמָּה אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם לְפָנָיו, שֶׁכָּל הַדּוֹרוֹת הָיוּ מַכְעִיסִין וּבָאִין, עַד שֶׁבָּא אַבְרָהָם וְקִבֵּל עָלָיו שְׂכַר כֻּלָּם:
(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.
The manuscripts diverge in the breaking of this mishnah and the mishnayot after it. The Kaufmann and the Parma combine in one this and the next, while the Cambridge and the Munich manuscripts break them into three mishnayot, each beginning with “עֲשָׂרָה”, ten, which gives the text an interesting flavor, as we have “with ten” and then seven mishnayot beginning with “ten”, and the mishnah after that is a “seven” . It is interesting to note that the Vilna’s editorial decision combining the “ten generations”, which separates the trials of Avraham in a stand alone mishnah and then combining the ten miracles and the ten trials of our ancestors, makes it easier to tell a story from each mishnah.
Our mishnah continues with the number ten, this time using it to break history into two specific time periods: cretion to flood, flood to Avraham. In both divisions, the idea is to showcase God’s patience: God could have destroyed evil and those who commit evil immediately, but God gives people a chance to repent. And punishment eventually happens – which can be comforting when we think of how much evil there is in this world. Rambam understands this mishnah to be a warning, a call, for people to become better and refine their souls, as he sees this as the main reason for Avot. Derech Chayim fleshes this out and explains that we are supposed to learn to be patient and not let anger get the best of us. The second part, when Avraham shows up and “receives the reward of all of them” has brought a lot of commentaries. Bartenura understands that Avraham did good deeds that all of them could have done, and that’s the reward he received. He mentions that in Chagigah 15b the rabbis affirm that everyone has a portion in Gan Eden and another in Gehinom, and so if you are good you receive both in Gan Eden – and so it happened with Avraham, who received all the portions of Gan Eden that the people who did eveil would eventually receive had they done good. Yachin supports this reading. Derech Chayim takes it in a different way: all the generations before Avraham were devoted to chaos and futility, Avraham was the only one who actually lived an authentic life, becoming the foundation of the world – and he proceeded to try to save the world, something that Noach did not even try. He proceeds to explain that all humans have a form, the tzelem E-lohim, but that it is up to us to create roots and values that will fill that form. Avraham was the first to realize this in practice, and therefore received the reward for all of it.
(ג) עֲשָׂרָה נִסְיוֹנוֹת נִתְנַסָּה אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם וְעָמַד בְּכֻלָּם, לְהוֹדִיעַ כַּמָּה חִבָּתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם:
(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).
The manuscripts and the Vilna edition continue to show differences. The most glaring one is the lack of the expression עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם, peace be upon him, present only in the Vilna. As mentioned yesterday, there is also the fact that for the Parma and the Kaufmann manuscripts this mishnah is appended on the previous one, while for the Munich and the Cambridge manuscripts it is a stand alone, as all mishnayot beginning with “ten” are.
The mishnah presents the idea that Avraham Avinu went through ten tests. This idea comes from the Binding of Isaac, which is called in the Torah a test. So everyone agrees that that one makes the list, and the other tests vary. Some, like Bartenura, add the midrash of Avraham and the fiery furnace. Avot deRabi Natan brings that episode and another one, also a midrash, of Avraham being hidden in a cave for his first 13 years, and does not count the two takings of Sarah, by Pharaoh and Avimelech, only the first one. Rambam counts those as one each and adds the distancing from both Hagar and Yishmael as two different tests, counting no midrash whatsoever. The Gra shows both of those. The Magen Avot (R’ Simeon ben Zemah Duran, Algiers, 15th c.) is surprised that few seem to count both times with Sarah, and finds that the burial of Sarah could also be counted, as also the seizing of Lot can be caounted separated from the war of the kings. That one is always counted, as is the circumcision and the brit bein habetarim. No one seems to count the Sodom and Gomorrah episode, which might surprise modern readers. The Magen Avot brings an interesting discussion regarding the number ten, and points out all sorts of other sets of ten, affirming that all this comes from the Ten Sayings with which the world was created. R. Dr. Joshua Kulp brings as a reference the book “The Bible as It was” by James Kugel, which shows that regardless of which moments in Avraham’s life make the list, the idea that there are ten tests is old – and so the number ten is the main issue, and how the commentators fit the narrative in ten is secondary.
There are two different ways to read “the love of Avraham Avinu”. One is Avraham’s love, never questioning God’s ways but living in radical acceptance of what is. The English translation leads us more towards that. But another one is God’s love for Avraham: God takes particular interest in Avraham, and makes his life infused with challenging moments. Love is not an easy concept, as it is infused with altruism, and yet we have also a egoistic bent. So sometimes it can be hard to love and be loved.
(ד) עֲשָׂרָה נִסִּים נַעֲשׂוּ לַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ בְמִצְרַיִם וַעֲשָׂרָה עַל הַיָּם. עֶשֶׂר מַכּוֹת הֵבִיא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל הַמִּצְרִיִּים בְּמִצְרַיִם וְעֶשֶׂר עַל הַיָּם. עֲשָׂרָה נִסְיוֹנוֹת נִסּוּ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ אֶת הַמָּקוֹם בָּרוּךְ הוּא בַמִּדְבָּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יד) וַיְנַסּוּ אֹתִי זֶה עֶשֶׂר פְּעָמִים וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ בְּקוֹלִי:
(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, in the Wilderness, as it is said, “and they have tried Me these ten times and they have not listened to my voice” (Numbers 14:22).
The mishnah continues the lists of ten. The outlier among the manuscripts is the Munich manuscript, that does not bring the entirety of the mishnah, but just “Ten miracles were done for our ancestors at the sea (note that the word Suf is crossed out)” and “ten times they tried the Place as it is written ‘and they tested Him ten times’”, breaking those into two mishnayot. All the other manuscripts bring the entirety of the mishnah, and only the Cambridge breaks this mishnah in three mishnayot, establishing every “ten” as a stand alone. It is definitely odd that the Munich manuscript misquotes Numbers 14:22 as in the third person, adds the word “in the desert” and yet brings the rest of the quote “and did not listen to My voice”.
Besides the ten plagues in Egypt, the other lists are not known as well. And this makes for a great number of commentaries trying to define which are those, basing themselves in verses from elsewhere. Avot deRabi Natan 33 is the oldest of those lists, being mentioned by Yachin. Bartenura does his own lists, as does the Rambam. As Rav Avi Novis-Deutsch explains, these lists are connected to what we find in the Haggadah, a midrash that has a continued race to count more miracles going up to 250. This mishnah and its commentaries would be an interesting add-on to the seder. The list ends with the ten trials that our ancestors tried God, and even if we do not have an exact list of those, due to Numbers 14:22 we do know they were ten – the commentators differ on precisely which of those were too. In a way, the juxtaposition of God’s plagues and miracles with our collective “trying” God is jarring, and meant to remind us our debt to the Holy Blessed One – after all, we are still here, a living proof of God’s continued patience with our stiff-necked people.
(ה) עֲשָׂרָה נִסִּים נַעֲשׂוּ לַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ בְּבֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. לֹא הִפִּילָה אִשָּׁה מֵרֵיחַ בְּשַׂר הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְלֹא הִסְרִיחַ בְּשַׂר הַקֹּדֶשׁ מֵעוֹלָם, וְלֹא נִרְאָה זְבוּב בְּבֵית הַמִּטְבָּחַיִם, וְלֹא אֵרַע קֶרִי לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, וְלֹא כִבּוּ גְשָׁמִים אֵשׁ שֶׁל עֲצֵי הַמַּעֲרָכָה, וְלֹא נָצְחָה הָרוּחַ אֶת עַמּוּד הֶעָשָׁן, וְלֹא נִמְצָא פְסוּל בָּעֹמֶר וּבִשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וּבְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, עוֹמְדִים צְפוּפִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים רְוָחִים, וְלֹא הִזִּיק נָחָשׁ וְעַקְרָב בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם מֵעוֹלָם, וְלֹא אָמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ צַר לִי הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁאָלִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם:
(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 mishnah continues the theme of ten, now with ten miracles that occurred in the Beit HaMikdash, the Temple. The Vilna edition and the manuscripts show little variation, the only word present in the Munich that is not present in the other manuscripts is “לַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ” to our ancestors, and that is incorporated by the Vilna. The Kaufmann brings an extra “מֵעוֹלָם”, never, to the second miracle, that is not incorporated by the Vilna. This time the mishnah explicits the miracles, explaining what they were. Stylistically, it is important to notice that most of those miracles are negative – these things never happened. The only exception is the nineth one, in which all are pressed together and yet there is room to bow.
Most commentators are happy to explain the intricacies and details of each of those miracles – for instance, Mishnat Eretz Yisrael will bring the fact that the smell of those sacrifces was not always pleasant, given that some of them were entire birds, and if you ever smelt feathers catching fire you know (see Vayikra Rabbah 3:5). A woman would never have had a miscarriage because of such a smell. Derech Chayim, however, tries to explain that the fact that those miracles happened is because the Beit HaMiksdash was a place above nature, as indicated by the number ten. He points out that there is no disputing those miracles, there is no “and some say, 12 miracles”. Ten, he explains, is a number above nature and above what he calls “world of existence and entropy/loss/destruction”. He goes on to show that the first four miracles are all obvious losses or signs of degeneration; and that the next three are brought by external factors (the omer and the showbread would be disqualified by the sicle). The last three, he points out, have to do with injury. He then goes to attach a different sefirah to each of the miracles, which makes sense given how he understands the above-nature nature of the Beit HaMikdash.
(ו) עֲשָׂרָה דְבָרִים נִבְרְאוּ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, פִּי הָאָרֶץ, וּפִי הַבְּאֵר, וּפִי הָאָתוֹן, וְהַקֶּשֶׁת, וְהַמָּן, וְהַמַּטֶּה, וְהַשָּׁמִיר, וְהַכְּתָב, וְהַמִּכְתָּב, וְהַלּוּחוֹת. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים, אַף הַמַּזִּיקִין, וּקְבוּרָתוֹ שֶׁל משֶׁה, וְאֵילוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים, אַף צְבָת בִּצְבָת עֲשׂוּיָה:
(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.
Our mishnah continues with the theme of tens. The Vilna edition continues the tendency of incorporating the words of the Munich manuscript, as that has the words “on Shabbat eve” בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, and also “and here they are” וְאֵלּוּ הֵן - whereas the other three manuscripts lack both those expressions. As a general idea, the list is of surprising things, mostly in the Torah stories, that feel and look above nature. The Mishnah is insistent that all creation in within natural laws, including what seems miraculous. It is interesting that the add-on of “on Shabbat eve” gives a sensation that as God’s plan becomes more formed, those are created last minute. Twilight is also a mysterious moment, as it is a transition – and so ten wondrous things, and then more and more are created. Note that the final list, counting all the possible opinions, sums up to fourteen, and not just ten.
The first three things are all mouths, one that swallows, one that gives water and one that speaks. The next two are things in the sky, which are the manna and the rainbow. The next two are on the earth, which are the staff of Moshe and the shamir. The shamir is the one that marks a transition to things that are not explicit in the Torah: it is either the hardest stone that can cut others, akin to diamond; in the book of Joshua and other texts of Nach we encounter that as a place name. In talmudic legend, shamir is an animal or a worm that cut through the stone, used by King Solomon to built the temple (see Sotah 48b, I Kings 6:7), as we all know from Exodus 20:22 that the altar is made of stones that are not cut with metal. After the shamir we have the writing, the letters and the tablets. There are those, like Mishnat Eretz Israel, R. Dr. Kulp Yachin and Bartenura, who read these as all dependent on the first tablets of the Aseret HaDevarim (aka ten commandments). And there are those like Avigdor Shinan and Derech Chayim, that see letters and writing as independent, as a miraculous thing in itself. Avigdor Shinan says that there are teachers who read the word מִּכְתָּב as מַכְתֵב, the implements that make writing possible. This is also a reminder to all that most of the manuscripts of the Mishnah are not menukadim, meaning, do not have the vowels, and sometimes putting vowels on them is an act of translation as well, ie, chosing one meaning over others. On the “some say” section, demons or harmful force or harmful spirits (all possibilities for the word הַמַּזִּיקִין) should not come as a surprise – the word “even” אַף, present in all manuscripts, is a reminder that all forces in our world are, at the end of the day, made by God, whether we like them or not, whether we judge them as good or bad. The final three things we did not speak about yet, namely, the burial place of Moshe, the ram of Avraham and the tongs that made other tongs, are all seen as miraculous in some way – as no one knows where Moshe is buried (); the ram appeared suddenly, caught in the thicket by its horns (Genesis 22:13) and presumably such a large animal would be easily seen had it been there beforehand; and tongs need tongs to be made from – so even such a human made technology was also created from the get-go. I like to see these as examples of the rabbis making clear that all comes from God – and human creations, such as writing and tongs, too, have some divine inspiration.
(ז) שִׁבְעָה דְבָרִים בַּגֹּלֶם וְשִׁבְעָה בֶחָכָם. חָכָם אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר בִּפְנֵי מִי שֶׁהוּא גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן, וְאֵינוֹ נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ דִּבְרֵי חֲבֵרוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ נִבְהָל לְהָשִׁיב, שׁוֹאֵל כָּעִנְיָן וּמֵשִׁיב כַּהֲלָכָה, וְאוֹמֵר עַל רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן וְעַל אַחֲרוֹן אַחֲרוֹן, וְעַל מַה שֶּׁלֹּא שָׁמַע, אוֹמֵר לֹא שָׁמָעְתִּי, וּמוֹדֶה עַל הָאֱמֶת. וְחִלּוּפֵיהֶן בַּגֹּלֶם:
(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.
Avot now turns now to number 7. In what seems to be an editorial choice of the Vilna edition, given the manuscripts, mishnah 7 begins listing seven things that are different between a wise person and a golem, translated here as “clod”. A golem is known from the legend of the Golem of the Maharal of Prague, but here it seems that the concept is still in formation, as it is obviously being used to a typical human being who lacks the development of their intellectual and social potentials. Bartenura will prefer the idea of unformed, as in unfinished, as unfinished vessels discussed in Chullin 25a. All the qualities expressed here have to do with use of language, in timing and manner – which are important in a learning environment that is mainly oral.
A wise person is aware and respectful of both hierarchy and arguments. “Breaking on someone’s speech” is better translated as interrupting. Interrupting someone while they speak indicates an unwillingness to listen to the entirety of the argument – besides being rude. “Not being hasty to answer” means that one would take a breath and think the entire argument – it is not about winning a war, but about thinking deeply on the merits and demerits of arguments, in the search of what is intellectually true and socially possible in matters of halacha. Hastiness can also be expressed in raising voices, and that derails the argument into a shouting match. “Asks what is relevant” – is an important reminder to us that arguments are not to be derailed into “what-abouts” matches, bringing external unconnected points to the question. Asking and responding according to order makes for a more clear organization of thought and speech, and so the halachic questions and the development of ideas follow a more clear structure, in which logic is prioritized. “What he heard: I have not heard” – can be understood in two different ways, both important: not knowing the answer to something OR not having a precedent to this opinion, and relying on one’s logic or ethics. Finally, acknowledging the truth has to do with being able to admit that the argument has either lost validity or faced certain limits. The person who does the opposite of those things is a golem – and as a teacher of teens, I can attest that there are some people out there who I bless will become “finished”, Hashem yaazor.
(ח) שִׁבְעָה מִינֵי פֻרְעָנֻיּוֹת בָּאִין לָעוֹלָם עַל שִׁבְעָה גוּפֵי עֲבֵרָה. מִקְצָתָן מְעַשְּׂרִין וּמִקְצָתָן אֵינָן מְעַשְּׂרִין, רָעָב שֶׁל בַּצֹּרֶת בָּאָה, מִקְצָתָן רְעֵבִים וּמִקְצָתָן שְׂבֵעִים. גָּמְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְעַשֵּׂר, רָעָב שֶׁל מְהוּמָה וְשֶׁל בַּצֹּרֶת בָּאָה. וְשֶׁלֹּא לִטֹּל אֶת הַחַלָּה, רָעָב שֶׁל כְּלָיָה בָאָה. דֶּבֶר בָּא לָעוֹלָם עַל מִיתוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא נִמְסְרוּ לְבֵית דִּין, וְעַל פֵּרוֹת שְׁבִיעִית. חֶרֶב בָּאָה לָעוֹלָם עַל עִנּוּי הַדִּין, וְעַל עִוּוּת הַדִּין, וְעַל הַמּוֹרִים בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא כַהֲלָכָה:
(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.
The first thing to notice is that the list of seven presented in this mishnah is actually broken into at least two mishnayot in the manuscripts. Let’s see what those “punishments” are, so it will be more clear what this and the next mishnah are talking about. The seven punishments are: three different types of famine, pestilence, sword, wild animals and exile – they are listed in this and the next mishnah. The Kaufman, the Parma and the Cambridge manuscripts all have a break on דֶּבֶר, pestilence or plague, the Munich manuscript has no breaks until the second part of 5:9. The Vilna editors made a choice of breaking on חַיָּה, wild beasts, and then combining wild beasts and exile with the four ways plague pestilence increases, which makes for a more confusing read. Textually speaking, all manuscripts seem to have the same version for 5:8.
Be as it may, the thelogy behind this is one that is fairly difficult for moderns, which first sees suffering as punishment in a direct consequence for actions. This is present, as Rav Avi Novis-Deutsch points out, in the second paragraph of the Shema – with the twist here that the Tannaim (mishnaic rabbis) already understood reality to be quite more complex than that, as expressed in the Tosefta (Hullin 10:3). However, the mapping of those “punishments” is a bit more chaotic than at a first glace: some go hungry and some are fed, not necessarily those who did or did not give tithes. Things that affect everyone – famines brought by drought, tumult, and an all-inclusive – come when everyone avoids tithing and separating challah. In my opinion, while general suffering can’t be explained easily, individuals are still called upon to check their behavior and their “walk the talk” of tzedakah and ameliorating of oppressive systems. The choices of the reasons for suffering are telling: not giving to the poor and the needy (tithes and challah fall in this category), not taking care of the environment (Sabbatical year) and disregard or perversion of the justice system (not searching for justice, delay and perversion of judgment, and finding loopholes in the system) – we have here indifference, greed and injustice. The next mishnah will bring the reasons for two other such punishments.
(ט) חַיָּה רָעָה בָאָה לָעוֹלָם עַל שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא, וְעַל חִלּוּל הַשֵּׁם. גָּלוּת בָּאָה לָעוֹלָם עַל עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְעַל גִלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, וְעַל שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וְעַל הַשְׁמָטַת הָאָרֶץ. בְּאַרְבָּעָה פְרָקִים הַדֶּבֶר מִתְרַבֶּה, בָּרְבִיעִית, וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית, וּבְמוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית, וּבְמוֹצָאֵי הֶחָג שֶׁבְּכָל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה. בָּרְבִיעִית, מִפְּנֵי מַעְשַׂר עָנִי שֶׁבַּשְּׁלִישִׁית. בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, מִפְּנֵי מַעְשַׂר עָנִי שֶׁבַּשִּׁשִּׁית. וּבְמוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית, מִפְּנֵי פֵרוֹת שְׁבִיעִית. וּבְמוֹצָאֵי הֶחָג שֶׁבְּכָל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה, מִפְּנֵי גֶזֶל מַתְּנוֹת עֲנִיִּים:
(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.
The mishnah in the Sefaria version continues with the last two of the seven punishments, wild beasts and exile. Wild beasts and Exile are separated by the Vilna edition, in their own mishnah, together with the four reasons for plague, and this is the basis of the Sefaria version. I find that separation to be very confusing. The Kaufmann, Cambridge and Parma manuscripts have breakings that make more sense: they collect all four hungers in one mishnah, the next three punishments (plague, animals and exile) in one, and the four reasons for plague merit one mishnah of their own mishnah, as the bridge between seven and four. The Munich sofer decided to give one paragraph for each, marking them with two parallel lines with little or no space; while maintaining the same bridge between numbers seven and four.
The question of the connection between wild animals and both false oaths and chilul Hashem, profanation of God’s name, is something interesting. The Meiri believes it has to do with bringing down God’s name, whether by using it on a unecessary oath or by giving God a bad name, as chilul Hashem is thought of a Jew doing something terrible in public and thus bringing a bad name to God and all Jews. Such people receive the same treatment, according to the Meiri: they are brought down to an animal level, as animals attack them. Ah, personally, I don’t see this happening so clearly – I think life is quite more messy: the mishnah has so far talked about tragedies that affect the public. So maybe the Meiri has a point with the general idea, but this should put a lot more pressure on those who are leaders, or at least, obviously Jewish, to behave in a decent way.
The question of exile is interesting in that the mishnah brings the so-called “three biggies” – the three mitzvot one is not supposed to transgress even if one is threatened with death, namely, idol worship, sexual crimes and adultery. It adds the shemitah, and all those can be seen in the lens of “measure for measure” – those three things will bring exile, as will not taking care of the land.
The we move into the four moments of increased plague in the world. This is thematically connected to the fourth punishment listed in 5:8. All of them are connected to not giving to the poor the produce that is actually separated by God for them. This is the tithes (there are two different tithes for the poor) and the produce of shemitah, which is supposed to be left for the poor. Notice how many times the question of shemitah has been brought up, and notice how many times the question of tithes have been brought up, in these two mishnayot – there is a clear reinforcement of the obligation brought on the individual by the communal aspect of Judaism. The fourth reason for plague increase merits special recognition: the act of not leaving parts of the harvest for the poor. Those parts are pe’ah (the corners of the field), produce that fell during harvestig (leket) and produce that was forgotten (shichecha). Since the main harvest time in Israel is in the fall, it makes sense that it is then that the plague increases.
When we read the second paragraph of the Shema in English, we tend to be rubbed the wrong way since English makes no difference between the you in the plural and the you in the singular. But reading it in Hebrew indicates a thorough entanglement between the acts of the singular individual and what happens to the community. The rabbis in the Mishnah see that entanglement too, albeit in a more complex and complicated level.
(י) אַרְבַּע מִדּוֹת בָּאָדָם. הָאוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלִּי וְשֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלָּךְ, זוֹ מִדָּה בֵינוֹנִית. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים, זוֹ מִדַּת סְדוֹם. שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלְּךָ וְשֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלִּי, עַם הָאָרֶץ. שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלְּךָ וְשֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלָּךְ, חָסִיד. שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלִּי וְשֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלִּי, רָשָׁע:
(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.
Our mishnah continues the topic of four, this time focusing on four ways people deal with possessions. The manuscripts offer a bit of variation. The Kaufman manuscript has a lot of corrections on the second part, and the corrections seem just additions to a more concise text. All those additions are present in the Vilna, with the text of the Kaufman reading like this: “what is mine is yours, pious. What is yours is mine, evil.” The Cambridge manuscript presents us with “yours and mine are mine” to the evil character, with an extra vav, an obvious mistake, on the pious personality. The Munich brings that version in a better shape: “mine and yours is yours, pious; yours is mine and mine is mine, evil”. The Parma nanuscript and the Vilna edition bring the same text.
All the variations of the text show the same idea, however: the pious personality shares their possessions, the evil person takes the possessions from others; the unlearned has no sense of boundaries and mixes ownership, a regular person keeps the boundaries clear, possibly never sharing and this is how we get to a serious prodding of the mishnah: this is also the characteristic of those from Sodom. In Jewish thought Sodom was not destroyed because of its sexual mores, but because the townspeople did not share what they had at all (see Onkelos ad loc; Bereshit Rabbah 49:6; Sanhedrin 109b; Ketubot 103a; Eruvin 49a; Baba Batra 12b). So this should stay as a warning for us all.
(יא) אַרְבַּע מִדּוֹת בַּדֵּעוֹת. נוֹחַ לִכְעֹס וְנוֹחַ לִרְצוֹת, יָצָא שְׂכָרוֹ בְהֶפְסֵדוֹ. קָשֶׁה לִכְעֹס וְקָשֶׁה לִרְצוֹת, יָצָא הֶפְסֵדוֹ בִשְׂכָרוֹ. קָשֶׁה לִכְעֹס וְנוֹחַ לִרְצוֹת, חָסִיד. נוֹחַ לִכְעֹס וְקָשֶׁה לִרְצוֹת, רָשָׁע:
(11) There are four kinds of temperaments: 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.
The mishnah brings four middot among people, here translated as temperaments. This translations is not as dynamic as the word middot is, since middot are personal traits that can be changed througout time, with conscious effort. Temperament gives a much more static flavor to the word. The mishnah presents a clear preference: be slow to anger and quick to be appeased. All others are suboptimal. Our tradition believes that we have control not only on our choices and actions, but also in becoming our best. While we are born with certain genetic predispositions, we develop ourselves into being, into becoming. It is important to notice that the pious person still get angry from time to time, it is just not a habit. And in the rare occasions this happens, the pious person is easily pacified, meaning, they forgive easily and do not hold grudges.
(יב) אַרְבַּע מִדּוֹת בַּתַּלְמִידִים. מַהֵר לִשְׁמֹעַ וּמַהֵר לְאַבֵּד, יָצָא שְׂכָרוֹ בְהֶפְסֵדוֹ. קָשֶׁה לִשְׁמֹעַ וְקָשֶׁה לְאַבֵּד, יָצָא הֶפְסֵדוֹ בִשְׂכָרוֹ. מַהֵר לִשְׁמֹעַ וְקָשֶׁה לְאַבֵּד, חָכָם. קָשֶׁה לִשְׁמֹעַ וּמַהֵר לְאַבֵּד, זֶה חֵלֶק רָע:
(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.
Our mishnah proceeds with the number four, this time focusing on types of learners. It is fascinating to notice that while the Cambridge manuscript brings the same text as the Vilna edition, there are some variations in the Munich, Kaufman and Parma manuscripts. The Kaufman and Parma do not use the word תַּלְמִידִים, students, but the variation לְמֵידִים. The Munich manuscript brings even more than that, reading למדים לפני חכמים, literally “learners in the presence of sages”. And it brings the pair – זה חלק טוב... זה חלק רע this is a good portion… this is a bad portion; while all the other manuscripts substitute the “good portion” by the word חָכָם, sage.
Bartenura points out that “bad portion” has no judgment in it, but is a reality, something that is “a disadvantage given to him since the beginning of his creation”. In that sense, the Munich manuscript, too, is less judgmental, given that the word “sage” implies a moral standing in the world, which “good portion/bad portion does not. This “bad portion”, however, eventually leads to greater reward if the person insists in learning, as we know from Ben HeHe in Avot 5:23 “according to the effort is the reward” – this is pointed out by Rabbi Dr. Joshua Kulp. The Maharal, in his Derech Chayim, brings a few beautiful tidbits. He has the Munich manuscript’s version, and points out that the text could have said “this is an intermediate portion” for the two first ones. It does not, as it uses “יָצָא ב...” literally “came out with” which really means “emerged with”, which gives the mishnah a much needed descriptive flavor. As we all know, some people are gifted with the ability to understand things quickly in certain areas, and less quickly in others. But at the end of the day, and as neuroscience teaches, our brains are a lot more maleable and plastic, and given enough input of any difficult area, will adapt to make it happen. As Rav Avi Novis-Deutsch points out, the responsibility is all ours.
(יג) אַרְבַּע מִדּוֹת בְּנוֹתְנֵי צְדָקָה. הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיִּתֵּן וְלֹא יִתְּנוּ אֲחֵרִים, עֵינוֹ רָעָה בְּשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים. יִתְּנוּ אֲחֵרִים וְהוּא לֹא יִתֵּן, עֵינוֹ רָעָה בְשֶׁלּוֹ. יִתֵּן וְיִתְּנוּ אֲחֵרִים, חָסִיד. לֹא יִתֵּן וְלֹא יִתְּנוּ אֲחֵרִים, רָשָׁע:
(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.
Our mishnah continues with the topic of fours. This time, we are learning about four different types of givers of tzedakah. Bartenura is the first one to point out that the last one does not give, so it should be written בִּנְתִינַת הַצְּדָקָה, in the giving of tzedakah, and not “givers”. The term “evil eye” here is not how it is generally understood, which is some sort of negative energy that flows to another due to envy. Here, evil eye simply means “stingy”. Our first type is one who wants to give but wishes that others don’t. There are a few explanations for this type: either that person is giving so that they can receive honor, and therefore they do not want others to give because he does not want to share the spotlight (Yachin, Kulp); or that person is the main parent figure of a family, and does not want the rest of the family to give their own money away (Bartenura). Yachin adds that such a person thinks that the poor should not have it easy, and making sure not everyone gives is a way of ensuring that the poor will suffer at least a little, as befits their station, since such a person looks down on the poor. The Rambam will point out that the hasid is the one who has so much compassion for people that they want all people to be able to give and receive; the evil person is the cruelest among all. The Rambam worries about us developing cruel traits in many of his writings, and Yachin amplifies that, asking: how will the poor survive? Yachin will make a general observation regarding the wording of the mishnah, which is all about the future. The way one gives is also the way one looks at their own future, the future of others, the future of the poor and of society in general. The discreet action of tzedakah is a symbol of the big picture. Rav Avi Novis-Deutsch points out that this is the third time in Avot that the two characters, hasid and rasha or pious and evil are put side by side.
(יד) אַרְבַּע מִדּוֹת בְּהוֹלְכֵי לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. הוֹלֵךְ וְאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה, שְׂכַר הֲלִיכָה בְיָדוֹ. עוֹשֶׂה וְאֵינוֹ הוֹלֵךְ, שְׂכַר מַעֲשֶׂה בְיָדוֹ. הוֹלֵךְ וְעוֹשֶׂה, חָסִיד. לֹא הוֹלֵךְ וְלֹא עוֹשֶׂה, רָשָׁע:
(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.
Just like our previous mishnah, we have the juxtaposition of the pious person and the evil, and the same construction in which two of the four possibilities are not actually doing what is expected. This is the last mishnah in Avot in which we will see this structure – we saw four in total, and this does not seem to be a coincidence. It is important to see that the word עוֹשֶׂה, here translated as practice, does not mean doing mitzvot, but learning. Bartenura clarifies that in his commentary when he says that the first character listen but does not understand nor review the study, and that the second character is actually studying at home, just not going to the Beit Midrash. Maimonides will point out that the trait we are developing here is not being lazy, and that laziness is what characterizes the evil person in this mishnah. Yachin will add that the evil person stays away from the beit midrash and learning on purpose, and that the other two simply do not have the ability to be pious, they are subject to their circumstances.
(טו) אַרְבַּע מִדּוֹת בְּיוֹשְׁבִים לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים. סְפוֹג, וּמַשְׁפֵּךְ, מְשַׁמֶּרֶת, וְנָפָה. סְפוֹג, שֶׁהוּא סוֹפֵג אֶת הַכֹּל. מַשְׁפֵּךְ, שֶׁמַּכְנִיס בְּזוֹ וּמוֹצִיא בְזוֹ. מְשַׁמֶּרֶת, שֶׁמּוֹצִיאָה אֶת הַיַּיִן וְקוֹלֶטֶת אֶת הַשְּׁמָרִים. וְנָפָה, שֶׁמּוֹצִיאָה אֶת הַקֶּמַח וְקוֹלֶטֶת אֶת הַסֹּלֶת:
(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.
The mishnah turns to those who sit in front of the sages, divinding them into four categories. This is our last “four” – and wouldn’t you guess, we read seven of them. All manuscripts all bring the same opening, even though this opening gets to be repeated in the Munich manuscript, in 5:12. It is an interesting question to juxtapose the two, since 5:12 also talks about learning. Our present mishnah describes those who sit in front of the sages, and even though stylistically it seems not to prefer one over the other, in content, it certainly does. The sponge that absorbs it all is not critical in learning, and you could compare it with the sieve, that only retains the best – clearly what we think of sieve is not what they had. The other two types, the funnel that lets go of everything, and the strainer, that retains what is useless (lees are actually dead yeast in the process of wine, the only use that I know of is composting) are clearly not the best.
(טז) כָּל אַהֲבָה שֶׁהִיא תְלוּיָה בְדָבָר, בָּטֵל דָּבָר, בְּטֵלָה אַהֲבָה. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ תְּלוּיָה בְדָבָר, אֵינָהּ בְּטֵלָה לְעוֹלָם. אֵיזוֹ הִיא אַהֲבָה הַתְּלוּיָה בְדָבָר, זוֹ אַהֲבַת אַמְנוֹן וְתָמָר. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ תְּלוּיָה בְדָבָר, זוֹ אַהֲבַת דָּוִד וִיהוֹנָתָן:
(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.
This is a fairly famous mishnah, that tries to explain different types of what it calls “love”. In Hebrew, as in many languages, there is no different word to talk about love that is connected to consuming the other for one’s own desires or needs, and love that is connected to giving to the other. The mishnah brings two examples – and I want to give here a warning that in this commentary will talk about sexual violence.
.
.
.
.
.
The two examples brought by the mishnah are David and Yonatan on one side, and Amnon and Tamar on the other. In the Tanach, Amnon is infatuated with his half-sister Tamar, rapes and disgraces her (see II Samuel 13). Raping, as it is known, has to do with power. As soon as the act is commited, Amnon throws Tamar in the streets. We would not call this love, but maybe desire, lust. David and Yonatan are brought as the other extreme: Yonatan gives up being the next king in Israel for David, and Yonatan is the only person whom the Tanach says David actually loved – everyone else loves David and yet is not loved back by David (see the book David, by David Wolpe, for a great overview of David the King). The depth of Yonatan’s love for David is beautifully described in I Samuel 18:1-4. Nowadays there is a reading of romantic love between them. The manuscripts have an interesting discrepancies, some very intentional. For starters, the Munich and the Parma manuscripts have the order of the two mishnayot reversed, and have the next mishnah, which deals with disputes, first. The Kaufman and the Cambridge manuscripts have the pairing as Amnon AND Tamar, David AND Yonatan, with the connector vav. This is the version chosen by the Vilna. However, the Parma manuscript brings the text with the connector bet, and the second pairing reversed, and thus the reading would be Amnon FOR Tamar, and Yonatan FOR David. This version makes more sense, in my view: both Tamar and David are recipients of actions. David, for all the image he will eventually have, is in the receiving end of King Saul’s rage – and of Yonatan’s love. It is to David that Yonatan will give up his crown, as Saul makes clear in I Samuel 20:30. So this is really, at the end of the day, regardless of a romantic affair between the two, an example of a love that gives to the other everything, simply due to love. This is other-centered love. The contrast with the desire of Amnon and Tamar could not be clearer – Amnon’s “love” for Tamar is the same love that one has for a chocolate bar, a love that is self-centered and which, at the end of the day, ends when the person can no longer serve your needs. Abraham Twerski ztz”l brings the wisdom of the Rebbe of Kotsk and the hasid that loved fish: when asked if he loved the fish, the young hasid said yes. To which the rebbe of Kotsk said: because you love the fish you took it out of the water, killed it and you’re eating it? No, you don’t love the fish, you love yourself. Real love has to do with giving to, and not consuming, the object of our love.
Trying to explain the mishnah, Bartenura will say that the object of love of Amnon is Tamar’s beauty, and that David and Yonatan were trying to do the will of God. The traditional commentators will subsume the love of David and Yonatan, uncomfortable of course with the idea of homosexuality as part of King David’s image. There are those who like to describe their love as “unconditional, like the love of a parent for a child”. Yachin adds to the description of this love, the love for wisdom. He gives a good test: when asked “why do you love?” if the person cannot find a reason, that is love. The moment the person gives a reason, that is actually fish-love. In my estimation, there is a love of fish-love disguised as love, as humans can rationalize every behavior.
(יז) כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, אֵין סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת קֹרַח וְכָל עֲדָתוֹ:
(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.
Our Vilna edition, the Cambridge manuscript and the Kaufman manuscript proceed with the mishnah that deals with disputes for the sake of heaven. We saw yesterday that the Munich and the Parma manuscripts have the order of this and the previous mishnayot reversed. It is also interesting to note that the Kaufman and the Cambridge manuscripts have “Shammai and Hillel” instead of “Hillel and Shammai”. Given that one of the reasons that the halacha is like Beit Hillel is that they taught the laws of Shammai first, I personally prefer the version with Shammai’s name first. Parma has the ending קֹרַח וְעֲדָתוֹ “Korach and his congregation”, whereas the Kaufman and the Cambridge are missing “and his congregation”. The Munich adds the word וְכָל, and all [his congregation], ending with קֹרַח וְכָל עֲדָתוֹ which is the text of the Vilna.
Disputes and disagreements are very basic to Judaism, as it is to learn how to live with people who disagree. It is important to remember that at the time of the disputes between Hillel and Shammai there were people who followed Shammai – and the two schools still married each other. The reasons given for why the school of Hillel gets to be the “winner” has little to do with argumentation and everything to do with derech eretz, or basic civility (see Eruvin 13b). Bartenura explains that the reason the dispute of Hillel and Shammai survives, or endures, while Korach’s does not, is the basic intent: Korach and his band were looking for power and honor (see Numbers 16). Hillel and Shammai were looking for the truth. It is interesting to see that we would expect that Korach would be paired with Moshe, and even the rhythm of the Hebrew requires it, but that does not happen. Kulp affirms that this is because Korach and Moshe did not have the same motives – and we could understand that this is why Korach and his band are wiped out in the story, being either swallowed by fire or by the earth. Yachin points out that this mishnah connects with the words of rabbi Yochanan HaSandlar on Avot 4:11. Derech Chayim returns to the interconnectedness of the mishnayot, and affirm that the students who are able to absorb both opinions are like a sponge, the ones who can’t absorb any opinion are the funnel, the ones who only retain the opinion that is like the halacha is the strainer and the one who retains only what is not halacha is the sieve. In his reading, Heaven does not accept arguments – unless they are for the sake of Heaven, and so then the argument endures.
(יח) כָּל הַמְזַכֶּה אֶת הָרַבִּים, אֵין חֵטְא בָּא עַל יָדוֹ. וְכָל הַמַּחֲטִיא אֶת הָרַבִּים, אֵין מַסְפִּיקִין בְּיָדוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה. משֶׁה זָכָה וְזִכָּה אֶת הָרַבִּים, זְכוּת הָרַבִּים תָּלוּי בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים לג) צִדְקַת ה' עָשָׂה וּמִשְׁפָּטָיו עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל. יָרָבְעָם חָטָא וְהֶחֱטִיא אֶת הָרַבִּים, חֵטְא הָרַבִּים תָּלוּי בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלכים א טו) עַל חַטֹּאות יָרָבְעָם (בֶּן נְבָט) אֲשֶׁר חָטָא וַאֲשֶׁר הֶחֱטִיא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל:
(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).
The Vilna edition and the manuscripts are remarkably consistent in this mishnah, with the exception of the Cambridge manuscript that does not bring the part of Yeravam ben Nebat at all.
As we have been opposing the pious (hasid) and the evil (rasha) archetypes, here too we see the Moshe being contrasted to Yerovam ben Nebat. The issue is the question of making others, the public, merit. The profound responsibility of the leader is put clearly in this mishnah. The hability of the leader to do teshuvah for misleading the public is, to put it mildly, non-existent – and that is that leader’s punishment. At the same time, one who strives to make the public do the right thing will not sin accidentally – and that is that leader’s reward. Even though, says the Rambam in Eight Chapters 8:14-16, generally people are given the opportunity to repent, those who sin of their own desire and then make others sin cannot make teshuvah. If we remind ourselves that teshuvah is a process that requires making amends and repairing the situation, it is logically impossible for someone who made others sin to fix all the reverberations of those actions. There is a beautiful book that explores this specific issue in depth, by Rabbi Yosef Yozel Hurwitz of Navaradok, and it is called “To Turn the Many to Righteousness”, translated to English by Shraga Silverstein from Feldheim. It bases itself in a piece in the Talmud, in Ketubot 103b, in which Rabbi Chiya is described as someone who spread out Torah in a very down-to-earth way: going to each village, he taught five children, to each one of the books of Torah, and got them to teach one another. He did the same with the six orders of the Mishnah. It is a great story and a wonderful book.
(יט) כָּל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים הַלָּלוּ, מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ. וּשְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים אֲחֵרִים, מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל בִּלְעָם הָרָשָׁע. עַיִן טוֹבָה, וְרוּחַ נְמוּכָה, וְנֶפֶשׁ שְׁפָלָה, מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ. עַיִן רָעָה, וְרוּחַ גְּבוֹהָה, וְנֶפֶשׁ רְחָבָה, מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל בִּלְעָם הָרָשָׁע. מַה בֵּין תַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ לְתַלְמִידָיו שֶׁל בִּלְעָם הָרָשָׁע. תַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, אוֹכְלִין בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְנוֹחֲלִין בָּעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ח) לְהַנְחִיל אֹהֲבַי יֵשׁ, וְאֹצְרֹתֵיהֶם אֲמַלֵּא. אֲבָל תַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל בִּלְעָם הָרָשָׁע יוֹרְשִׁין גֵּיהִנֹּם וְיוֹרְדִין לִבְאֵר שַׁחַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים נה) וְאַתָּה אֱלֹהִים תּוֹרִידֵם לִבְאֵר שַׁחַת, אַנְשֵׁי דָמִים וּמִרְמָה לֹא יֶחֱצוּ יְמֵיהֶם, וַאֲנִי אֶבְטַח בָּךְ:
(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).
The Vilna edition presents a version for the first sentence that does not follow exactly any of the manuscripts. The Kaufman opens with כָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים, תַּלְמִידוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ. וּשְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים, תַּלְמִידוֹ שֶׁל בִּלְעָם. It excludes the epithet “rasha”, הָרָשָׁע the evil, for Bilam; it has the possesive as the singular for “student”, and not the plural as brought by the Vilna; and it presents a more concise version, without the word בְּיָדוֹ “possess” or literally “in his hand”, and without the word מִי, here translated as “who”. The closest version to the Vilna is found in the Munich manuscript: that manuscript does bring the epithet “rasha” for Bilam, and adds the words “these” and “these others”; the word for students is in the plural. So the text there reads: “כָּל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים הַלָּלוּ, מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ. וּשְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים אֲחֵרִים, מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל בִּלְעָם הָרָשָׁע (note the only discrepancy between this version and the Vilna is the בְּיָדוֹ ”in his hand”). The Parma has its own version, adding the word מי and, more importantly, adding the words טובים, good, and רעים, bad, added after the word דברים, things. It has the possessive as the singular, similar to the Kaufman, but makes a point of joining the connector שֶׁל, of, to both names: שלאברהם, and , שלבלעם. Another interesting piece is that the Parma does not bring any epithet, whether for Avraham or Bilam. Finally, the Cambridge has the version closest to the Kaufman, with the exception of the epithet אָבִינוּ “our father” for Avraham. All the manuscripts agree on the qualities for Avraham, but not all agree with the qualities for Bilam, as the Parma brings נפש קצרה nefesh ketzarah “stringent, small soul”. As for the destiny of the followers, Kaufman, Parma and Cambridge begin with the students of Bilam, contrary to the Vilna edition and the Munich manuscript, which begin with Avraham’s. The prooftexts are all the same for all versions.
In terms of content, the choices presented are clear, as the destiny. We choose where we go through what character traits we choose to develop, and this is a fundamental idea in our tradition. It is interesting to note that the Mishnah in Sanhedrin 10:2 affirms that Bilam does not have a place in the world to come – so maybe being a follower one still gets to Gehinom, which even though it is usually translated as hell, does not imply eternal damnation as other traditions using this word do. Being a leader for evil, however, does not get you any place in the world to come – and this reverberates with the mishnah about rabbis driven to evil waters, Avot 1:11 – the followers, due to their own limitations, are still savageable, the leaders, people with open eyes, knowing what they are doing, having a larger vision of a plan, they in fact loose it all.
(כ) יְהוּדָה בֶן תֵּימָא אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי עַז כַּנָּמֵר, וְקַל כַּנֶּשֶׁר, וְרָץ כַּצְּבִי, וְגִבּוֹר כָּאֲרִי, לַעֲשׂוֹת רְצוֹן אָבִיךָ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמָיִם.
(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.
In this short mishnah, all the manuscripts and the Vilna edition are similar. This and the remaining mishnayot in this chapter, as well of chapter six, are seen as added in post-Mishnaic times. It is surprising that the Mishnah returns to sayings of specific sages, without creating a new chapter – we will see in the next mishnah that it sounds as there is an end here. Yehuda ben Teima was active between 110 and 135 CE, being a tanna of the fourth generation. This is the only place in the corpus of the Mishnah that Yehuda ben Teima is mentioned and therefore not much more is known about him. Traditionally his tomb is in the area of Alma and Dalton near Tzefat in the hills of Upper Galilee.
All the traits that can be compared to animals are present in a human being, and they all should and could be used to do good in the world, here called “the will of the Parent in Heaven”. Each of the four animal traits are seen differently by the sages. Bartenura, in a clear display of 15th century biology, believes that the leopard is a mix between a lioness and a wild boar. Be as it may, he sees the word , here translated as “strong” as “brazen”, and says that a student needs to have no shame when asking questions. The eagle teaches us to pursue wisdom; the deer to run after mitzvot; the lion to conquer our evil impulse. Maimonides explains that all vices have a kernel of good when used properly. Yachin points out that every person has things to do for the good, both in action and in the refusal to action, and one needs to know what to chose. He then also explains that each action and inaction has a part that is physical and a part that is spiritual. He points out that the leopard is corageous, and from that one should never say ‘I’m so small, let the great tzadikim do this’. And at the same time, once the action is chosen, one should be like a leopard and not cower, even though the leopard is not the strongest of animals. This is the active physical action. The eagle teaches us never to despair to understand deep thoughts – just as the eagle raises itself towards the sun, so too we should raise ourselves and eventually we will understand all the deep thoughts and passages. This is the active spiritual search. The deer runs from those who want to trap it, and so too we should run from the tendency to believe we can conquer everything with our minds. This, says Yachin, maps on the passive spiritual search – just don’t let yourself be trapped by such thoughts. Finally, the courage of the lion is a symbol to be corageous to fight against the yetzer hara and not fall into its desires – so he represents the passive physical inaction.
הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, עַז פָּנִים לְגֵיהִנֹּם, וּבֹשֶׁת פָּנִים לְגַן עֵדֶן. יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ יְיָ אֱלֹהֵינוּ שֶׁתִּבְנֶה עִירְךָ בִּמְהֵרָה בְיָמֵינוּ וְתֵן חֶלְקֵנוּ בְתוֹרָתֶךָ:
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.
We continue with 5:20, which is in the Kaufman manuscript separated into two mishnayot. The second saying of Yehuda ben Teima. Our manuscripts begin to differ in significant ways. The Munich manuscript does not have this mishnah – it has the saying of Shmuel Hakatan, repeated from 4:19! And continues with this chapter (a few more sentences) and chapter 6. The other three manuscripts (Kaufman, Parma and Cambridge) end at the end of this chapter, and will be with us for three more mishnayot, with another saying of Yehuda ben Teima, one from Ben Heh Heh and another from Ben Bag Bag. It is important to note that our present mishnah gives a prayer at the end, hinting to an end to the masechet: May it be the will, Ad-nai our God, that your city be rebuilt speedily in our days and set our portion in the studying of your Torah. So the next three mishnayot seem to be added later, and from the fact that the only manuscript that will bring chapter 6 is the Munich manuscript, that entire chapter seems to follow that addition.
Saying of Yehuda ben Teima separates the next world into two: Gehinom and Gan Eden. To Gehinom belong the עַז פָּנִים, translated here as arrogant, literally meaning ‘strong faced’. In Proverbs 21:29 we have these words being used as “the evil person has strenght in their face”. Yachin will point out that the word is used in the first saying of Yehuda ben Teima, there, in order to be brazen as the leopard to do God’s will – there it is an internal trait. Here, the warning is against an external trait, ie, being brazen in front of other people, particularly those older and wiser than you. In Gan Eden belongs בֹשֶׁת פָּנִים, here translated as “the blushing”, ie, those who blush at the sight of their mistakes. Yachin points out that if you blush easily, you are not inclined to do sins and mistakes, and that protects you. The Jewish people, according to Yevamot 79a are distinguished by three traits, one is that they are easily ashamed – the other two are that we do gemilut hasadim, acts of loving kindness, and that we are compassionate.
(כא) הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, בֶּן חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים לַמִּקְרָא, בֶּן עֶשֶׂר לַמִּשְׁנָה, בֶּן שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה לַמִּצְוֹת, בֶּן חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה לַתַּלְמוּד, בֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה לַחֻפָּה, בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים לִרְדֹּף, בֶּן שְׁלשִׁים לַכֹּחַ, בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים לַבִּינָה, בֶּן חֲמִשִּׁים לָעֵצָה, בֶּן שִׁשִּׁים לַזִּקְנָה, בֶּן שִׁבְעִים לַשֵּׂיבָה, בֶּן שְׁמֹנִים לַגְּבוּרָה, בֶּן תִּשְׁעִים לָשׁוּחַ, בֶּן מֵאָה כְּאִלּוּ מֵת וְעָבַר וּבָטֵל מִן הָעוֹלָם:
(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.
(כב) בֶּן בַּג בַּג אוֹמֵר, הֲפֹךְ בָּהּ וַהֲפֹךְ בָּהּ, דְּכֹלָּא בָהּ. וּבָהּ תֶּחֱזֵי, וְסִיב וּבְלֵה בָהּ, וּמִנַּהּ לֹא תָזוּעַ, שֶׁאֵין לְךָ מִדָּה טוֹבָה הֵימֶנָּה:
(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.
The mishnah 5:21, which is fairly famous as it is a source for 13 being the age of bar mitzvah, is missing on the Kaufman, Cambridge and Parma manuscripts. Since we are following Rav Avi Novis-Deutsch and the Kaufman manuscript, we will briefly note that mishnah and continue with 5:22, with the words of Ben Bag Bag.
His full name is Yochanan ben Bag Bag, and he was apparently a tanna active between 20 and 40 CE, under Hilel the Elder. According to legend, Ben Bag Bag and Ben He He (the author of the next mishnah) were converts in a time when Roman authorities forbade conversion – and therefore those are not their real names, but nicknames. Both nicknames are in essence the letter “heh”: Ben Heh Heh is obvious, Ben Bag Bag is because bet has the value of two and gimmel is three in gematria, summing up we have five, and Heh is the fifth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Ben Bag Bag is mentioned several times in the Bavli (Menachot 49b, Bekhorot 12a, Kiddushin 10b, Bava Kamma 28a and more), and a few times in the Yerushalmi (Pesachin 9:5, Ketubot 5:4, Sanhedrin 8:3). For the linguists, this is fascinating mishnah since it combines both Hebrew and aramaic in its sentences. What is absolutely fascinating is that you won’t find this sentence – or the next – in the Munich manuscript. But you will find it in the Parma and Cambridge. Ben Bag Bag affirms two things: everything is contained in Torah somehow, the only thing you as a student need to do is to revolve it, as in turning it over and over, and revolve around it – and you will find everything in it. A very famous saying, even though the second part usually is not mentioned: grow old, don’t abandon it, because there is no greater trait than it. This really means that the study of Torah needs to be internalized, and transform you throughout your life. Living a meaningful Torah centered life is a lifelong project, not something that ends at any point. The more you look into it, the greater and deeper meanings you will find.
(כג) בֶּן הֵא הֵא אוֹמֵר, לְפוּם צַעֲרָא אַגְרָא:
(23) Ben He He said: According to the labor is the reward.
In our last mishnah, we find the words of a sage called Ben He He. The saying is in Aramaic, and that is quite relevant. We know very little about Ben He He – traditionally, he is considered a tanna active between 20 and 40 CE, and as we mentioned before, a convert whose real name was hidden to protect him from persecutions. This is his only sentence in all of rabbinic literature. Translated here as “labor” the word צַעֲרָא in rabbinic parlance it has the connotation of suffering as well. There are those who translate it in this instance as “effort” – learning deeply comes through conscious effort, as with all things that we get good at. The reward is not specified, and it can mean our own personal growth.
This is the last mishnah in the masechet according to the Kaufman manuscript. It is also the end of the masechet according to Parma and Cambridge, only the Munich has chapter 6 – which is also why the Vilna edition has that chapter as well. The sixth chapter itself begins with “the sages taught in the language of the Mishnah, blessed is the one who chose them and their Mishnah”. Even though the chapter brings teachings in the names of Tannaim, it is clearly added later – possibly because there are six shabbatot between Pesach and Shavuot, when Avot was traditionally studied. The last chapter, which we will not study since Rav Avi Novis-Deutsch is following the Kaufman manuscript, is originally part of the minor tractate Kallah. Our last mishnah is not present in the Munich manuscript, but Ben Bag Bag’s words close the entirety of the chapter six in that manuscript.
Let’s close our study today with the traditional parting greeting for a masechet: הֲדְרָן עֲלָךְ מַסֶּכֶת אבות וְהֲדְרָךְ עֲלָן
We will return to you, and you will return to us, Masechet Avot!