MOSES RECEIVED THE TORAH AT SINAI. Rav explains “at Sinai” as really meaning “from the one who was revealed at Sinai,” i.e., G-d. And when G-d revealed Himself there, Moses received the Torah, down to its particulars and subtleties, and he did not bring forth any new laws himself, as per the Sifri that Rashi quotes in his Torah commentary to parashat Behar (Leviticus 25:1). To make this point, the mishna says “at Sinai.” This is not without purpose, as it points to the truth of the religion. “It is unique unto its mother”—that being the nation of Israel, who received it, “and it is the choicest of the one who birthed it”—the students, who are children of G-d.³ Moses received everything, even the novel interpretations of a seasoned scholar, at Sinai, as per the verse (Deuteronomy 9:10), “And G-d gave me the two stone tablets, inscribed by the finger of the Lord, and (what was written) upon them was as all the things God had said to you on the mountain out of the fire on the day of assembly,” which the Sages expounded in Megillah 19b as follows: This teaches that G-d showed Moses even the most subtle points of the Torah [Heb. dikdukei Torah]and of the Sofrim [Heb. dikdukei Sofrim]. I explain in my introduction to the Mishna that the dikdukei Sofrim were indeed only “shown” to Moshe.⁴ As such, the word “received” here must refer only to the greater part of the material. In the introduction to his commentary on the Torah, Rambansimilarly explains the word “created” in the phrase “fifty levels of understanding were created in the word” as referring to most but not all of those levels, as the fiftieth was not created.

footnotes: ³ Based on Song of Songs, 6:9. ⁴ And not “given” or “taught” to him, which TYT understands to mean that Moses did not acquire that knowledge the same way he acquired the main body of the Torah but was given some kind of lesser familiarity with it.

AND TRANSMITTED IT TO JOSHUA. All that he received, he transmitted to Joshua. But it cannot be said that G-d transmitted the Torah in its entirety to Moses, because not the entire Torah that G-d possessed was transmitted to him, as the fiftieth gate was not transmitted to him,⁵ as the Sages expounded (Rosh HaShanah 21b) on the verse (Psalms 8:6) “And you have made him only slightly less than the Lord.” Therefore, in speaking of Moses the mishnah says that he “received” it, i.e. whatever he could receive, he received at Sinai. Thus do the commentaries explain it.

footnotes: ⁵ Transmission here is understood to mean giving all that one has.

AND THE PROPHETS TRANSMITTED IT TO THE MEN OF THE GREAT ASSEMBLY. This is to point out that although not all the members of the Great Assembly were prophets, the entire Torah was transmitted to them as it was transmitted to their predecessors. From hereon, however, the generations waned and the entire Torah could not be transmitted to them; rather, each one received as much as he was able. Even so, what Torah he did acquire was part of the tradition, having passed sage from sage and going back to Moses at Sinai.

THE GREAT ASSEMBLY. Rav writes that they were called this because they “returned the crown to its former glory… Jeremiah and Daniel came, and did not say ‘the mighty and awesome one’ (Yoma 69b).” Jeremiah said, “The great and mighty one, whose name is Lord of Hosts (Jeremiah 32:18)”, but did not say “awesome”. Daniel said, “The great and awesome one (Daniel 9:4 ),” but did not say “mighty.”

THEY SAID THREE THINGS. Ravwrites that of their many sayings, these three were the ones touching on the continuity of Torah. Later in Avot, 2:10, where the mishna also says “they said three things,” Rav offers as an alternate explanation that these were the dicta they constantly emphasized, as he writes on Avot 1:2.

AND YOU SHOULD TRAIN [lit. stand them up] MANY STUDENTS. They used the word haamidu*, whose root *amad means “to stand,” because from the time of Moses until the time of Rabban Gamliel the students would stand during their studies (Megillah 21a) [as Rav writes on Sotah 9:16], while the master would sit on a chair—so Midrash Shmuel, in the name of R. Yosef ibn Nahamias. While this is a good derivation of the term haamidu*, it does not convey the thrust of the mishna, which is not that the students should stand or sit, but that they should study. So why doesn’t the mishna, in accordance with its primary intent, simply use the verb “teach”? It seems that the mishna uses this verb, *haamidu, to emphasize that one ought to stand them up on their feet to the point that they don’t falter, i.e. to stand them on their feet in truly understanding Torah. This is called “standing” and “enduring” [kiyum, related to Heb. kam, “arose”], just as the Rabbinic expression says of a lie that it “has no legs on which to stand,” and as the Poet says, “My feet had nearly faltered” (Psalms, 73:2). And it is because the mishna dictated that one train many students that it had to use haamidu*, to emphasize that although one ought to train many students, their studies should still be such that they should stand upon their own feet and reach truth in their learning. Anything else cannot properly be called *haamadah, training a student and standing him upon his feet; such students rather “lie in slumber” (Isaiah 56:10), in the sleep of foolishness. The upshot of all this is that we do not fulfill this dictum unless we teach truth and righteousness and nothing else. Cf. my comments on mishna 6.

THE WORLD STANDS. Rav understands this expression as “the world was only created for the purpose of.” Midrash Shmuel in his commentary to the last mishna in this chapter notes that he has found editions in which the text of our mishna has “for three things the world was created.”

ON THE TORAH. Rav: had Israel not accepted the Torah, the heavens and the earth would not have been created, as per the verse “If not for my covenant, etc.”(Jeremiah 33:25). Rav was led to this interpretation because he was bothered by the superfluousness of “the sacrificial service, and acts of kindness” in the text, for both of these are commandments, the fulfillment of which is already included in “the Torah”; he therefore understood that the Torah must refer not to the Torah itself but to its acceptance. The verse in Jeremiah is now read as “if not for my covenant which you have accepted, I would not have established the day or the night, nor even the laws of the heavens and the earth.” See the mishna in Nedarim 3:11 for a similar interpretive turn. The difficulty with this is that the mishna is using the expression “the world stands on three things” to convey the importance of doing those things, and in Rav’s reading *“*the Torah” refers not to anything that one ought to do but to a historical event, and is out of place here. It seems, therefore, that “the Torah” here refers to the study and learning of Torah as opposed to the act of following its laws. The verse in Jeremiah, then, reads “if not for the study of my covenant by day and night, etc,” as per the verse “You shall study it day and night” (Hosea 1:8). The words “had Israel not accepted the Torah” do not appear in Rashi’s commentary, which simply reads: On the Torah, as per the verse “If not for my covenant, etc.”.

AND ON THE SACRIFICIAL SERVICE. Rav: *the sacrificial service, as the tannaim taught in tractate Taanit*, “*if not for the shifts of priests offering sacrifices, etc.”* So also **Rashi**. They used the term *shaninu*⁶ loosely, however, for this text does not appear in a mishna or baraita, and is actually an amoraic memra in the Talmud, Taanit 27b: Rabbi Yaakov bar Acha said in the name of Rav Assi etc. To be precise, the language of that memra is “if not for the shifts of priests offering sacrifices, the heavens and earth would not continue to exist”, and as such we cannot deduce therefrom that it is for the sake of these shifts that the heavens and earth were created. Granted, now that the heavens and earth have been created their continued existence is through the shifts of priests, but perhaps the shifts would not have been sufficient reason to have brought them into existence; for it is a greater feat to create something ex nihilo than to continue the existence of that which has already been created. So how does this memra show that the sacrificial service is so essential that the world was created and brought into being on account of it? This memra also appears in Megillah 31b, and the passage there reads as follows: It was said: Rabbi Ami said, if not for the shifts of priests offering sacrifices, the heavens and the earth would not continue to exist, as per the verse “If not for my covenant, I would not have established the day or night, nor even the laws of the heavens and the earth (Jeremiah 33:25)”, and the verse “And he said, Lord, G-d, how can I know that I will inherit it? (Genesis 15:8)”. *Our father Abraham said, Master of the world! Perhaps, G-d forbid, Israel will sin before you, and you will do to them as you did to the generation of the flood and the generation of the dispersion? G-d said to him, I shall not. Abraham said, “how can I know (Genesis 15:8)?” G-d said, “Take for me three calves, etc. (Genesis 15:9).”*⁷ This passage understands the “covenant” in Jeremiah as referring to the “covenant made between the pieces” in Genesis 15, and therefore the verse reads “If not for my covenant, i.e. the covenant made between the pieces…” And the end of the verse says “I would not have established,” so the sacrificial service must be sufficient reason for the establishment and creation of the world. Should one object that this is all very well for as long as the Temple is standing, but what of when is has been destroyed? One answer is that it was the period of the Temple’s existence that G-d foresaw and which itself sufficed for him to create the world. Additionally, the passage there concludes: Abraham said, Master of the world! This is all very well for as long as the Temple is standing. What will be with them when the Temple is no longer standing? G-d said to him, I have already arranged the passages dealing with sacrificial law for them. Whenever they read these passages, I will consider it as if they had brought the sacrifices before me and I will forgive all their sins. Rashi’s commentary on Ta`anit ad loc., however, says, “This is a corrupted passage, for how do they see this?”

footnotes: ⁶ Lit. “we have learnt,” a term used to indicate a tannaitic as opposed to amoraic text. ⁷ The “covenant made between the pieces,” which itself was a sacrifice, is understood to represent all sacrificial service.

THE MAN [Heb. ish] OF SOCHO. He was the lord of a place called Socho. Ish here means “lord,” as in the mishna (Yoma 1:3) “Ishi, High Priest!” Rav, in his commentary there, explains Ishi as “my lord.” [*Cf. the mishna in Challah 4:10, s.v. Ish Teko`a.]

BE NOT LIKE SERVANTS SERVING THE MASTER FOR PAY. Rav: rather, out of love alone. In other words, the mishna enjoins that the service be out of love alone, for this is the truest kind of service. It does not mean to say, however, that that service for pay is forbidden, as in either case he is serving G-d; for this reason our perfect Torah did not see unfit to mention rewards and punishments. One who serves in the hopes of earning reward or avoiding pain is simply not on the level of the one who serves out of love alone, whose service has no secondary intention whatsoever. And the tanna wished to enjoin us to be among those who serve out of love alone, but not to exclude one who serves in the hopes of earning reward from the category of those who serve! This is not the case, as the Sages say in Bava Batra 10b: One who says, “I give thisselato charity that my son should live!” or “...that I should have a share in the world to come!” is perfectly righteous. Furthermore, if one takes the opposite position, one cuts the very legs out from under the nation of Israel!⁸ For “where is the weigher, where is the counter” (Isaiah 33:18) who shall say that so-and-so is one who truly serves out of love alone?⁹ And can it be good in G-d’s eyes that anyone who serves Him with the intent that the rewards promised by the Torah itself be fulfilled—that same Torah which has been communicated to us from His mouth—that such a one not receive his good lot on account of this? It pleases not their Master that people should say thus! Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi says as much in Avot 2:1: Consider the loss incurred in doing a mitzvah against the reward for doing it, per my explanation there. Similarly, in 2:16: And you have a faithful taskmaster, who shall pay your wages. Cf. what I’ve written there on And you should know what reward awaits the righteous in the future. And we further see that there can be nothing wrong with this from the story of Azariah the brother of Simon, related in the mishna in Zevachim 1:2.¹⁰ As mentioned above, the tanna of our mishna does not prohibit this, and I say that his own words prove it, which he chose with care in order that we shouldn’t misunderstand them. For why would he say “be not like servants serving the master for pay” when he could simply have said “do not serve for pay,” which would have gotten the point across to his students more succinctly? By saying “be not like servants who serve the master for pay” he taught that even those who serve for pay are servants at any rate, just that one should not be like them but greater than they, and should serve out of love alone. I saw that our master Maharal, in his commentary on Avot, Derech Chaim, deals with the question of why the mishna continues and says “but rather be like servants who serve the master without thought of pay” and doesn’t simply stop at “be not like servants serving the master for pay”. He writes that had the tanna said only “be not like servants serving the master for pay” the implication would have been that he prohibits being like servants serving the master for pay, while in fact there is no such prohibition and one who does so is even completely righteous. He means only that there is a level and grade above that one, which is serving out of love alone. It is for this reason that he goes back and explicitly says “rather, be like servants etc.”, to explain that he means only that one should aspire to be a servant serving without thought of pay. All this is the opinion of Maharal. Now you can see how this tanna has, in his wisdom and perfection, very cleverly worded his teaching. For with the first phrase he taught that one should not deny the value of those who serve for pay and that they are still called servants, and he then further clarified this by saying “rather be etc.”, i.e. I mean only that you should rather be thus, but not that it is forbidden to serve for pay; the main point is to show you the utmost level of perfection, in which you should be serving out of love alone, not to prohibit the other kind of service. At this point, there is certainly no way to misunderstand the words of the tanna the way Tzadok and Baitos did, who claimed that he meant to say that there is no pay to be received at all, as Rav mentions in his commentary to mishna 11. Still, he should have made it completely clear to the point that whosever was listening would have understood this. [*I saw that the Tosafot in Rosh HaShana, at the beginning of page 4a, write that our mishna discusses the case of gentiles, who tend to regret the good deed they have done if they are not rewarded for it. I find this quite odd—can it be that the tanna has decided to discuss idolaters? All the more so in tractate Avot, which collects the dicta the Sages constantly emphasized, at least according to one opinion mentioned by Rav above in mishna 2. And certainly Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi shouldn’t have set it down in the mishna, if these words are only concerning idolaters! But I was put at ease when I saw their words in Pesachim, at the top of 8b, where they write that our mishna is discussing a case of one who will have anguish and regret over the charity he has given if whatever good thing he is hoping for doesn’t come to pass, but one who has no anguish and regret is completely righteous, and the Talmud in Rosh HaShana 4a and Bava Batra 10b seems to say as much. Accordingly, when the Tosafot say our mishna is discussing an idolater, they mean that simply as an example of someone who regrets having done a good deed, as the Talmud there says. But our mishna is discussing a Jew having this regret. And what they mean to say is that our mishna is discussing the case of, for example, an idolater, etc., which is to say a Jew who regrets it, just like the average idolater who regrets it.]

footnotes: ⁸ In rabbinic literature, in order to avoid making a damning or frightening statement about some party, one refers to said party by a name that usually denotes its opposite. Here, in order to avoid saying “one cuts the legs out from under Israel” in Hebrew, the author actually writes “one cuts the legs out from under the haters of Israel.” Cf. Sanhedrin 106a. ⁹ This is a societal problem, for Jewish law prescribes respect and reverence for those who are considered servants of G-d. Once only those who serve out of love alone are considered servants of God, it is impossible to determine who is and isn’t such a one, and the category has lost any legal or cultural relevance. ¹⁰ Azariah provided for his brother Simon in order that he should have a portion of the reward for Simon’s Torah studies.

PAY [Heb. p’ras]. Rav: this[p’ras] is what one gives someone who has served him, but whom he is not legally obligated to pay anything, and by this he means to distinguish p’ras from sachar, for sachar is what one must pay by law. So also Rambam.

WITHOUT THOUGHT OF RECEIVING PAY. A different version of our mishna has the text “intending not to receive pay”. I cannot understand that version, for it is impossible that one should serve only on condition that he not receive pay, for the implication is that should he receive pay, he will not serve. Midrash Shmuel writes that the case in the first version is one who serves without declaring that he is doing so specificaly to receive pay; he is still aware that the pay will come, and does have hopes of reward. On the other hand, one who serves intending not to receive pay is one who explicitly serves not in order to receive pay but out of love alone. While this is improves matters exegetically, it doesn’t fit the language of that other version well. As for his criticism of the first version, that even one who serves out of love alone still knows that the reward will eventually come, I would not call such a one someone who serves out of love; in fact, he is the archetypal servant who serves for reward! One who serves out of love alone is he who constantly finds his service insufficient and, because of his great love of G-d, feels that he has not served properly. As Hillel says in mishna 14, “And I for myself, what am I?”, according to Rav's commentary ad loc.¹¹? Not only does he hold no anticipation of reward, he fears for his soul lest he sin by falling short in his service, which is what the tanna intends by his last words, “and the fear of heaven should be upon you”, as I will explain. This was the way of the patriarchs. Although our father Abraham was promised seed he afterwards said, “and I remain childless” (Genesis 15:2).¹² This is why G-d was called “the fear of Isaac” (Genesis 31: 42),¹³ and Jacob likewise feared that perhaps he had been sullied by sin.¹⁴ This is the portion and these are the thoughts of the servants of G-d who serve out of love alone; there is no anticipation of reward whatsoever. And so the version before us is correct—so it seems to me.

footnotes: ¹¹ Rav there: even if I have accrued merit for myself, what is this merit and what is it worth when considered against what I am truly obligated to do ¹² The author is most likely recalling Ramban’s commentary on that verse, which points out that although Abraham had already been promised offspring, he feared that his sins might have annulled the promise. ¹³ I.e., the one before whom Isaac feared the consequences of his sins. ¹⁴ As per the Talmud’s exegesis in Berachot 4a on Genesis 32:8.

AND THE FEAR OF HEAVEN SHOULD BE UPON YOU. Rav: one who serves out of fear will take care not to transgress a negative commandment. So also Rambam. But according to what I wrote above, this is a part of service out of love.¹⁵ The euphemism “heaven” for “G-d” is to indicate that this fear should not be a fear of punishment, which would yield a superficial kind of service with a hint of personal interest. The “fear” referred to here is awe of His greatness, and this is conveyed by the use of “heaven” because the heavens are where His greatness can be seen, i.e. in the creations of the heavens and all their hosts and ceaseless motions—so it seems to me.

footnotes: ¹⁵ Tosafot Yom Tov writes above that one who serves out of love is always afraid that he has not served properly.

YOSSI BEN YOEZER. **Rav**: *all of the tannaim menioned in this chapter are pairs—so-and-so and so-and-so received the tradition from so-and-so and so-and-so—the first one in the pair was the Nassi*¹⁶*and the second was the Av Beit Din*¹⁷, per the mishna in Chagiga 2:2. **Tosafot**, commenting on the Talmud ad loc. (s.v. *Yossi*), write in the name of the Jerusalem Talmud that the period of Yossi ben Yoezer and Yossi ben Yochanan saw the first unresolved legal dispute in Israel. Based on this, I say that no pairs preceding them are mentioned because there was one head in each generation and he had no competing peer, whereas starting with them the “rope was unraveled” and there were two leaders. Even so the Torah of each was authentic, as they had each received the tradition, and the disputes arose only concerning decisions that depended on reasoning or that had to be resolved through one of the thirteen rules of interpretation,¹⁸ as Rambam writes at length in his introuction to the Mishna.

footnotes: ¹⁶ The supervisor of the Sanhedrin and leader of the Jews recognized by the Roman government. ¹⁷ The highest-ranking member of the Sanhedrin. ¹⁸ The thirteen rules of R. Yishmael found at the beginning of the Sifra.

RECEIVED THE TRADITION FROM THEM. Ramah explains “them” as referring to Simon and Antigonos. R. Yosef ibn Nahmias, quoted in Midrash Shmuel, writes that they first studied under Simon the Righteous, who died before they had completed their studies; they then went and studied under Antigonos, who held the post of Simon the Righteous until his death. They in turn filled his position. But what Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Yehuda Lerma, that it was actually their contemporaries who “received the tradition from them,” and that this is how one might read each instance of “receiving” in this chapter—this seems quite dubious. For even though there is some slight support for this reading from the fact that the mishna does not explicitly say “they received the tradition from Simon and Antigonos” the way it says earlier of Antigonos that he “received the tradition from Simon,” on the whole this interpretation is quite unlikely. First of all, it would be strange to mention that others received the tradition from them while not mentioning that they received the tradition themselves. Secondly, the tanna’s main point in mentioning the tradition is to show that the chain of tradition starts at Sinai and passes from scholar to scholar down to this author, whose work is a compilation of their dicta. And there are versions that have “from him” in the text. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of the Rashbatz that this version is the most accurate, provided its authenticity can be established.

AND SEAT YOURSELF IN THE DUST AT THEIR FEET. Rav writes, in the alternate explanation he offers: that you should sit on the earth at their feet, as their custom was that the master would sit on a bench and the students would sit at his feet on the ground. This does not contradict his comments on the mishna in Sotah 9:15 that until the death of Rabban Gamliel they would study Torah standing,¹⁹ for here the mishna simply means to say that if they chose to sit, the custom was that the master would sit on a bench and the students would sit on the earth at his feet. Neither does the mishna in Sotah mean that it was forbidden for them to sit and that they would only study standing, only that there was great vigor then and that they would learn while standing in honor of the Torah. And the mishna here delineates what the custom was should it happen that they would sit, as for instance when they spent long hours in the study hall. Or, alternatively, we can answer using Rava’s approach to the contradiction between the verse “And I sat on the mountain” (Deut. 9:9) and the verse “And I stood on the mountain” (Deut. 10:10) in Megillah 21a. Rava there explains that for things that were easier to grasp, Moses would stand, and for things that were harder to grasp, Moses would sit. And these students are certainly no better than Moses learning from the Almighty.

footnotes: ¹⁹ Rabban Gamliel came much later, as is clear from later in this chapter.

THIRSTILY. Rav: like a thirsty man drinking to sate himself, not like a sated man who has no desire for food and turns down even delicacies and sweets. So also Rashi. It seems that their version read ketzamei, “like a thirsty man,” with a kaf,²⁰, with a beit, which would mean “with thirst.” The words tzama, “thirst,” and tzamei, “thirsty man, one who is thirsting” have the same consonontal spelling: צמא. As the texts were all written without vowels, the word is ambiguous without a prefix. If the prefix is beit, which is adverbial and would mean “with” in this case, the word is בצמא and must be vocalized betzama, “with thirst.” If the prefix is kaf, which means “like,” then the word is כצמא and must be vocalized ketzamei, “as a thirsty man.” The confusion among the texts arose because of the similarity of the letters beit ב and kaf כ. and in fact Midrash Shmuel quotes R. Yosef ibn Nahmias saying: in a Jerusalemite edition of the entire Mishna the text readsketzameiwith akaf*; both versions mean the same thing: that you should drink up their words with the same desire a thirsty man has to drink water*.

footnotes: ²⁰ Meaning “like a thirsty man,” as opposed to betzama

THEY WERE SPEAKING OF A MAN’S OWN WIFE. These are the words of Yossi ben Yochanan. For the dictum attributed to him was what he constantly emphasized, but he had learned it from his teachers,²¹ for all the dicta in this tractate are traditions going back to Sinai, as Rav writes at the beginning of this chapter. This is why Rav explains that the phrase “the Sages, basing themselves on this, said” was added by Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi,²² but does not say so about this phrase.²³ Midrash Shmuel writes that Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi was the one who said “they were speaking of a man’s own wife,” and cites Rabbenu Ephraim as agreeing. He also writes that “the Sages said based on this” is something that sages coming after him added. We do find in Sotah 9:15 that the sages after Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi added to the mishna, for it says there “from the death of Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi onwards, etc.” What I find difficult with this is the words “they were speaking,” for were it Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi who was commenting on Rabbi Yossi ben Yochanan, he should have used the singular, “he was speaking,” and not the plural.

footnotes: ²¹ And thus he could note that “they,” i.e. his teachers, whom he was quoting, were speaking of a man’s own wife. ²² Who came after R. Yossi ben Yochanan, and was commenting on the whole of the dictum, which was attributed to him. ²³ Which he must have understood as the words of R. Yossi ben Yochanan himself.

ALL THE MORE SO CONCERNING ANOTHER MAN’S WIFE. Because of what people will suspect. So Rashi, according to Rav’s second explanation of “they were speaking of a man’s own wife”.²⁴

footnotes: ²⁴ Rav’s second explanation understands “a man’s own wife” as referring to his wife when she is premitted him, i.e. not menstruating. The concern then is that one not spend so much time speaking to her as to be considered abandoning Torah study, not that one might commit a sexual transgression. If so, the concern over “another man’s wife” should be of a similar nature, i.e. not a sexual transgression, but gossip.

WHENEVER ONE SPENDS TOO MUCH TIME SPEAKING WITH A WOMAN HE BRINGS EVIL UPON HIMSELF. Midrash Shmuel: “Whenever,” whether she be menstruating or not, one should not speak with her excessively. If she is menstruating, speaking to her causes him to desire her and the desire translates into deed, and there is no greater evil one can bring upon himself than this. If she is not menstruating, then better to use the time one spends idling in idle talk to engage in Torah study. This is what they meant byand he abandons Torah study*, when one spends too much time speaking to his wife even when she is not menstruating.* This is what Rav means when he writes that from the words of the mishna it seems they meant even when his wife is not menstruating. And Rashi, when he writes that the mishna means even when his wife is not menstruating, concludes because he abandons Torah study.²⁵ But I was brought a copy of the Mishna from the Land of Israel, containing the sections Zera`im, Kodashim, Taharot, and this tractate, and the text there had been corrected to read one who spends too much time speaking with a woman.²⁶

footnotes: ²⁵ Rashi, as well as Rav (in his second explanation) and Midrash Shmuel, read the mishna as discussing a man’s wife even when she is not menstruating, and the problem with excessive speech as abandoning Torah study during the time of that speech itself. It is therefore essential that they read “whenever” in the text of the mishna, which will then read as “whenever one does this, he is unnecessarily desisting from Torah study.” The author will adduce a variant reading which will challenge this. ²⁶ This makes the above interpretations more difficut, beause according to this variant it is not during the time one spends speaking to the woman that one abandons Torah study. Rather, one who does so will eventually abandon Torah study altogether.

ACQUIRE A COLLEAGUE [Heb. chaver] (or FRIEND). Rav: even if you must purchase him at great cost and spend exhorbitant sums to acquire his friendship. But one cannot say of a teacher of Torah “acquire a teacher,” for the teacher must teach without charge. He was not sufficiently careful with what he wrote, for if he understood chaver to mean a colleague for Torah study—as would seem from his writing “but one cannot say of a teacher of Torah…”—then he shouldn’t have written “to acquire his friendship,” but “to acquire him as a colleague.” What happened is that Rav copied the first sentence from Rambam, who did not understand chaver as a colleague for Torah study, for he writes: “Acquire a chaver*”—the mishna uses the language of acquisition… because a person most acquire a friend who will help him in properly arranging all of his affairs, as the Sages said*(Taanit 23a)*, “friendship or death!” … And one should make efforts… to win his friendship… ***Midrash Shmuel** reports that **R. Yehuda Lerma** asked why the mishna does not enjoin one to acquire students, considering that the Sages said (Ta’anit 7a): *I have learned much from my teachers… and from my students most of all!* He explained this by noting that a student’s sole desire is to learn. Students therefore study only where their hearts desire and under the teachers from whom they feel they will gain the most. So if a person cannot find anyone who wishes to study under him, the tanna does not enjoin him to. Our master, **Maharal**, writes in *Derech Chaim* that the mishna does not say “acquire a student for yourself” because it isn’t proper for a person to appoint himself a master and create honor for himself by saying “come study under me,” as people do in these lands.²⁷ Although what they say is certainly true, I don’t think the question is a good one to begin with,because this tanna’s ancient predecessors, the men of the Great Assembly, had already preceeded him in this when they said “train many students” (Avot 1:1). Now they had in mind only students interested in the teacher in question, as it is impossible to train a student against his will, and they likewise didn’t have in mind a teacher unqualified to train students, for they said *haamidu*, which means to stand them on their feet in truly understanding Torah, as I wrote there, and only one actually possessing truth could do this. They certainly were not speaking of arrogant individuals trying to rise to positions of power, declaring that they will rule and be powerful leaders of the people and make great academies of students, for all of their words here are words of righteousness and humility. But they did enjoin someone who is able to train many students to do so. This is similar to the passage (Avodah Zarah 19b): “And numerous are her slain”(Proverbs 7:26)—this refers to a student who has matured to the point of deciding legal questions and does not do so. But one who has not arrived at that point and lords himself over others as mentioned earlier is included in “she has felled many dead” (Proverbs 7:26; Talmud ibid.). And if this is true of an inept legal decision, which usually only has consequences for the moment and only happens periodically and with relatively few people, all the more so in the case of a teacher who instructs numerous students every day, especially as the students then absorb the erroneous material for good. Of him it is most certainly said “she has felled many dead.” And there is nothing objectionable about phrasing their teaching as “train many students,” with no added specifications of quality about student or teacher, for this and cases like this are an example of the verse: Straight are the ways of G-d; the righteous walk in them and sinners stumble over them(Hosea 14:10).²⁸ What Rav writes, that the teacher must teach without charge, is clear from Nedarim, 4:3. And although it is evident from that very mishna that one may, in fact, charge for teaching just Bible verses,²⁹. the tanna was mainly enjoining one to get a teacher of Mishna and Talmud for himself, because while it is good to learn Bible verses, it is not always the most commendable thing, as the Talmud says in Bava Metzia, 33a.

footnotes: ²⁷ I.e., around Prague, where the Maharal was the Chief Rabbi. ²⁸ I.e., righteous people will understand on their own that the teacher and student must possess certain requisite qualities. ²⁹ See the Rav ad loc., s.v. But not

DISTANCE YOURSELF [Heb. harchek] FROM A BAD [Heb. ra] NEIGHBOR, AND DO NOT KEEP COMPANY [Heb. titchaber] WITH A WICKED PERSON [Heb. rasha]. The mishna says to “distance yourself” from a bad neighbor because a neighbor lives close by, whereas one need not distance oneself from an evil person who is not a neighbor, as it is sufficient not to keep his company. The mishna uses ra, “bad”, to describe the neighbour, whereas the one who is not a neighbor is called rasha, “wicked”, even though both of them are reshaim*, because having a *rasha* as a neighbor brings a person much *raah, harm, and his presence does great damage, but a rasha who does not live close by, though he be wicked in the eyes of Heaven, might cause no harm to a person unless he keeps his company—so Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan the Pious. He also writes that R. Yehuda Lerma asks why the mishna uses the verb harchek, which is in binyan hifil,³⁰ and not *hitrachek*, which is in binyan hitpa``el,³¹ and answers that should someone new come to the neighborhood and make his residence near that bad neighbor whom he doesn’t know, one ought to distance and warn the newcomer about his neighbor. I feel that the tanna uses both the verbs *harchek* and *titchaber* the way they are used in the Bible. For while *hitrachek*, which is in hitpa``el, never appears in the Bible, *harchek* in hifil appears in “Keep your path distant [Heb. harchek] from her” (Proverbs 5:8). Hitchaber, in hitpa``el, appears in “On account of your joining [Heb. behitchabercha] with Ahaziahu, G-d will destoy what you have made” (2 Chronicles 20:37). Echoing this verse, the tanna then concludes *and don’t despair, because punishment will come.*³² The tanna puts together the two parts of the mishna on the basis of the verse: do not join with an evil person (“on account of your joining…”), and don’t despair, because punishment will come (“the ships were wrecked…”) It is possible that the author is understanding the mishna as saying: do not join with an evil person, and, should you do so, don’t despair—i.e., you won’t have to wait long—because punishment will come. In this case, the parallel to the verse in Chronicles is exact.

footnotes: ³⁰ A verb form in Hebrew, usually with the causative sense. If it is causitive here it is a transitive verb meaning “to distance another.” ³¹ A verb form in Hebrew, usually with the reflexive sense. It would mean “to distance oneself,” and would seem to be more appropriate here. ³² The verse in Chronicles reads in full: Eliezer son of Dodavahu of Mareshah prophesied against Jehoshaphat, saying, “On account of your joining with Ahaziah, G-d will destroy what you have made.” The ships were wrecked and were not able to set sail to trade.

AND DON’T DESPAIR [Heb. titya’esh], BECAUSE PUNISHMENT WILL COME. The mishna does not say that one should worry about being punished, for it is a shameful thing for one to worry about being punished. Rather, he should not despair of punishment³³ as Haman did, who relied on his great wealth, and whose great successes were, in the blink of an eye, entirely overturned. This is what the word titya’esh means—Maharal in Derech Chaim.

footnotes: ³³ I.e. one should not think it won’t come.

DO NOT ACT [lit. “make yourself”] LIKE *ORCHEI DAYANIM*. **Rav**: *like those people who put together and present the arguments of the litigants before the judges, as one is forbidden to offer legal advice of the type “do such-and-such in order to secure the judgment.”*It seems from the beginning of his comment that he understands orchei dayanim as themseles presenting these arguments before the judges, and this is indeed how Rashi explains a passage in Sotah 47b, commenting on the term “whisperers of whispers”: they whisper back and forth with the judges, finding them a legal opening to rule in favor of one party and against another. And so Rashi on page Ketubot 52b (s.v. Keorchei hadayanim*). But from the end of **Rav**’s comment it is clear that even at the beginning, where he writes “who put together and present the arguments of the litigants before the judges,” he does not mean that they themselves argue these points before the judges, but that in revealing these arguments to the litigant and saying “do such-and-such” it is as though they themselves were arguing before the judges. And this is how **Rashi** explains it in his commentary here and on Shabbat 139a (s.v. *‘Orchei hadayanim*). Now **Rambam** writes: *“Orchei hadayanim”—these are individuals who study legal arguments so that people should be familiar with them. They write textbooks in question-and-answer format: “When the judge says such-and-such, answer such and such,” and “when the opposing party says such-and-such, your answer should be such-and-such,” as if the litigants are before them and they are presenting[Heb. orchei*] *the arguments. This is why they are called*orchei hadayanim, for it is as if they have presented*[Heb. archu*]*the arguments before them*. According to this reading, the word *orchei, “those who present,” has a hidden object, for it really means “those who present arguments before the judges.”³⁴ is in what is known as the construct state, a feature of Hebrew grammar in which two words x y are read as “the x of y.” Accordingly, orchei hadayanim* should be read as “the orchim (non-construct plural of the singular *orech*) of the *dayanim*.” Two interpretive questions present themselves: how to understand *orchim, and how to understand the sense in which these orchim* are “of” the *dayanim*. **Rashi** in the first approach quoted by the author understands *orchim as a noun meaning “laywers,” more or less, and they are “of” the dayanim, judges, in the sense that they stand before them. The phrase then reads “lawyers arguing before judges.” Rashi and Rav in the second approach quoted by the author differ from the first approach only in that they do not see the orchei hadayanim* as actually present in the courtroom. In what sense, then, are they “of the judges?” To answer this, the author explains that it is as if they have actually presented the arguments before the judges, and for this reason they are called “lawyers arguing before the judges.” **Rambam** quoted in the third approach sees *orchei as a participle meaning “presenting.” The Hebrew verb here is strictly transitive and as such the participle requires an object, which the Rambam explains as “legal arguments.” The author notes that this object must be supplied by the reader and is therefore a “hidden object,” i.e. not present in the actual phrase orchei hadayanim*, which is now read as “[those who are] presenting (the arguments) before the judges.” **Lev Avot** writes that he heard the following explanation: it is as if he has arranged [Heb. *arach] the judges themselves, for when the judges rule in one party’s favor it is because he has presented that party’s arguments, in which sense he has set up [Heb. arach*] the judges to issue this ruling.³⁵ thusfar as “present.” Although it has the literal meaning “to arrange,” the equivalent English idiom has the lawyers “presenting arguments” rather than “arranging arguments.” The approach of **Lev Avot** takes the construct *orchei hadayanim to mean “those who arrange the judges” (see above note) or, in more idiomatic English, those who “set up” the judges. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Matityah HaYitzhari: the mishna is certainly not discussing one who aids the litigant in presenting deceitful arguments, for such a one is a completely evil person. Rather, it refers even to presenting true arguments that will change the course of the proceedings, as per the passage in Ketubot 52b concerning the law of indefinite medical expenses, which are considered “sustenance” and are paid from the estate of the husband. Rabbi Yochanan advised the heirs to pay a fixed sum to a doctor, making them definite medical expenses.³⁶, which specifies the husband’s obligations to the wife both during marriage and in case of divorce or death. The law dictates that a widow be allowed to choose between collecting the sum specified in her ketubah or receiving basic sustenance from the heirs, which she can do indefinitely until she chooses to collect the ketubah. Some needs, however, are not considered “sustenance” and are deducted from the sum of the ketubah. The question in Ketubot revolves around medical treatment. There, it is the opinion of R. Shimon ben Gamliel that indefinite medical treatment (i.e. for a chronic illness) is considered “sustenance” and must be paid out of the husband’s estate without being deducted from the sum of the ketubah, while definite medical treatment is not considered “sustenance” and is deducted from the sum in the ketubah. Some relatives of Rabbi Yochanan asked for advice concerning a case of indefinite medical treatment. He advised them to find a doctor who would be willing to care for the widow indefinitely for a fixed sum, making the treatment legally definite and therefore deductable from the sum of the ketubah. Rabbi Yochanan afterwards declared that he had erroneously acted like the orchei hadayanim*, in violation of our mishna. Using this commentary, I have arrived at an understanding of what **Rav** meant when he wrote that the *orchei dayanim offer advice of the type “do such-and-such”. For had he meant, as Rambam means, that they instruct a person in which arguments to put forth, he ought to have written that they advise the person to “argue such-and-such”. I think, rather, that according to Rav, the prohibition is to advise him to act in some way, as in the case of Rabbi Yochanan and the widow, and the case of Rav Nachman, who advised a woman to forgo her ketubahin Ketubot 86a. Rav might agree, however, that one need not be overly pious and avoid even instruction in wording and presenting arguments. Of course, Rambam forbids even wording and presenting arguments. Midrash Shmuel quoting Rabbenu Yonah: the mishna is not discussing a case of teaching one to use false arguments, for one who would do so is completely evil and this thing is a great sin, and our tractate is devoted to people interested in matters of piety. It is rather discussing a case of improving the strength and order of arguments that the litigant is already planning on using, going through how they will be received in court and showing him the anticipated outcome. The mishna says one should not do this because it will arouse suspicion. One thing, at least, is clear according to all the commentaries, and that is the reason for the mishna’s use of the word “like” in “do not act likeorchei dayanim*”. Had the mishna simply said “do not be *orchei dayanim” it would have sounded like it is actually forbidden to be an orech dayanim*, and it is not.³⁷ I also think that the wording *al taas atzmecha, literally “do not make yourself,”³⁸ as opposed to simply lo tihyeh, “do not be,” is meant to reflect the point made in the abovementioned case of Rabbi Yochanan. There, the Talmud says that he offered his advice because it was his relative that consulted him, and he felt this was a case of “do not turn away from your own flesh and blood” (Isaiah 58:7). He afterwards regretted it and said “we have made ourselves like the orchei dayanim*” because he held that prominent rabbinic figures should not do so. The implication is that were he not a prominent rabbinic figure, he would’ve been correct in doing what he did on account of “do not turn away from your own flesh and blood.” The language of our mishna, “do not make yourself,” is making this point: because of “yourself,” i.e. because you are a prominent rabbinic figure, do not make yourself into an *orech dayanim; otherwise, one may do so. If this is the issue, then it follows that anyone who is not a prominent rabbinic figure may do so even for someone who isn’t a relative, and Rabbi Yochanan only quoted the verse “do not turn away from your own flesh and blood” because otherwise he simply would’ve had no reason to help one party over another, as “who can say whose blood is redder.”³⁹ To sum up, the tanna’s injunction only concerns a prominent rabinic figure, for which reason he used the language “do not make yourself.” One who is not a prominent rabbinic figure need not avoid this even as a matter of piousness, as he is not giving instruction in how to present false arguments. What we learn from the incident with Rabbi Yochanan, who had to quote the verse “do not turn away from your own flesh and blood,” is that otherwise he wouldn’t have gotten involved, not as a matter of piousness but because he had no reason to act to the benefit of one party and loss of another; whereas for a relative, as long as one is not a prominent rabbinic figure, one should act in order to uphold the verse “do not turn away from your own flesh and blood.” Rashi, however, writes ad loc.: a prominent rabbinic figure is different, because people will learn from his actions and some of them will do this even for non-relatives. If so, the injunction of our mishna would apply to any case involving non-relatives.

footnotes: ³⁴ Some clarification is in order. The phrase orchei hadayanim ³⁵ I have been translating the verb arach ³⁶ By Jewish law, before marriage the husband signs a kind of pre-nuptial agreement called a ketubah ³⁷ Rather, it does not befit a pious person to act like they do. ³⁸ Which we have rendered idiomatically as “do not act like.” ³⁹ A play on a Talmudic phrase in Sanhedrin 74a.

YOU SHOULD IMAGINE THEM TO BE WICKED. But do not imagine the two of them to be righteous people, because then you will not thoroughly examine their claims and will charitably interpret everything they say without investigating the case in depth. When one imagines them both to be wicked, one thoroughly examines each one’s claims and considers possible avenues of deception, thereby getting to the truth of the matter. Another possible interpretation. One of the parties has certainly acted unlawfully, and the Talmud considers the other party similarly implicated, as per the passage discussing oaths in court (Shavuot 39a): those standing there then say to one another, “Step away from the tents of these evil men!”(Numbers 16:26), and there also (ibid. 39b): “The oath of G-d will be taken between them” (Exodus 20:10), this teaches that the oath falls on both of them, i.e., even the party in the right, all because he is involved in a case with the criminal party. They are thus both called “wicked.” When they accept the court’s ruling, however, they are both called “righteous,” because accepting a ruling after their quarrel with one another is an act of righteousness on their part—Maharal in Derech Chaim.

ONCE THEY HAVE ACCEPTED THE RULING. Rav: *you should not look at the guilty party and suspect him of being a thief; rather say that perhaps he was in error and did not intentionally steal.*It was necessary to point this out. Since there are valid grounds to suspect him of this, one might have thought to exclude him from the dictum “judge every man favorably” (Avot 1:6).

AND BE CAREFUL WITH YOUR WORDS, THAT THEY DON’T DISCERN HOW BEST TO LIE THEREFROM. Rav writes, in explaining “they”: the litigants or the witnesses. Although the beginning of the mishna only mentions witnesses, the idea is that they should not discern how best to lie, and that would apply equally to witnesses or litigants. Also, “be careful, etc. ” is an independent sentence unconnected to the beginning of the mishna, and as such the “they” in “that they don’t discern how best to lie” applies to anyone who can so discern, whether witness or litigant.

SHEMAYA AND AVTALION. Rav writes that they were converts. So also Rambam in the introduction to his Mishneh Torah. Both make it sound like Shemaya and Avtalion were themselves converts, and this cannot be, as they were the nasiand av beit din, as Rav writes on mishna 4; a convert cannot adjudicate capital cases, as Rav writes in Sanhedrin 4:2, and certainly cannot be an av beit din,per the mishna in Horayot 1:4. Maharal writes in Derech Chaim: It is said that Shemaya and Avtalion were descended from converts, and this can be proven from the Talmud in Gittin 57b and Yoma 71b. But they themselves cannot have been converts, for then how could they have been appointednasi andav beit din? Rather, they descended from converts, but their mothers were certainly Jewish and they were therefore legitimate candidates fornasi andav beit din. But there are those who say that they themselves were converts, which is completely mistaken.

LOVE LABOR. Rav: even if he has a living, he must engage in some kind of labor. In such a case, one works not for the pay but for love of labor itself, which fits the mishna’s choice of words: “love labor” as opposed to “do labor.” Rav: because idleness leads to listlessness, which is per the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel in the mishna in Ketubot 5:5 concerning a wife who does not need to work. I find this odd, because the law follows Rabbi Eliezer there, who says that idleness leads to impropriety. A point of difference between the two opinions would be the case of a woman who entertains herself all day, which does not lead to listlessness but can still lead to impropriety, as Rav explains there in Ketubot. It is possible that Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is restricted to the case of a wife, for women are easily seduced. We do find in Avot 2:7 that keeping many maidservants is said to lead to impropriety, whereas keeping many servants is said to lead to theft.

AND DESPISE POSITIONS OF POWER. Rav writes in his second interpretation that positions of power bury those who occupy them. This is per the passage in Sotah 13b: why did Joseph die before his brothers? Because he occupied a position of power—Rashi. [He should distance himsef out of contempt for it, which is the opposite of loving labor, as Tosafot Yom Tov explained.⁴⁰]

footnotes: ⁴⁰ This comment was inserted by the printers of the Vilna edition of the Mishna.

AND DO NOT GET CLOSE TO THE AUTHORITIES. Rav: in order to use them to get a powerful position. Rashi adds: because they only bring a person close for their own purposes. If so, this is the same as the mishna in 3:1 later.

SAGES, BE CAREFUL WITH YOUR WORDS. The mishna does not restrict its warning to the sages because other people are not included in it, but because if one of the sages says something ambiguous, those who listen will draw erronous conclusions, whereas nobody listens to the words of a commoner; the mishna therefore emphasizes the sages—Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan the Pious.

TO A PLACE OF BAD WATER. Rav: where they offer skewed interpretations of the Torah, and these are a euphemism for bad water. The sentence is out of order: it is the bad water which is a euphemism for skewed interpretations of Torah. Rambam writes that “bad water” is a euphemism for heresy.

AND THE STUDENTS THAT COME AFTER YOU WILL DRINK OF THEM. Rav: as happened to Antigonos of Socho with Tzadok and Baitos his students. He said to them, “be not like servants serving the master for pay.” They said, Can it be that a worker labors and exerts himself all day and receives no pay towards evening? They, along with their followers, became heretics, and their sects are called Tzedukim and Baitusim till this very day. He writes in his commentary to the mishna in Yadaim, 4:6, along the same lines: *groups of Jews then joined them,*etc. This is not quite what the tanna had in mind, as he is discussing only the scholars that will come after these sages.⁴¹ I found that Rashbam writes in his commentary to Bava Batra 115b, in the name of the Avot deRabbi Natan, that the incident of Tzadok and Baitos was that they would teach their own students the words of Antigonos, “be not like servants serving the master for pay,” and the students erred. I saw the same in Avot deRabbi Natan, 5:2.

footnotes: ⁴¹ And not their own students. The upshot is that the sages should take care that their words be clear enough to be properly understood by a generation of scholars that have no personal contact with them. A teaching that is not phrased clearly, even if it can be properly explained by the sage himself to his own students, is dangerous when presented without the opportunity for this clarification.

CHASING AFTER PEACE. As the verse says, “Seek out peace and chase after it” (Psalms 34:15).

LOVING [THE PEOPLE,] HIS CREATIONS. Because they are creations of the Holy One, you should love them; further, the love should be for this reason, and not for other reasons, such as the use you might derive from them. Midrash Shmuel explains similarly.

AND DRAWING THEM CLOSE TO TORAH. Rav: when Aaron knew that someone had sinned, he would keep company with him, etc. There might be a difficulty here, as this seems to oppose the words of Nitai the Arbelite, who said “do not keep the company of a wicked person” (Avot 1:7). I saw in Avot deRabbi Natan, 12:3: what is the meaning of “He has brought many back from sin”(Malachi 2:6)? When Aaron would walk down the road and meet a wicked person he would greet him. The next day, that wicked person would desire to do some sin and say, Woe is me! How shall I raise up my eyes afterwards and see Aaron? I feel such shame; he even greeted me! And that person would end up desisting from sin. So also Rambam: *he would begin greeting him, become friendly with him, and speak with him more often. The man would be ashamed of himself,*etc.⁴²

footnotes: ⁴² Thus, Aaron did not keep their company; he merely greeted them and was friendly.

THE NAME THAT SPREADS [Aram. n’gad sh’ma] IS THE NAME THAT PERISHES [Aram. avad sh’meh]. Rav: the name that spreads far on account of power and position will soon perish, for power buries its own. Maharal points out in Derech Chaim that the the mishna first uses the word sh’ma, “the name,” and then the words sh’meh, “his/its name” and explains the mishna as follows: n’gad shma—the word used for a position of power in Aramaic is n’gad, which denotes spreading and continuity. But the word for a position of power really ought to be avad, “perishes,” as the name of the person in power perishes, because “power buries its own.”⁴³, its proper name is avad.” Although there are editions that read n’gad sh’ma avad sh’ma, both with an alef.⁴⁴ is spelled with an alef at the end, whereas sh’meh is spelled with a yud hey. Midrash Shmuel: “n’gad sh’ma”—one who attempts to spread out his name to get fame for himself as one of the greats, “avad sh’meh” loses whatever name he had previously and ends up bereft of both. In the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan the Pious he writes that the correct text is shin mem alef, i.e. sh’ma. See my comments on 5:22 for why this mishna uses Aramaic.

footnotes: ⁴³ Accordingly, the mishna should be read as “the word n’gad ⁴⁴ Sh’ma

AND HE WHO DOES NOT ADD, SHALL MEET HIS END. Kesef Mishneh explains in his commentary to Rambam’s Mishne Torah, Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:10, that this phrase should be read as a development of the previous phrase, which he understands as n’gad sh’ma—one who studies Torah in order to spread his name, avad sh’meh—his name shall perish. One might then say, I will no longer study, because perhaps my study will be for the sake of fame and then my name will perish! To counter that, the mishna says “and he who does not add, will met his end.” Now certainly the worst case is that of one who has previously studied Torah and then quits his studies. Addressing one who has not previously studied and decides that he will not study, the mishna says “and he who does not learn, deserves death,” because “deserves death” is not as severe as “will meet his end.” For though he deserves death, perhaps he has some merit that will protect him. [*This runs counter to Rav, who says that one who has not studied at all is worse than one who no longer studies.]

AND HE WHO MAKES USE OF THE CROWN. Rav explains this as the crown of Torah. The mishna says simply “crown,” without qualifying it as the crown of Torah, because “crown” by default refers to the crown of Torah, as all other crowns are worthless—Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan.

[*KEEP YOUR TORAH FIXED. Rav: do not rule stringently for yourself and leniently for others or stringently for others and leniently for yourself. This runs counter to the opinion of the house of Rabban Gamliel, who were descendants of Hillel, as will be made clear later on. They used to rule stringently for themelves and leniently for others, as in the mishna in Beitzah, 2:6 and in Eduyot 10:3.]

AND GREET. See Rav’s commentary to 3:12 and my commentary there.

RABBAN GAMLIEL SAID. He was the grandson of Hillel, as the Talmud says in Shabbat 15a: Hillel, Simon, Gamliel, and Simon were thenesi’im for the last hundred years that the second temple stood. The commentators explain that the reason the mishna no longer introduces each tanna with the phrase “he received the tradition from so-and-so” is that starting from the students of Hillel and Shammai, numerous unresolved legal disputes arose in Israel, and the Torah became as two Torahs. It is therefore no longer possible to say they “received” the Torah, because the Torah of each sage could no longer be said to have been definite, received and transmitted as was the Torah of the earlier sages. But I feel that for this reason alone the tanna would not have rejected the term “received,” for they did indeed receive the main foundations of Torah, where there was no disagreement whatsoever, as Rambam writes at length in the introduction to his commentary on the Mishna. And in point of fact the question is moot, because in 2:8 the mishna says “Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai received the tradition from Hillel and Shammai.”

AND DO NOT FREQUENTLY TAKE OFF MAASER*BY ESTIMATE. **Rav** writes: *because when one takes off*maaserby estimating, he cannot escape wrongdoing. If he takes off less than he should, then hismaaser*is valid but the rest of the produce is unfit, and if he takes off more than he should, the rest of his produce is fine but the*maaseris unfit.* Rambam explains in Hilchot Maaser 1:14 that the *maaser* is unfit because it is mixed with tevel. So also Rashiin his commentary to the second chapter of tractate Kiddushin, on page 51a (s.v. hamarbeh). And in his commentary to the fourth chapter of tractate Eruvin, on page 50a (s.v. perotav), he adds “unlike terumah, which has no set amount.” See also Rav's commentary to the mishna in Terumot 4:6. Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan the Pious: it seems odd that the mishna does not simply say “do not take offmaaser*by estimate” and entirely forbid taking of maaser without a proper measure. I say, then, that the mishna means that even one who wishes to take off more than the required amount shouldn’t do so because he might err in his estimate.*⁴⁵, as “do not take off more,” as opposed to “do not frequently take off,” which has been the meaning assumed until this point. And Tosafot in their commentary to Gittin 31a (s.v. nitelet) conclude that the mishna only forbids intentionally taking off more than the required amount, based on the mishna in Terumot 4:6: he who takes off by weight is more praiseworthy than the three of them, which implies that there are three legitimate ways to take off maaser*, one of which must be by estimate.⁴⁶ So also **Rav** in his commentary there: *we see that even the Sages did not forbid taking off by estimate when one doesn’t intentionally take off more.* But according to **Rambam**, as I mentioned earlier, it would be forbidden even without this intention, and **Rash** in his commentary on Terumot agrees. The **Maharal** in his *Derech Chaim* explains the mishna as following the opinion of Abba Eliezer ben Gomel, who holds that even *terumat maaser, which has a set amount, may be taken off by estimate; he would certainly say the same about maaser* [and the Talmud in fact says as much in Bechorot 59a, as **Rav** notes in his commentary to Bechorot 9:7]. For this reason the mishna says “do not frequently etc.”, which is to say even though the Torah allows taking off *maaser by estimate, do not do so often, in order to save yourself from doubt. And the word maasarot*in the mishna does not exclude *terumat maaser, because *maasarot* here is a general name for all types of priestly gifts taken from the produce of the earth, as I have shown from the Jerusalem Talmud in my commentary to Maasarot 2:4. See also my comments on Demai 4:1. But I see that Rash writes in his commentary to Terumot 1:7 that it seems that Abba Eliezer ben Gomel does not hold of the injunction “do not often take off ma`aser by estimate,” and this is the opinion of Tosafot on the abovementoined passages in Gittin and Bechorot.

footnotes: ⁴⁵ Midrash Shmuel (and Tosafot mentioned after) will then read the verb in the mishna, al tarbeh ⁴⁶ The mishna there only lists two other ways: by count and by measure. Tosafot conclude that there must be a third way that was not mentioned, which they say is by estimate.

SHIMON, HIS SON. He was one of those martyred by Rome. The Talmud says in Keritot 8a: Once, the price of a pair of birds brought as sacrifices went up to a golddinar in Jerusalem. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, “By this dwelling! I will not go to sleep for the night until the price is in silverdinars!” The Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel of the passage in Keritot cannot be the one mentioned at the end of this chapter in mishna 18, because that one did not live when the temple stood, and the chain of nesi’im in the first chapter of Shabbat⁴⁷ ends at the second Shimon⁴⁸ who lived while the second temple stood. Mishna 18, which mentions a different Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, must thus be referring to a third Shimon, who was presumably the second Shimon’s grandson, and cannot have been nasi when the temple stood. As such, he cannot be identified with the Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the first chapter of Keritot, because it is evident from the incident quoted there that the Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel of Keritot indeed lived when the temple stood. The Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel of Keritot must then have been the second Shimon in the chain mentioned in Shabbat 15a, who is the Shimon of our mishna. . He must therefore be the Shimon of our mishna.⁴⁹ Perhaps he promulgated this dictum before he rose to such prominence as to be called Rabban,⁵⁰ as in the case of “ben Zakkai” in the mishna in Sanhedrin 5:2.⁵¹ Although I saw a different explanation in the book Asarah Ma`amarot, I have written what seems best to me.

footnotes: ⁴⁷ See the beginning of the commentary to mishna 16. ⁴⁸ The chain there is Hillel, Hillel’s son Shimon, Shimon’s son Gamliel, Gamliel’s son Shimon. Mishna 16 started with Gamliel, Hillel’s grandson; Hillel’s son, Shimon, evidently receives no mention in Pirkei Avot. Mishna 17, which continues in chronological order, must then be referring to Gamliel’s son Shimon, who was the second Shimon mentioned in the chain of nesi’im ⁴⁹ Tosafot Yom Tov now answers the implied question: why, then, does the mishna here refer to him simply as Shimon while the Talmud in Keritot calls him Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? ⁵⁰ “Our master,” reserved for the greatest scholars. ⁵¹ The Talmud there, Sanhedrin 41a-b, notes that “ben Zakkai” is none other than Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, who authored the teaching in question in his younger years, when he was still a student known as “ben Zakkai.” The text of the teaching entered the tradition immediately and its form remained unchanged, hence the name “ben Zakkai.”

BETTER THAN SILENCE. This is the version quoted in Midrash Shmuel. He quotes an alternate version, “I have found nothing good for the body other than silence.” So also Maharalin Derech Chaim.

NOT STUDY. Rav: *as a proof that the best thing for the body is silence, note that even expounding and speaking of Torah, which is the best type of speech, is not the main source of reward—action is.*For if this phrase were not being brought as a proof to the earlier phrase, it would have been better to place “and whoever speaks much etc.” immediately after “I have not found anything better for the body than silence,” as the former naturally leads in to the latter.

RABBAN SHIMON BEN GAMLIEL. He was the grandson of the Shimon mentioned in the previous mishna, and the father of Rabbi⁵², also known as Rabbenu HaKadosh, in the first mishna of the second chapter.

footnotes: ⁵² Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi.

THE WORLD STANDS. Rav: human civilization continues to exist. With this Rav anticipates the question one might raise from mishna 2, which mentions three other things upon which the world stands. Now although Rav there says that the three things in mishna 2 are the ones for whose sake the world was created, and one might attempt distinguish between the things necessary for creation to have occurred, and the things that that keep the world in existence after the fact, the distinction is illusory. For whatever is important enough for the world to have been created ex nihilo is a fortiori important enough for its continued existence. Rav therefore writes on our mishna that these things are necessary for maintaining civlization, not the continued existence of the world. Torah, the sacrificial worship, and acts of kindness can be done by small numbers of people even in the absence of a proper civilization due to a lack of law, truth, and peace. For the remaining few precious to G-d are sufficient for the three pillars mentioned by Shimon the Righteous in mishna 2. You should not find this strange, as the Talmud says (Berachot 17b): the world was only created for Chanina my son, and (Berachot 6a): the world was only created to keep this one company, in expounding the verse “for this is the entirety of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13). See my commentary to the end of the mishna in Sotah 3:4.

THE WORLD STANDS. An alternate version, which Maharal in Derech Chaim considers the correct one, reads “continues to exist.”

AS PER THE VERSE, “RULE WITH TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND PEACE IN YOUR GATES.” Zecharia, 8:16. The verse immediately preceding this is, “Just as I planned to bring evil upon you… so have I gone and planned in these days to do good unto Jerusalem and the House of Judah. Fear not! These are the things that you should do…”⁵³ Rashi here writes: “Rule in your gates” is adjacent to “perhaps the Lord of Hosts will act towards us with grace.” So also Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rashbam. But these two verses are nowhere near one another, for “perhaps…” is in Amos 5:16: “Despise evil and love good, and establish justice at the gate, perhaps…” Rashialso mentions that he saw a Tiberian edition of the Mishna in which no verse appears in our mishna.

footnotes: ⁵³ The implication is that these are the things that you should do to receive G-d’s promise of good, i.e. peace and prosperity, the fruits of well-functioning civilization.