וַהֲרִיח֖וֹ בְּיִרְאַ֣ת יְהוָ֑ה וְלֹֽא־לְמַרְאֵ֤ה עֵינָיו֙ יִשְׁפּ֔וֹט וְלֹֽא־לְמִשְׁמַ֥ע אָזְנָ֖יו יוֹכִֽיחַ׃
E deleitar-se-á no temor do SENHOR; e não julgará segundo a vista dos seus olhos, nem decidirá segundo o ouvir dos seus ouvidos;
Tosafot Yom Tov
BECAUSE YOU DROWNED SOMEONE, YOU WERE DROWNED, AND THOSE WHO DROWNED YOU WILL IN THE END THEMSELVES DROWN. One might ask, if we follow the chain back to its starting point, won’t we find that the first one to have been killed did not kill anyone himself? Indeed, Abel, who was killed by Cain, hadn’t killed anyone. If so, how did Hillel know that it was on account of drowning someone else that this person had been drowned?
The second part of his saying, “and those who drowned you will in the end themselves drown,” is even more difficult, as this is not necessarily so! We regularly encounter cases of murderers who die in their beds at the hands of Heaven. [*I saw this question raised in Devarim Rabbah to parashat Va’Etchanan (2:25), discussing the verse “he who spills man’s blood, his blood will be spilled by man” (Genesis 9:6): R. Levi said: but are there not many men who kill and yet die in their beds? They answered him: the meaning of “his blood will be spilled by man” is that when that man arrives in the future world, at that point his blood will be spilled. As for the first question, concerning the first part of the mishna, I saw this mishna brought in the Talmud in tractate Sukkah 53a, and there Rashi explains that the body was thrown into the water and Hillel recognized him as a murderer.]
In Rashi’s commentary to our tractate, he notes that in some places people do not recite this mishna. But Rambam, Rav, and all the other commentators have it in their texts.
Midrash Shmuel, in answer to the second question, explains that “in the end” in the phrase “in the end they themselves will drown” means that through reincarnation, which is an established belief not only of the Sages but also of Pythagoras [and the rest of the wise of the nations, whom Abarbanel mentions in his commentary to parashat Ki Tetze], he eventually will end up drowning. And he gives a rather forced answer to the first question, saying that the case of Abel is different because the Sages say that he “gazed at holiness,” and Hillel, upon seeing this skull, assumed that it was that of a murderer, and not one who “gazed,” because murder is more common than this gazing.
In my opinion, it is totally untenable to claim that Hillel said something that could only be understood through the doctrine of reincarnation, which is an esoteric doctrine, and which ought to be concealed from all but the select few that G-d calls upon. And Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi, the redactor of the Mishna, would not have put this dictum into our mishna. For just as a verse in the Tanakh must always be readable in its plain sense, in addition to whatever other meanings it may harbor, the words of a mishna must always be readable in the plain way that all understand. And if there were only a kabbalistic interpretation to this mishna, Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi would have left it an oral teaching, along with the other kabbalistic teachings that remained oral and were not inluded in the Mishna.
Besides, the mishnayot seem to be out of order. For since this is merely something that Hillel said on a particular occasion, it shouldn’t have been included among the other mishnayot, which are all of the “he used to say” type, i.e. ethical teachings that were constantly being emphasized, and should rather have been appended to the end of this series of mishnayot. All the more so since this mishna is in Aramaic and shouldn’t come between two mishnayot that are in Hebrew.
Also, Hillel is speaking in the second person, directing his words towards the skull itself. Why wouldn’t he have turned towards his listeners and addressed them? He should have said “because he drowned someone, he was drowned, and those who drowned him will in the end themselves drown.”
Also, what is the meaning of the modifier af—“even, also”— here?
It seems that the mishna intends the following. Hillel taught in the previous mishna that an unlearned person cannot be one who fears sin and so on, in order to steer people clear of personal deficiencies. He also once saw a skull, etc., and from that experience onwards he used to say “increasing the flesh only increases worms, etc.” in the next mishna, which is another list of personal deficiencies and virtues.
This is because when he saw this skull, he said to it, “because you drowned someone, etc.”, i.e. one would think it only logical that because you drowned someone, you were drowned, and those who drowned you will in the end themselves drown, because “the measure one uses to dole out is the one used to dole out to him” (Sotah 1:7), for this is only proper and logical. But regardless of what should be, reality contradicts this hypothesis; many people who have never killed anyone are killed and many people kill others and are not themselves killed.
In order to bring reality into harmony with theory, so that it doesn’t contradict the logical necessity that everything ultimately comes about through one consistent system and is judged fairly, he used to say from that moment on that “increasing the flesh only increases worms, etc.” in order to accustom people to thinking that everything is truly necessary and just. For one does find, overall, that “increasing the flesh only increases worms, etc.”, regarding defiencies, and “increasing Torah increases life, etc.”, regarding virtues. It is evident, then, that the laws in place in the world are just and perfect, and we can infer from cases that are clearly just to those whose justness is concealed, and understood only by G-d; those, too, are based on what is righteous and just, as per the verse, “For my thoughts are not as your thoughts, nor are my ways like your ways” (Isaiah 55:8).
It follows, then, that Hillel did not say “because you drowned someone, etc.” because he felt it was certainly true, i.e. that of necessity this is what happened and what will happen, but as a first premise, that logic would dictate that this be so. But because there are well-known cases that contradict this, and these might cause a person to say that “there is no judgement and no judge,” Hillel began to regularly propagate his teaching that “increasing the flesh only increases worms… increasing Torah increases life, etc.” among the people. The intent is that we should use our experiences and sound judgment to conclude that just as in these cases the result follows logically from the action, whether for good or ill, so also what befalls people in general follows logically, though it is beyond our understanding.
Since the words “because you have drowned someone, etc.” are not an absolute statement describing what will happen with certainty, as it is possible that this drowned person had not drowned anybody and that the one who drowned him might not be drowned, Hillel did not utter them as a public teaching. While facing the skull, an unhearing piece of bone, he said to himself that what ought to be is that “because you drowned someone, etc.”
And the fact of reality contradicting this statement is also not at all explicit, but is implicit in his following dictum, that from this point on he used to say “increasing the flesh only increases worms, etc.,” which the discerning will understand well as addressing this point. All such things ought to be said in such a manner as to be apparent to the discerning scholar but not to all those listening, lest they who will not understand the answer “decide by what their ears hear” and “judge by what their eyes see” (Isaiah 11:3) that the question is truly difficult and has no answer, and remain confounded by it and thereby falter, G-d forbid.
Hillel said these words in Aramaic, the language of the masses at the time per the mishna in Shekalim 5:3, because he said them as though speaking to the skull of a bandit. He also did this so that the people should take his words at face value, that it is indeed the case that “because you drowned somebody, etc.,” and for the discerning students he explained his words by affixing to them the dictum “increasing the flesh only increases worms, etc.,” which he said in Hebrew. This is what seems correct to me.
The second part of his saying, “and those who drowned you will in the end themselves drown,” is even more difficult, as this is not necessarily so! We regularly encounter cases of murderers who die in their beds at the hands of Heaven. [*I saw this question raised in Devarim Rabbah to parashat Va’Etchanan (2:25), discussing the verse “he who spills man’s blood, his blood will be spilled by man” (Genesis 9:6): R. Levi said: but are there not many men who kill and yet die in their beds? They answered him: the meaning of “his blood will be spilled by man” is that when that man arrives in the future world, at that point his blood will be spilled. As for the first question, concerning the first part of the mishna, I saw this mishna brought in the Talmud in tractate Sukkah 53a, and there Rashi explains that the body was thrown into the water and Hillel recognized him as a murderer.]
In Rashi’s commentary to our tractate, he notes that in some places people do not recite this mishna. But Rambam, Rav, and all the other commentators have it in their texts.
Midrash Shmuel, in answer to the second question, explains that “in the end” in the phrase “in the end they themselves will drown” means that through reincarnation, which is an established belief not only of the Sages but also of Pythagoras [and the rest of the wise of the nations, whom Abarbanel mentions in his commentary to parashat Ki Tetze], he eventually will end up drowning. And he gives a rather forced answer to the first question, saying that the case of Abel is different because the Sages say that he “gazed at holiness,” and Hillel, upon seeing this skull, assumed that it was that of a murderer, and not one who “gazed,” because murder is more common than this gazing.
In my opinion, it is totally untenable to claim that Hillel said something that could only be understood through the doctrine of reincarnation, which is an esoteric doctrine, and which ought to be concealed from all but the select few that G-d calls upon. And Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi, the redactor of the Mishna, would not have put this dictum into our mishna. For just as a verse in the Tanakh must always be readable in its plain sense, in addition to whatever other meanings it may harbor, the words of a mishna must always be readable in the plain way that all understand. And if there were only a kabbalistic interpretation to this mishna, Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi would have left it an oral teaching, along with the other kabbalistic teachings that remained oral and were not inluded in the Mishna.
Besides, the mishnayot seem to be out of order. For since this is merely something that Hillel said on a particular occasion, it shouldn’t have been included among the other mishnayot, which are all of the “he used to say” type, i.e. ethical teachings that were constantly being emphasized, and should rather have been appended to the end of this series of mishnayot. All the more so since this mishna is in Aramaic and shouldn’t come between two mishnayot that are in Hebrew.
Also, Hillel is speaking in the second person, directing his words towards the skull itself. Why wouldn’t he have turned towards his listeners and addressed them? He should have said “because he drowned someone, he was drowned, and those who drowned him will in the end themselves drown.”
Also, what is the meaning of the modifier af—“even, also”— here?
It seems that the mishna intends the following. Hillel taught in the previous mishna that an unlearned person cannot be one who fears sin and so on, in order to steer people clear of personal deficiencies. He also once saw a skull, etc., and from that experience onwards he used to say “increasing the flesh only increases worms, etc.” in the next mishna, which is another list of personal deficiencies and virtues.
This is because when he saw this skull, he said to it, “because you drowned someone, etc.”, i.e. one would think it only logical that because you drowned someone, you were drowned, and those who drowned you will in the end themselves drown, because “the measure one uses to dole out is the one used to dole out to him” (Sotah 1:7), for this is only proper and logical. But regardless of what should be, reality contradicts this hypothesis; many people who have never killed anyone are killed and many people kill others and are not themselves killed.
In order to bring reality into harmony with theory, so that it doesn’t contradict the logical necessity that everything ultimately comes about through one consistent system and is judged fairly, he used to say from that moment on that “increasing the flesh only increases worms, etc.” in order to accustom people to thinking that everything is truly necessary and just. For one does find, overall, that “increasing the flesh only increases worms, etc.”, regarding defiencies, and “increasing Torah increases life, etc.”, regarding virtues. It is evident, then, that the laws in place in the world are just and perfect, and we can infer from cases that are clearly just to those whose justness is concealed, and understood only by G-d; those, too, are based on what is righteous and just, as per the verse, “For my thoughts are not as your thoughts, nor are my ways like your ways” (Isaiah 55:8).
It follows, then, that Hillel did not say “because you drowned someone, etc.” because he felt it was certainly true, i.e. that of necessity this is what happened and what will happen, but as a first premise, that logic would dictate that this be so. But because there are well-known cases that contradict this, and these might cause a person to say that “there is no judgement and no judge,” Hillel began to regularly propagate his teaching that “increasing the flesh only increases worms… increasing Torah increases life, etc.” among the people. The intent is that we should use our experiences and sound judgment to conclude that just as in these cases the result follows logically from the action, whether for good or ill, so also what befalls people in general follows logically, though it is beyond our understanding.
Since the words “because you have drowned someone, etc.” are not an absolute statement describing what will happen with certainty, as it is possible that this drowned person had not drowned anybody and that the one who drowned him might not be drowned, Hillel did not utter them as a public teaching. While facing the skull, an unhearing piece of bone, he said to himself that what ought to be is that “because you drowned someone, etc.”
And the fact of reality contradicting this statement is also not at all explicit, but is implicit in his following dictum, that from this point on he used to say “increasing the flesh only increases worms, etc.,” which the discerning will understand well as addressing this point. All such things ought to be said in such a manner as to be apparent to the discerning scholar but not to all those listening, lest they who will not understand the answer “decide by what their ears hear” and “judge by what their eyes see” (Isaiah 11:3) that the question is truly difficult and has no answer, and remain confounded by it and thereby falter, G-d forbid.
Hillel said these words in Aramaic, the language of the masses at the time per the mishna in Shekalim 5:3, because he said them as though speaking to the skull of a bandit. He also did this so that the people should take his words at face value, that it is indeed the case that “because you drowned somebody, etc.,” and for the discerning students he explained his words by affixing to them the dictum “increasing the flesh only increases worms, etc.,” which he said in Hebrew. This is what seems correct to me.
Or HaChaim
A moral/ethical approach to the whole paragraph sees in the words מאחד אחיך, "one of your brethren," an allusion to the one who is special amongst your brethren, the one to whose coming we all look forward to with longing, i.e. the Messiah. The Messiah has been portrayed as a poor man when the prophet Zachariah 9,9 describes him as riding on a donkey. The Torah also hints at the cause of his poverty when it says בך, "because of you," meaning that if the redemption would be orchestrated by G'd because the Israelites had attained spiritual maturity the Messiah would arrive in advance of G'd's final date for the redemption and he would be able to ride in style to show that the Israelites had qualified for redemption by their own efforts. As it is, by describing him as בך, Moses portrays him as a destitute person who waits anxiously for a handout. The story is told that when Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi once encountered the Messiah, the latter asked him what the Israelites were doing at that time. The Rabbi replied that they were awaiting the arrival of the Messiah. Upon hearing this the Messiah let out a long wail showing his anxious desire to reveal himself and to redeem the Jewish people. The Torah alludes to this when writing מאחד אחיך, "amongst one of your brethren," meaning "amongst the unique one of your brethren, the Messiah (compare Targum Yonathan ben Uzziel on Genesis 26,10 who renders the words אחד העם, "one of the people" as "a unique one, a king"). The words באחד שעריך may be understood as "one who is unique amongst the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court, as we know from Isaiah 11,4 that the Messiah will judge the poor fairly, not relying on external appearances. The word בארצך means that the arena for the Messiah's activities will be ארץ ישראל.
HaKtav VeHaKabalah
Pleasing fragrance. This instructs us about the proper intention we should have when bringing an offering. Instead of focusing on the fact that the offering atones for our sin, we should consider it as only a pleasing fragrance of what we intend to do in the future. This is comparable to a good scent that travels a distance and indicates that the source of the scent is something good, in the same way, an offering proclaims that we will do good deeds in the future. A burnt-offering (עולה): To grow higher (לעלות) in our spiritual level and the importance of our deeds and character traits.
Rabbeinu Bahya
Disponível apenas para membros PremiumHaamek Davar
Disponível apenas para membros PremiumRashi
Sending. This מִשְׁלֹחַ is a noun like מִשְׁמָר [guarding]5Nechemyah 12:24. and מִשְׁמָע [hearing],6Yeshayah 11:3. therefore the shin is vowelized softly [without a dagesh].