כִּ֣י צַ֤ו לָצָו֙ צַ֣ו לָצָ֔ו קַ֥ו לָקָ֖ו קַ֣ו לָקָ֑ו זְעֵ֥יר שָׁ֖ם זְעֵ֥יר שָֽׁם׃
װאָרום עס איז אַ געבאָט צו אַ געבאָט, אַ געבאָט צו אַ געבאָט, אַ שטריך צו אַ שטריך, אַ שטריך צו אַ שטריך, אַ ביסל דאָ, אַ ביסעל דאָרט.
Tosafot Yom Tov
THE HOPE [Heb. tikvat] OF MAN [Heb. enosh] IS THE WORM. Rambam: he should consider his end and his return to the worm. I found a similar approach in Rashi’s commentary to the verse “the only desire of the righteous is the good, and the hope of the wicked is wrath” (Proverbs 11:23): they are assured of and hoping for Gehinnom. This shows that once a person is sure that something will happen it can be said to be “his hope”.
Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that the mishna does not say “for your hope is the worm” because no person hopes to be eaten by the worms. It says instead “for the hope of man is the worm”, i.e. that every person is destined to be eaten by the worms.137The “hope of man” refers not to any actual person’s hope but to the fate of every person insofar as he is human, per the use of “hope” Tosafot Yom Tov has established above. Saying “your hope” would imply a personal hope, which is not true. He also writes that the alphanumeric value of “man” [Heb. enosh, אנוש] is the same as the alphanumeric value of the sum of two other synonyms for “man”, אדם and איש. It is because of the joining of earth, אדמה, and the essence, i.e. potential, of man, אישות, that a person is the flesh, בשר, which is eaten by worms. He did not concern himself over the difference of one between the two values138The value of אנוש is 357, and the value of אדם + איש is 356. [because one alludes to the joining of earth and the essence of man].
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Chasid Ya’avetz that the mishna means “be lowly of spirit” before those who insult you, and do not answer them becase “the hope of [the] man” who insults you is the worm, and why should you care what he says? He then says that this is based on the words of the prophet Isaiah: “Do not fear the disparagement of man, and do not be broken by their insults; for like a garment, a moth will eat them, and like wool, a worm will eat them” (Isaiah 51:7-8).
Midrash Shmuel also writes that “hope” here is to be understood literally, and explains the mishna as saying that the hope and desire of a person is that he receive a proper burial and not be buried like a donkey. I say that although everyone hopes to have a proper burial befitting a person, it cannot be said that his hope and desire is to be eaten by the worm. If he were to be buried and not eaten by any worms, that would be best. Not only that, we find the Sages mentioning people whom the worms did not touch (Bava Batra 17a) and, we find the story of R. Elazar bar Shimon in Bava Metzia 83b.139In this story, R. Elazar bar Shimon’s daughter stores his body in her attic. One day she sees a worm coming out of his ear. He appears to her in a dream and explains that he once heard someone insulting a Torah scholar and did not sufficiently protest; the worm is a punishment for this. The import of the story is that worms only eat bodies that were engaged in sin, and it is possible to hope to be sinless and therefore not subject to worms.
I say that what caused the commentators all this difficulty is their understanding of the word tikvah as coming from the root k.v.h, meaning “to hope”. But this is not so, and the root is in fact k.v, as in the verse “kav by kav” (Isaiah 28:10). The second tav in the word tikvat is not in place of a hey140If the word in our mishna is “hope” from the root k.v.h., “to hope”, then we understand tikvat as the word tikvah appearing in the construct state and we read tikvat enosh as “the hope of man”.; it is simply a suffix, of the kind that appears in the words tif’eret, tilboshet.141The roots of which are p.’.r. and l.b.sh., respectively—the tav at the end is a suffix added on to the root. Tosafot Yom Tov suggests that our word tikvat should be understood similarly, the tav being a suffix. We find this word in the verse “the line [Heb. tikvat] of scarlet cord” (Joshua 2:18). We understand the kav in Isaiah the same way—as a measuring cord, with the verse meaning that one receives measure for measure. We also explain the verse in Proverbs 11:23, tikvat enosh `evra, to mean that the wicked are judged by the measuring cord and condemned to the wrath and rage of G-d. And this is what our tanna means when he says tikvat enosh rimah: the measuring cord by which punishment will be dealt out to a person is the worm. [I later saw a passage in Bereshit Rabbah 5:1 on the verse yikavu hamayim, “let the waters be gathered” (Genesis 1:9): he shall make a measure for the water, as the verse says, “a kav [line] shall be stretched over Jerusalem.]
Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that the mishna does not say “for your hope is the worm” because no person hopes to be eaten by the worms. It says instead “for the hope of man is the worm”, i.e. that every person is destined to be eaten by the worms.137The “hope of man” refers not to any actual person’s hope but to the fate of every person insofar as he is human, per the use of “hope” Tosafot Yom Tov has established above. Saying “your hope” would imply a personal hope, which is not true. He also writes that the alphanumeric value of “man” [Heb. enosh, אנוש] is the same as the alphanumeric value of the sum of two other synonyms for “man”, אדם and איש. It is because of the joining of earth, אדמה, and the essence, i.e. potential, of man, אישות, that a person is the flesh, בשר, which is eaten by worms. He did not concern himself over the difference of one between the two values138The value of אנוש is 357, and the value of אדם + איש is 356. [because one alludes to the joining of earth and the essence of man].
Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Chasid Ya’avetz that the mishna means “be lowly of spirit” before those who insult you, and do not answer them becase “the hope of [the] man” who insults you is the worm, and why should you care what he says? He then says that this is based on the words of the prophet Isaiah: “Do not fear the disparagement of man, and do not be broken by their insults; for like a garment, a moth will eat them, and like wool, a worm will eat them” (Isaiah 51:7-8).
Midrash Shmuel also writes that “hope” here is to be understood literally, and explains the mishna as saying that the hope and desire of a person is that he receive a proper burial and not be buried like a donkey. I say that although everyone hopes to have a proper burial befitting a person, it cannot be said that his hope and desire is to be eaten by the worm. If he were to be buried and not eaten by any worms, that would be best. Not only that, we find the Sages mentioning people whom the worms did not touch (Bava Batra 17a) and, we find the story of R. Elazar bar Shimon in Bava Metzia 83b.139In this story, R. Elazar bar Shimon’s daughter stores his body in her attic. One day she sees a worm coming out of his ear. He appears to her in a dream and explains that he once heard someone insulting a Torah scholar and did not sufficiently protest; the worm is a punishment for this. The import of the story is that worms only eat bodies that were engaged in sin, and it is possible to hope to be sinless and therefore not subject to worms.
I say that what caused the commentators all this difficulty is their understanding of the word tikvah as coming from the root k.v.h, meaning “to hope”. But this is not so, and the root is in fact k.v, as in the verse “kav by kav” (Isaiah 28:10). The second tav in the word tikvat is not in place of a hey140If the word in our mishna is “hope” from the root k.v.h., “to hope”, then we understand tikvat as the word tikvah appearing in the construct state and we read tikvat enosh as “the hope of man”.; it is simply a suffix, of the kind that appears in the words tif’eret, tilboshet.141The roots of which are p.’.r. and l.b.sh., respectively—the tav at the end is a suffix added on to the root. Tosafot Yom Tov suggests that our word tikvat should be understood similarly, the tav being a suffix. We find this word in the verse “the line [Heb. tikvat] of scarlet cord” (Joshua 2:18). We understand the kav in Isaiah the same way—as a measuring cord, with the verse meaning that one receives measure for measure. We also explain the verse in Proverbs 11:23, tikvat enosh `evra, to mean that the wicked are judged by the measuring cord and condemned to the wrath and rage of G-d. And this is what our tanna means when he says tikvat enosh rimah: the measuring cord by which punishment will be dealt out to a person is the worm. [I later saw a passage in Bereshit Rabbah 5:1 on the verse yikavu hamayim, “let the waters be gathered” (Genesis 1:9): he shall make a measure for the water, as the verse says, “a kav [line] shall be stretched over Jerusalem.]
Radak
Their line is gone out through all the earth: – Their line, i.e. (the line) of their construction; and so (in the verse) “line upon line” (Is. 28:10), because the structure is made by stretching out the line. He means that the work of the spheres and constellations has gone out into all the earth. And so
Haamek Sheilah
(The Prophet then elaborates as to why reduced indulgence is necessary preparation for acquiring Torah). “Commandment by commandment, commandment by commandment.”20Isa. 28:10. (For there are two categories of commandments – positive and negative – and the Talmudic scholar is required to have a deep understanding and knowledge of the characteristics of both). “… Measuring line by measuring line, measuring line by measuring line….”21Isa. 28:10. (Just as there are two different types of commandments, there are two types of middos, guidelines. The first type [consists] of the rules by which the Torah is elucidated. These rules are called middos because [the applicability of] these rules of inference are dependent upon the subject and upon received traditions. In other words, for every interpretive rule, there are conditions and procedures as to how and when these laws are to be inferred, and in which areas they should or should not be derived. [For example], in the area of kodashim, there is the limiting rule that a law derived by exegesis cannot be used to teach another law by exegesis.22See Tractate Zevahim 49b: “R. Yohanan said: ‘Throughout the entire Torah we may derive with exegesis a derivative from what is itself a derivative from exegesis, except with the regard to the area of kodashim, sacred offerings, where we cannot derive a derivative from that which is itself a derivative.’” There are many other similar examples. “Tradition” means that many conclusions were drawn from kal va-homer, the rules of minor to major, that were received from Sinai, as it is stated in Tractate Temurah 15b:23It is actually on 16a. Page 15b states that during the mourning period for Moses, three thousand halachos were forgotten. Page 16a states, “It has been taught: one thousand seven hundred kal va-homer and gezerah shavah and dikdukei soferim were forgotten during the mourning period for Moses.” See Part 1, chapter 3, for an explanation of dikdukei soferim. “Many instances of kal va-homer were forgotten during the period of mourning for Moses.” This means that without the tradition defining when to could apply the kal va-homer, they would not have applied it. (Netziv’s addendum – See [Ha’amek She’elah] 167:2, noting that a kal va-homer can be rejected based on a logical refutation; however, if the law was received [from earlier generations] based on proofs and inference from Scripture, we apply that kal va-homer and do not refute it [since they had traditions as to the applicability of a kal va-homer that are no longer available to us] – End of Netziv’s Addendum).
Rashi
By one who withholds kindness from his friend Heb. למס, by one who withholds kindness. The “lammed” is a prefix, as in (Num. 26:54), “to the numerous one (לָרַב)”; “to the one who returns (?) (לָשָב),” and (Isa. 28:10, 13) “for a precept (לצו).” מָס too is an expression of a verb, like בָּא, comes: שָב, returns; גָר, dwells; these also are an expression of doing [i.e., the present tense]: