Yaakov Jaffe
What changes between the first and second editions of a major Torah work? We only rarely have the opportunity to compare and analyze the situations when a rabbi or scholar changed his mind over time in his interpretation. Yet R. Yom Tov Lipman Heller uniquely published his famed Mishnah commentary, Tosafot Yom Tov, twice in his lifetime, first between the years 1614 and 1617, and then again in 1642.[1] As such, we are able to see how R. Heller shifted interpretations over the course of his life. This essay will look at how R. Heller interprets one specific ambiguous term in Avot 5:6, pi ha-aretz, literally “the Mouth of the Earth.”
As we seek to understand a shift in interpretation, we must use a series of tools that help us identify when an explanation follows mostly from the interpreters’ direct interaction with the text, and when the explanation is impacted more by changing external, personal, or historical factors.[2] Most of the time, commentaries’ direct struggle with a text and its ambiguities leads them towards a new interpretation later in life; occasionally, however, an external factor makes one interpretation more appealing and leads a commentator to prefer one view over another. Commentaries on Pirkei Avot in particular, which has ethical and personal resonance beyond the halachic Mishnayot, are more susceptible to external factors guiding interpretation than are other Torah works.[3]
Avot 5:6 is one of the more philosophically famous Mishnayot in Avot, insofar as it was often cited as proof for Rambam’s view that minimized the miraculous and highlighted the natural within Judaism. The Mishnah lists ten great miracles which at first appear to defy nature, but that the Mishnah claims are actually part of nature, as they were included within the fabric of the universe at the final moment of creation. These “miracles” are the rainbow,[4] Manna, the Shamir, Aharon’s staff,[5] three miraculous aspects of the Luchot,[6] and three openings of the Bible (Miriam’s well,[7] Bilaam’s donkey, and Korah’s pit). The Mishnah argues that the items on this list were not miraculous departures from nature; they are part of nature from the dawn of time. The Mishnah begs more questions than it answers – what is to be said of all the other miracles of the Tanakh that do not appear in this list?[8] And what does it mean for people of faith to minimize the miraculous and make it part of nature? But for R. Heller, two words were of particular interest, and we will focus on these two words. These words are “the mouth of the Earth” – the miracle of the Earth opening to swallow Korah and his fellow rebels.
After the Torah gives a lengthy description of the terms of the disagreement between Moshe and Korah, the rebellion reaches its climax with Moshe’s dramatic words that his appointment by G-d will be proven “If G-d will create a new creation,[9] and the Earth will open its mouth and swallow them and all they have, and they will descend living to She’ol,[10] then you shall know that these men have angered Hashem (Bamidbar 16:30).” Moshe promises that the Earth will open (using the word “mouth”) and swallow the rebels as they descend into She’ol. Moshe’s promise is fulfilled, and the rebels[11] are swallowed by the Earth (16:30-34). The story is read this way by virtually all the commentaries preceding R. Heller, including Rashi (16:30), Ibn Ezra (16:30 – noting the explicit use of personification in the verse), Ramban (16:30 – saying the word “mouth” distinguishes this from an earthquake, as in this case the Earth closed itself), Chizkuni, and others. This appears to be the way R. Heller understood the story in the first edition of Tosafot Yom Tov.
When R. Heller revised the Tosafot Yom Tov for its second edition, he offered a new interpretation which stands out for two different reasons – one external to the Tosafot Yom Tov and one internal to the way Tosafot Yom Tov works. Why is the interpretation so shocking? This new view is one that had not been offered by any Midrash or commentary before the publication of the second edition of the Tosafot Yom Tov, and which also has not been subsequently presented by any other commentary after the Tosafot Yom Tov. This commentary is so surprising, unconventional we might say, that it was never given before and never given again. So much of Tosafot Yom Tov is adapted from interpretations and investigations in the Tosafot on the Talmud or other commentaries; this new interpretation therefore stands out. Perhaps recognizing the shocking nature of the commentary, R. Heller prefaces the interpretation with four questions on the conventional interpretation; it is a rarity for him to include so many original questions before giving his own view. He recognized that a commentary this unusual could only be given in response to a significant interpretative demand. Thus, the first reason why this interpretation stands out is that it seems to have been adopted by no commentary outside of the 2nd edition of the Tosafot Yom Tov commentary.
The interpretation also stands out against the backdrop of the second edition of Tosafot Yom Tov. The updated edition contains many additional comments and observations across the full corpus of the Mishnah, but most function as small added notes to the core commentary; a citation is added to a new prooftext, or an alternative translation is offered. [12] Indeed, most of the changes tend to be linguistic in nature and not interpretive. Yet the new interpretation to Avot 5:6, 500 words long, is one of the longest additions from the first to second editions, and it goes far beyond a new citation or proof as it offers an entirely novel interpretation of the Korah story.
R. Heller begins by asking a series of questions concerning the end of the story of Korah’s rebellion.
- If the mouth of the earth was already part of the fabric of the universe, why is it called a new creation? (This question was already asked and answered at Sanhedrin 110a, but R. Heller rejects the Talmud’s answer to the question).
- Why does the Torah use two different verbs for opening (“patzetah” and “patcha”) instead of using the same verb both times?
- Why does the word she’olah end with the locative suffix –ah?[13] Could the text just have read “they descended alive she’ol?”
- Why did the people flee in 16:34 when hearing the noise of those screaming to their deaths? Shouldn’t they have run towards the noise to curiously gaze at what was happening?
We should note that the three final questions are not asked by any other commentator, before or after R. Heller, and can be easily deflected. It is reasonable for people to flee when hearing shouts. Also, the word she’ol takes the locative suffix in eight other instances (Bereishit 37:35, 42:38, 44:29–:31; Yechezkel 31:15-17, Tehillim 9:18) and Hebrew grammar often allows for a suffix –h to indicate location or direction. Lastly, the root p.tz.h. also finds other uses for openings (see especially Bereishit 4:11), particularly in poetic instances. To summarize, decades after publishing the first edition of his work, R. Heller decided to ask a series of Biblical questions that do not appear germane to the Mishnah, and that had not bothered the other commentaries. Still, he uses them to justify a wondrous explanation:
Now I say, that the noise of the opening – though Mizrachi says that it was like thunder – I am able to say that the noise were words, [the ground] was telling that they entered she’olah alive – namely the lowest level. And this was a great sign that the Earth made the noise of speech, saying that they had reached the lowest level alive, in pain until they reached there. This is what Moshe intended when he said u-patzeta, as for opening for swallowing it would have u-patecha as it says when this happened. But u-patzeta of Yiftach (Shofetim 11:35) and Tehillim (66:14) mean to speak…[14]
Tosafot Yom Tov argues that the miracle of the death of the rebels was not merely that the Earth swallowed them, but that the Earth also spoke and proclaimed that the rebels descended to the lowest levels of the underworld. Though the text of the Torah barely hints at this interpretation, R. Heller uses his interpretive questions and the Mishnah’s use of the word “mouth” to justify a new, radical account. But why? What changed to motivate this unbelievable explanation?
In the summer of 1629, R. Yom Tov Lipman Heller spent two months in prison with his life in danger. The reasons for his arrest are somewhat unclear, but it appears that some of the actions he took as leader of the Jewish people of Prague, possibly related to taxation rates and the Thirty Years’ War, had upset some members of the community, and they badmouthed him before the secular government in an effort to depose him from his leadership position. R. Heller’s autobiography gives great attention to his emotions and feelings at that time[15] – it is not an understatement that he felt at that moment that his neighbors-turned-adversaries were rebelling against him, just like Korah had rebelled against Moshe. R. Heller lost everything – his reputation, his possessions, his position, and nearly his life, and he was torn apart by the experience. He carried the story with him for the rest of his life, and it impacted many of his other derashot and writings in the years after.[16] The Korah story would have gathered far greater meaning and resonance for him by 1642, when the second edition was published, than it had in 1617, when the first edition was published.
With this background, we can now reconstruct R. Heller’s thought process in composing his two versions of his commentary to Avot 5:6. At first, the story of Korach and the rebels lacked personal significance, energy, or charge, and so R. Heller gave a neutral interpretation for the phrase “mouth of the Earth.” In the intervening years, when editing his Mishnah Commentary, R. Heller took a second look at, or was drawn to more deeply analyze and process, the Korah story. His personal investment in the punishment of rebels, and in particular the assertion that their punishment would take place at the lowest levels of she’ol, is something that pulled at him, and led him to suggest an unusual interpretation. The miraculous demise could not be something minor, like a special type of earthquake; it needed to be even more dramatic, more punitive and critical of the conduct of the rebels. The changes in the life of the rabbi between the two editions of his published work, and his personal interaction with rebels against Rabbinic authority, led to a radical change in interpretation between the two editions.
Sometimes, commentators change their views because, over the course of a lifetime of learning, they think about an interpretive problem differently and develop new insight about a text. Other times, they are exposed to other interpretations in time, which might replace their original interpretations or which might be adapted by the author. In a third paradigm, Nahmanides famously made many adaptations to the first edition of his Bible Commentary based on new realia he encountered after moving to Israel (e.g., Bereishit 35:16-18, Shemot 30:13).[17] Yet this addition in Tosafot Yom Tov is different, as it reflects a rabbi responding to a personal experience by adjusting his commentary. A new reading of the text sprung forth from personal experience and travails.
The Mishnah of the ten miracles would be of passing interest to most rabbis, but it would offer a gripping call to a rabbi who was overthrown by a rebellion in his community. The punishment of Korah and the rebels would become more miraculous, more extravagant, more shocking and final than it was thought to have been before. And so when R. Heller adapted his commentary, a new insight came forth. Korah and his followers were not just punished, but even Earth and nature gave signs of woe that they were lost.
[1] While there are two different vowelizations for the work, the other being Tosefet Yom Tov, we use this vocalization as it is used more colloquially among modern readers. On the two editions, see Joseph Davis Yom Tov Lipmann Heller: Portrait of a Seventeenth Century Rabbi (Portland, Oregon: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004), 66-67.
[2] Dr. Haym Soloveitchik has written widely on this topic. See for example Haym Soloveitchik, “Halakhah, Hermeneutics, and Martydom” Collected Essays II (Portland, Oregon: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2014), 230-231, 254. “…Massive and atypical gaps in reasoning [from which] we may conclude that something is deflecting their thought process from its normal course.”
[3] To quote a modern example, Irving Bunim’s three-volume commentary “Ethics from Sinai,” written in the 1960s, regularly applies the teachings of Pirkei Avot to the struggles of his days, including the response to Conservative and Reform movements, the Holocaust, Israel, and assimilation.
[4] The inclusion of the rainbow on the list is somewhat troubling, given that modern science considers the rainbow to be an entirely natural occurrence, with no miraculous component to it at all. Ramban to Bereishit (9:12) is bothered by this problem (“we have no choice but to believe the Greeks”) and instead grants that the rainbow is indeed purely natural. Seforno attempts to solve the problem with the interpretation of the inverted double-rainbow which had not been explained by the science of his time, but which is now understood as also being a natural phenomenon.
[5] Following the version of the baraita in Pesachim 54a (end of page); as per Tifferet Yisrael. Most commentaries translate Moshe’s staff (Rashi, Machzor Vitri, Rabbeinu Yona, Pirkei Derabi Eliezer 40). However, Moshe’s staff was a tool to perform miracles, but was not itself miraculous (see Machzor Vitri, though, for an Excalibur-like story: see Rachel Mikva Midrash VaYosha: A Medieval Midrash on the Song at the Sea (Germany: Mohr Seibeck, 2012), 103-104). Aharon’s staff was itself miraculous when it blossomed at the end of Parashat Korah. See also Chizkuni to Bamidbar 20:8 in trying to translate what “the staff” refers to.
[6] The Kaufmann codex reads Ktav, Michtav, and Luchot, based on Shemot 32:16. Others read Ktav, Machtev, and Luchot – translating script, pen, and Luchot stones (Rashi Pesachim 54a). Rambam says the three miracles are Torah content, Luchot stone, and inscribed words. Rashash says they are written language, Hebrew Script, and Luchot stones. See also Targum Yonatan on Bamidbar 22:28.
[7] Following Rashi, most commentaries refer to the miraculous water source that accompanied the Jewish people for 40 years in the desert as Miriam’s well. In Rashi’s view (Bamidbar 20:2, 20:10, 21:17, Pesachim 54a, Avot 5:6, and elsewhere, largely based on the implicit statement in Taanit 9a and Tosefta Sotah, 11) there are three separate known facts about the well: (a) it accompanied the Jews for 40 years, (b) it was in Miriam’s merit, and (c) it is synonymous with the water that came from a rock (Shemot 17:1-7, Bamidbar 20:1-8, 21:16-20, Tehillim 114:8). Others disagree. For example, Derech Ha-hayim argues that the “opening of the well” was actually a subterranean water source that was accessed through a moving opening in the Earth and was not a stone that miraculously bore forth water.
[8] Rambam’s solution to this question, in his Mishnah commentary, is to argue that the general rule that miracles are part of creation applies to other miracles as well, but only these ten were from the last moment of creation.
[9] The word “new creation” may seem to invalidate the view of Avot 5:6 that the Mouth of the Earth preceded the beginning of time. Chizkuni poses the question, and his solution is to propose the new creation is not the opening of the Earth (and ancient people knew sinkholes existed, anyway) but is instead the idea of individuals entering she’ol alive (see next note). See also Ramban and Rashi, who may have had the question in mind, but do not ask it explicitly.
[10] She’ol is often used in the Tanakh to refer to the place to which people descend after death. In general, commentaries take one of two approaches in understanding the word – some take it to mean “the grave” – the place the physical body descends after death (see Ibn Ezra and Radak to Bereishit 37:35, based on loc. cit. and Bereishit 42:38, 44:29, 44:31). Others take She’ol to mean “the underworld,” the place beneath – either in a physical sense, or potentially in an axiological sense – this world where souls go and are perhaps punished after death (see Rashi to above sources and to Bamidbar 26:11 explaining our verse). R. Heller clearly adopts the second view in his analysis here. I discuss the term and debate in more length in Isaiah and his Contemporaries, (Kodesh Press, 2023), 297-300.
[11] There is a debate whether Korah, who simultaneously rebelled against both Moshe’s political leadership and Aharon’s temple leadership, was swallowed by the ground or burnt by the fire. See Ibn Ezra to 16:35, based on Sanhedrin 110a.
[12] In general, the notes in the second edition are marked with brackets. See Davis, Ibid.
[13] For a discussion of the uses of the locative suffix, see E. Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, Ed. A.E. Cowley (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2006), 249-250. Online here.
[14] Interestingly, Malbim seems to have made this distinction on his own in his commentary to Bereishit 4:11, but not in his commentary to Korah.
R. Heller recognizes the lack of proof for his thesis, and he goes on to offer a very weak additional piece of corroborating evidence, which he introduces with the words “semblance of a proof,” recognizing that this fails to definitively make the case. His proof is based on a parallel to the other two mouths – of the donkey and the well.
And I also have the semblance of a proof, how the Mishnah said concerning the donkey “the mouth of the donkey” – not that this donkey was made at the end of creation. All mouths are alike, and what is different about this donkey’s mouth that it needs to be made before creation? Unless “mouth” means the donkey’s speech, that this was made at creation. If so, the mouth of the earth also refers to speech. And the mouth of the well, according to the view mentioned by Bartenura that the well sung.
[15] Megilat Eivah Ed. J. Wreschner (Jerusalem, 1999), 38-55.
[16] Such as, for example, his Derush Chidushei Ha-Levanah Ed. Zuckerman (Vilna: 1866).
[17] Yosef Ofer and Jonathan Jacobs, Nahmanides’ Torah Commentary Addenda Written in the Land of Israel [Hebrew] (Herzog, 2013), 126, 135, 145, 148, 181, 186, 229-237, 262, 269. 285, 287-292, 335-342, 375-378, 437, 491, 508-510. On Nahmanides changing his view based on further study see 349. On Nahmanides changing his views on account of exposure to new scholarship, see 45-51. The authors do not cite instances where Nahmanides changed his view based on personal experiences.
Site Operations and Technology by The Berman Consulting Group.