וכן בדוד הוא אומר כי ממך הכל וגו'. על אותו מעשה שקבץ כסף וזהב לבהמ"ק אמר דוד פסוק זה. רש"י. ומשום דאיכא למדחי דדלמא דוד שאני שהתנדב לבהמ"ק שהש"י צוה עליה בפרטות והיה בהניח ה' אלהיך וגו' אי נמי רבים שאני. לכך לא אמר כמו שנאמר כי ממך הכל וגו' לפי שאינה ראיה גמורה. דרך חיים: AS THE IT SAYS OF DAVID, “FOR ALL IS FROM YOU, ETC.” Rashi: David said this verse upon gathering silver and gold for the Temple. One might dismiss this proof by saying that David’s case was exceptional, as he was giving the money to the Temple which G-d had specifically commanded he build, in the verse “and it shall be, when Hashem your G-d relieves you of your enemies around you, etc.” (Deuteronomy 25:19).97The verse in question speaks only of destroying Amalek and makes no mention of building the Temple. Rabbi S. Mannes in Tosafot Yom Tov HaMevu’ar suggests the text be emended to refer to the very similar verses earlier in Deuteronomy 12:10-11: “and G-d will relieve you of all of your enemies surrounding you and you shall dwell securely, and the place that G-d chooses etc.”, which the Talmud in Sahedrin 20b understands as a commandment to build the Temple. Or one might claim that public funds are different. Therefore, the tanna does not use the words “as it is said,”98Heb. shene'emar, the standard way of introducing a prooftext in the Mishna. for it is not an airtight proof—Maharal in Derech Chaim.
רבי יעקב אומר כן הגרסא בספר מד"ש ושמצא כתוב שזה ר' יעקב הוא אביו של ר"א בן יעקב שאמרו עליו שמשנתו קב ונקי. וכן נ"ל לגרוס. דהא ר"ש כבר נשנו דבריו לעיל משנה ג' ואי משום דדמי להא דר"מ השוכח וכו' ה"ל לשנותו אחר דברי ר"מ. וכ"ש דר"מ קדים לר"ש בזמן [*כמו שתראה בס"פ רביעי מהעשרה פרקים שבהקדמת הרמב"ם לפי' המשניות] וכיון שהם שנוים זה אצל זה ה"ל להקדים דברי ר"מ אע"פ שנמצא כן כמ"ש בפ"ק דמכות משנה ז' [ד"ה ר"ש] . ומיהו יש לומר דכיון דדברי ר"ש הם דומים ג"כ לדלעיל מיניה משנה ד' המהלך בדרך יחידי וכו' הלכך סמכו לבין שניהם. [*ועוד נראה לי דמעיקרא לאו קושיא. הואיל ור' דוסתאי אמרה במדרש בשם ר"מ. ולא ר"מ גופיה. הלכך שפיר מקדים ר"ש. R. YAAKOV99In most printed editions, Rabbi Shimon. SAYS. This is how the text reads in the version of Midrash Shmuel, who writes that he saw written somewhere that this R. Yaakov was the father of R. Eliezer ben Ya’akov whose teachings are called “a kav, but pure.”100Few in quantity, great in quality. This version seems correct, because the teaching of R. Shimon was already mentioned earlier in mishna 3. One might argue that the mishna quotes R. Shimon’s teaching here to have it adjacent to the similar teaching of R. Meir in the next mishna about one who forgets his learning. But if that were the case, it should have come after that of R. Meir, especially since R. Meir preceeded R. Shimon chronologically [*as you will see if you look at the end of the fourth of the ten chapters of the Rambam’s introduction to the Mishna]; since their teachings are adjacent that of R. Meir should’ve come first, even though there are exceptions to this rule, as I wrote in Makkot 1:7 [s.v. R. Shimon].
One might counter, however, that since the teaching of R. Shimon is also similar to the earlier teaching in mishna 4 concerning one who is walking along a road alone, it was placed here inbetween the two others. [*In fact, the entire objection of R. Meir’s chronological precedence seems unfounded, because it is R. Dostai who repeats the teaching in the name of R. Meir and not R. Meir himself speaking in mishna 7, and R. Shimon preceded R. Dostai, so it would make sense to quote his teaching first.]
המהלך בדרך. שהוא מקום סכנה. וי"מ דלאו דוקא אלא ה"ה בבית אלא דבדרך שכיחי אילן וניר ואפשר שיפסיק. ONE WHO IS WALKING ALONG THE ROAD. Which is a dangerous place.
Some say that the road in question is not a dangerous place and the mishna would apply even to someone at home; the road was chosen simply because one commonly encounters trees and fields along it and there is a greater chance he will interrupt his learning.
ומה נאה ניר זה. דלא תימא דוקא אילן שהוא רואהו מרחוק ואומר מה נאה שזהו ודאי שמפסיק. אלא אפי' ניר שנמצא בצדו כשהוא מהלך אפ"ה הוי הפסק. דרך חיים: HOW PLEASANT THIS FIELD IS! The mishna includes this second example because one might otherwise think that the dictum is limited to one who notes how pleasant a tree is, which he sees from afar. This is certainly interrupting. The mishna adds that even praising a field, which is right at one’s side as one walks along the road, is also interrrupting—Maharal in Derech Chaim.
מעלה עליו הכתוב. פי' בדרך חיים דסמוך ליה אקרא דרק השמר לך דתנן לקמן וכ"כ במד"ש במשנה דלקמן אבל בכאן מפרש דסמיך ליה על פסוק הקוטפים מלוח עלי שיח. (איוב ל' ד'). דדרשוהו [חגיגה י"ב] על הפוסקים מדברי תורה ועוסקים בדברי שיחה. וכן מתורגם דשבקין פתגמי אורייתא מן לוח לבהון מטול מילי דעלמא. וכיון שכן הוא מתורגם. מלתא דפשיטא הוא. וא"צ להזכיר הכתוב בהדיא וסמך על המבין. כי אין דרך התנא לפרש. ואפשר נמי דהוא דורש שיח. אילן. כמו וכל שיח השדה (בראשית ב') שפירשו המפרשים אילן. והיינו דנקט מה נאה אילן זה ע"כ ובפירש"י כתוב הכא ל"ג מעלה עליו הכתוב דהא לא כתיב קרא. ע"כ. וכן העתיק הר"ב מעלין עליו וכו'. אבל במשנה דלקמן העתיק ג"כ בזה הלשון. ואע"פ דהתם מייתי מקרא דהשמר וגו'. והא דלא תנן הכא מתחייב בנפשו שנאמר וכו' כדלעיל משנה ד' אלא תנן מעלה וכו' כאילו וכו' נ"ל דהכא לא הוי אלא הפסק דרך עראי ומיד הוא חוזר אל משנתו. אבל לעיל קאמר דמפנה לבו לבטלה. ובמד"ש מפרש בשם הר"ם אלמושנינו דלהכי קאמר הכא מעלה וכו' להורות שר' חנינא בן חכינאי [לעיל משנה ד'] דבר באיש אשר לו המקום והזמן הנאות אל ההתבודדות ע"כ. ולפירוש השני שכתב הר"ב דהכא במברך וכו'. מעיקרא לא קשיא ואדרבא דמעלה עליו הוי חדוש דלמוד תורה כנגד כולם: SCRIPTURE CONSIDERS HIM. Maharal explains in Derech Chaim that the mishna is really based on the verse “only take care, etc.” quoted in the next mishna; so also Midrash Shmuel in his commentary to the next mishna. In his commentary to this mishna, however, Midrash Shmuel writes that the mishna is based on the verse “they would scrape moss from trees” (Job 30:4), which the Talmud in Chagiga 12b understands as referring to those who interrupt their Torah studies to engage in conversation. The Targum likewise translates that verse “they who abandon [inscribing] words of Torah on the tablet of their hearts for conversation.” Since this is explicit in the Targum it is considered obvious and the mishna sees no need to mention the verse, relying instead on the thinking person to understand this on his own; for the way of the tannaim is not to make explicit what they feel should have been understood. The mishna might also be midrashically interpreting the Hebrew siach as “tree,” as in the verse vechol siach hasadeh (Genesis 2:5) where the commentators understand it as “tree,” which is why the mishna’s example is one who says “how beautiful this tree is!”
Rashi writes in his commentary here: the text should not read “Scripture considers him,” for no verse is adduced. Rav is likewise careful with his language and writes “they consider him as if.”101“They” meaning the Sages, not a verse. On the other hand, Rav uses the same language in the next mishna, even though it quotes the verse “only take care, etc.”
The reason our mishna does not say “he forfeits his life, as the verse says, etc.” as in mishna 4 and instead says “he is considered as if” is that the person in our mishna happens to interrupt his learning temporarily and immediately returns to it, whereas the person in mishna 4 “turns his mind to idle things.” Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of R. Moshe Almosnino that our mishna says “he is considered as if” to show that mishna 4 is a case of one who is in the right place and time for solitary thought.
According to Rav's the second explanation, that the person in our case says “Blessed is He who has made such things in His world,” the above question doesn’t begin. For since he interrupted to say a blessing, we wouldn’t have even assumed that “he is considered as if,” and so the mishna informs us that “he is considered as if” because Torah study is above all else.