‘Aḳabya b. Mahalalel said: Whosoever takes four things to heart1Cf. Aboth 3:1 (Sonc. ed., p. 26) where the more popular version reads: ‘Consider three things’, etc., omitting the third item, ‘what he is destined to become—dust, worms and maggots’ as being heterodox in outlook; cf. Finkelstein, Akiba: Scholar, Saint and Martyr, pp. 159f, where the maxim of ‘Aḳabya is described as ‘this unequivocal denial of personal immortality’. See also DER III, 1 (below, p. 543) where the saying is quoted as in the present text in the name of Ben ‘Azzai. will never sin: whence he came, whither he is going, what he is destined to become, and who is his Judge. ‘Whence he came’—from a place of darkness; ‘whither he is going’—to a place of thick darkness; ‘what he is destined to become’—dust, worms and maggots; ‘and who is his Judge’—the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He.
R. Simeon said: Man came from a place of darkness and returns to a place of darkness. He came from a fetid drop, from a place which no eye can behold. And what is he destined to become? Dust, worms and maggots, as it is stated, How much less man, that is a worm! and the son of man, that is a maggot!2Job 25, 6. R. Eleazar b. Jacob said: Man that is a worm when alive, and the son of man that is a maggot when dead. In what sense is he a worm when alive? By reason of the lice [which infest him]. And a maggot when dead? By reason of the creeping things which he generates when dead.
R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: I will illustrate it to you by a parable. To what can the matter be compared? To a king who built a large palace in which he resided,3According to a variant reading: ‘which he elaborately adorned’. GRA reads ‘magnificent in every detail’. V has ‘large palaces’. but the waste-pipe of a tannery ran through it and emptied itself at the entrance. Every passer-by exclaimed, ‘How beautiful and magnificent would that palace be if the waste-pipe of the tannery did not run through it!’ Just so is it with man; and if in his present state, when from his entrails issue fetid streams,4The natural secretions. he lords it over all creatures, how much more would he lord it over all creatures if there were to issue from him streams of fine oil, balsam and spikenard!
When R. Eliezer fell ill, his disciples came to visit him. They sat before him and said, ‘Master, tell us in one word what you have taught us’.5lit. ‘teach us one word of what you have taught us’. In the master’s last hours the disciples enquire of him the epitome of his wisdom and experience. In the parallel passage, Ber. 28b (Sonc. ed., p. 173), the text reads: ‘Teach us the ways of life’. He replied, ‘What shall I tell you? Go forth and be mindful of the honour of your fellow-man, and when you pray know before Whom you are standing and praying. Then will you merit the life of the world to come’.R. Eleazar said: Five things did we learn from R. Eliezer [on that day], and they afforded us greater pleasure than all that we had enjoyed from him in his lifetime, and they are as follows: If a round cushion, a ball, a shoemaker’s last, an amulet or a phylactery, about which you spoke to us, were torn, what would be the law?6The five articles enumerated have in common that they are made of leather and are permanently filled with stuffing. It is established law that an article of leather can contract defilement only if it is a receptacle, i.e. it has a cavity in which it can hold things. Since the articles here listed are permanently filled, the Sage held the view that they are not considered to be vessels with receptacles and consequently cannot be ritually defiled. R. Eliezer, however, was of the opinion that since the filling was removable, they were to be considered vessels with receptacles and could contract defilement. Furthermore, if any one of the enumerated articles were torn the opinion was unanimous that it could contract defilement, because some of the filling must have fallen out and in consequence a receptacle was formed. If, in the circumstances stated, the article became unclean, there was a further argument between R. Eliezer and the Sages whether it was necessary to remove all the filling before immersion took place. The Sages held the view that this must be done otherwise the immersion would be invalid, since the filling interposed between the vessel and the water. R. Eliezer, on the other hand, ruled that it could be immersed as it was without the removal of the filling. R. Eliezer here put forward his views as ancient traditional rulings. Cf. Kel. XXIII, 1 (Sonc. ed., p. 110). The answer he gave was: They can contract uncleanness so be careful with them; and [if unclean] they may be immersed as they are. These laws are well established, for they were communicated to Moses on Mount Sinai.7For textual variants of this passage, cf. below XXV 2 (p. 171), Sanh. 68a (Sonc. ed., pp. 462f) and DER III, end (below p. 544).