[1] I have seen fit to alert you here to questions that are worth raising and to raise doubts concerning these matters:

[2] The first question is: why is Rabban Shimon — who was the son of Hillel and the father of Rabban Gamliel — not mentioned here in the chain of transmission? For the father is omitted, yet the son — namely Rabban Gamliel — is mentioned, if this is indeed Rabban Gamliel the First, the Elder.

[3] The second question — since he mentioned Rabban Gamliel and his son Shimon after him, why did he not then mention Rabban Gamliel the Second, who was the son of that same Shimon? Instead, he mentions at the end of the chapter Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who was Rabban Gamliel the Second's son. For indeed, Rabban Gamliel the Second was the head of the eleventh generation, as I noted earlier.

[4] The third question: Why did [the author] not mention Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, who was the head of the tenth generation and was appointed Nasi and head of the yeshiva after Rabban Shimon ben Rabban Gamliel? For it is fitting that one who mentions Rabban Gamliel cited here and his son Shimon cannot escape one of two possibilities: either Rabban Gamliel the Elder was the head of the eighth generation and his son Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was the head of the ninth generation, or they are Rabban Gamliel the Second — who was the head of the eleventh generation — and his son Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the head of the twelfth generation, who are mentioned in the first introduction. If they are the former pair, the difficulty arises: why did [the author] not mention Rabban Gamliel the Second, the son of Rabbeinu HaKadosh? And if they are the latter pair, the difficulty arises: why did [the author] not mention Rabban Gamliel the Elder, the grandson of Hillel, given that he came to write the chain of transmission in its successive order?

[5] The fourth question — what is the reason that, regarding all the great men mentioned in this chapter generation after generation, it says they "received" from them, tracing an unbroken chain of transmission from one receiver to the next, with no one omitted from being mentioned in the manner of transmission, all the way down to Hillel? Yet from that point onward — concerning Rabban Gamliel, his son Shimon, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi (who appears at the beginning of the second chapter) — it does not say of any one of them that he "received" from him, or that he "received" from them, even though it is well known that they all did receive?

[6] The fifth question: What did the compiler of the Mishnayot see fit to include the teaching of Rabban Gamliel — "make for yourself a teacher (רב)" — given that this very lesson was already mentioned above in the name of Yehoshua ben Perachya? What benefit is there in bringing one and the same moral instruction twice? Furthermore, a question may be raised regarding Rabban Gamliel himself: since he commanded concerning a teacher (רב), why did he not also command concerning a companion (חבר), as Yehoshua ben Perachya had done?

[7] The sixth question — regarding his statement: "And do not be excessive in estimating tithes." The fact that he cautioned only against doing this many times implies that he would permit doing it two or three times — yet the truth is that it is not proper to tithe by estimation in any manner or at any time, but only by measure, by weight, and by count. For one who tithes by estimation falls into the category of numerous doubtful prohibitions: the nullification of the positive commandment of עשר תעשר ("you shall surely tithe"), robbing the wages of the hired workers — who are the Levi'im. And if one did this with maaser sheni, he may come to eat that tithe outside of Yerushalayim, thereby transgressing "You shall not eat within your gates" (Devarim 12:17), and he eats tevel if he has not properly separated the full tithe. And if he is a Levi who has not properly given the Kohen the tithe from the tithe, he too fails in his obligation and falls into the prohibition of meduma — for any produce from which its terumah has not been taken is considered meduma — and the tithe that the Levi gives to the Kohen has the status of terumah, as it is written (Bamidbar 15:20): "like the separation of the threshing floor," and like the separation of the winepress.

[8] What appears correct to me in this matter is that Rabban Gamliel mentioned in our Mishnah is Rabban Gamliel the Elder, the son of Rabban Shimon, the son of Hillel. Since Hillel lived to a great age — dying at one hundred and twenty years — Rabban Gamliel received [his tradition] from him directly, and it is for this reason that he is mentioned after him. It seems that no teaching was found attributed to Shimon his father that was worthy of inclusion here, and therefore his name is not mentioned. In this very matter you will find in Scripture that [someone] is called (Chagai 1:1) "Zerubavel the son of Shealtiel," yet he was not actually his son, but rather the son of Pedayah the son of Shealtiel; nonetheless, he was attributed to his grandfather — either because his stature surpassed that of his father, or because his grandfather raised him as a father would. Similarly, it is fitting to say this of Rabban Gamliel the Elder with respect to Hillel his grandfather, in whose lap he was raised and from whom he received Torah; it is therefore that he is mentioned here after him. For the Mishnah records here the order of transmission rather than the order of the Presidency, and therefore it records who received from whom. Now Rabban Gamliel received [his tradition] directly from Hillel, his father's father, for he was like a son of his old age — even though with regard to the Presidency, Rabban Shimon served as Nasi after Hillel his father, and Rabban Gamliel was appointed Nasi after him, as mentioned in the first introduction. Similarly, Rabban Gamliel the Second is not mentioned, nor is Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai mentioned — even though they were both Nesiim — because the Mishnah was content to record only the chain of who received from whom. Note that Rabbeinu HaKadosh, mentioned at the beginning of the second chapter, received [his tradition] from his father Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who appears at the end of this chapter. And that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel his father received from his father Rabban Gamliel the Second. And likewise, that Rabban Gamliel the Second received from his father, who was Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel the Elder — whom Titus slew at the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash — who was already a mature and learned man in his time. And even though Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was appointed Nasi between them, this does not mean that Rabban Gamliel received his tradition from him; rather, he received it from his father Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel the Elder. But since Rabban Yochanan was close to the [Roman] government, he was appointed Nasi after the aforementioned Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was killed, and upon his death the crown returned to its former [family] and Rabban Gamliel the Second was appointed Nasi.

[9] Now, even though the order of the nesiut (leadership) is as I described in the first introduction, the true order of transmission (kabbalah) was from Hillel to Rabban Gamliel the Elder, who was his grandson and traced his lineage to him, for he was the head of the family and lived a long life. From Rabban Gamliel the Elder, his son Shimon — who is mentioned in our Mishnah, and who was the one who killed Titus — received the tradition. And from him, both Rabban Gamliel the Second and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel the Second, his son, received the tradition; for these two, father and son, both received from Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel the Elder mentioned above. However, since the compiler of the Mishnah found no statement from Rabban Gamliel the Second that suited the purpose of these moral teachings, he did not mention him here, and was content to record Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel the Second after Shimon, who was his grandfather from whom he had received. And know and understand: since in these cases the transmission passed from fathers to sons, the Tanna had no need to say of them "they received from them," as he did say regarding the earlier Sages mentioned above — for those did not receive from their fathers or grandfathers, but rather from men who were strangers outside their families, and even from converts. Therefore he needed to state explicitly in their regard "they received from them." But from Hillel until Rabbeinu HaKadosh, where the transmission was an inheritance of fathers passing to their sons, there was no need to say so. However, concerning Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, since he did not receive the tradition from his fathers but rather from Hillel and Shammai, it is therefore stated in the second chapter: "Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai received from Hillel and Shammai" — and I will discuss this further in its proper place. It is already evident from the words of the Rambam that what I have stated regarding the order of transmission is correct, from what he wrote at the beginning of Mishneh Torah — for he did not mention Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai for the very reason I stated — and with this, the first four questions are resolved. And whoever can offer an additional explanation better than this, may he receive blessing from Hashem.

[10] The intent of this teaching of Rabban Gamliel and its connection to the preceding teachings is that he inclined toward the view of Shammai, who said: "Make your Torah fixed, say little and do much" — according to the first interpretation. That is to say, the working person should set aside fixed times for Torah study, and his learning will of necessity be little, while his performance of mitzvot will be abundant, since he cannot devote himself continuously to Torah study. Therefore, Rabban Gamliel said that one should make for himself a Rav — not for the purpose of learning, but for the purpose of instruction: that the Rav should direct his path and guide him in matters of prohibition and permission, thereby removing him from doubt. This is in keeping with what is said in the Yerushalmi (Yevamot 12:7): "Go bring an elder from the marketplace upon whom you may rely" — and in accordance with his guidance one should act, not based on one's own estimation. This clarifies that the thrust of this teaching is not the same as that of Yehoshua ben Perachyah, for Yehoshua spoke of making oneself a Rav in the context of learning, and therefore he also commanded that one acquire a companion for study. Rabban Gamliel, however, said to make oneself a Rav solely for the purpose of relying upon him in matters of prohibition and permission, so as to be free of doubt — and for this reason he did not command the acquisition of a companion, since there was no need for it in this context.

[11] And because he said that one should "remove oneself from doubt," he likewise said, "and do not multiply estimated tithings." That is to say, a person should not act according to his own opinion, reasoning, or personal estimate, even if he intends to be stringent. He drew the illustration from the laws of tithes: a person should not think to tithe by estimation, saying, "I will give far more than is required, and in this way I will remove any doubt of tevel" — he should not do so. Rather, he should not tithe his produce by estimation, even if his intent is to tithe generously, for perhaps his reasoning will err, and while thinking he is adding, he may actually be subtracting — so that the reward of good intention is canceled out by the loss caused by the action. It follows, then, that the phrase "and do not multiply estimated tithings" does not refer to doing so many times, but rather to tithing generously — as if to say: do not tithe with the aim of tithing by estimation. The overall lesson is that a person should not rely upon his own judgment; rather, in every case of doubt he should seek the ruling of the Sages, as the Torah commanded (Devarim 17:8–10): "If a matter is hidden from you… and you shall act in accordance with the word that… they instruct you." With this, the last two questions are also resolved. And from what I have explained it emerges that Rabban Gamliel holds that the perfection of a person consists in fulfilling his Torah — and that the essential core of the Torah is indeed action, not study.