Sanhedrin 71a [states]: “The case of the ‘rebellious son’1See Deuteronomy 21:18–21. never was and never will be. Why then is it written in Scripture? To expound it and receive the reward [of study].” This is very surprising. Isn’t there enough material in the other parts of the Torah – even if a person were to live a thousand years – to study and receive reward?
YalkutShimoni (Shemini, 521) [states]: “Why did [the people of] Israel see fit to bring more [sacrifices to the dedication of the Tabernacle] than Aaron?2At the dedication of the Tabernacle, Aaron was instructed to bring a young calf for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering. The Israelites were instructed to bring a kid goat for a sin offering, a calf and a lamb for a burnt offering, and a bullock and a ram for a peace offering. See Leviticus 9:2–4. Because he said to them: You have [sin] on your hands from the beginning – ‘And they slaughtered a kid goat’3See Genesis 37:31. The “sin on the hands” of the Israelite tribes is the sale of Joseph and the cover-up of the crime. – and you have [sin] on your hands at the end – ‘They have made for themselves a molten calf….’”4See Exodus 32:8. The sin of the desert generation of the Israelites was making the Golden Calf. This is also quite astonishing. Did not Aaron, too, have a share in sin at the beginning and at the end,5Aaron agreed to make an idol and asked the Israelites to give their jewelry of gold (Ex. 32:2). Aaron then made the Golden Calf (ibid. 32:4). as Scripture says (Deut. 9:20): “The Lord was angered at Aaron…”?6Moses had to pray that Aaron be forgiven for his role in making the Golden Calf.
Sanhedrin (27b) states: “Is it not written (Ex. 34:7), ‘He visits the sins of the fathers on children…’?7Deuteronomy 24:15 states that each person is responsible for his own sin, but the verse in Exodus implies that children are punished for the sins of their forebears. This is when they perpetuate the acts of their fathers….” It stands to reason that this holds true only when the quality of the acts of the children is equivalent to the acts of the fathers, not when the acts of the fathers were qualitatively greater sins than the sinful acts of the children.8R. Salanter continues to apply his principle that particular acts of mitzva or sin may be externally alike yet weighed differently for each person. The more difficult the act, the greater reward in doing a good deed and the lesser the punishment for the sin. The easier it is to act, the lesser the reward for doing a good deed and the greater the punishment for the sin (because it would have been easy to refrain from the act). And we say in Yoma (67b): “‘My mishpatim (laws), you shall do’ (Lev. 18:4) – this refers to matters that, had they not been written, should have been written. They are: idolatry, murder…. ‘My ḥukkim (statutes), you shall observe’ – refers to matters which Satan questions…” (because their obligation has no entry in human reason – only “I the Lord have decreed them…”9Yoma ibid.). It stands to reason that transgression against mishpat is qualitatively worse than the transgression of a ḥok.10When our reason sees the need for a law, it is easier to observe. In the Talmud’s formulation, Satan does not urge us to question the need for such a law. This follows R. Salanter’s line of reasoning that laws that we find more compelling are easier to keep, and, correspondingly, one gets less reward for keeping them and more punishment for violating them. And we say (ibid. 85b): “The Torah said: Violate one Sabbath for his sake so that he will be able to observe many Sabbaths.”11The Talmud reasons that it is permissible to violate the Sabbath to save a life on the grounds that the person thus saved will observe the Sabbath for the rest of his life, so it is a “net gain” for Sabbath observance. Torah, judging rationally, does not ask the individual to die rather than violate the Sabbath. Accordingly, though the sin of idolatry is a mishpat (per the aforementioned passage from the Talmud), the Torah’s instruction to die rather than perform idolatry is a ḥok.12Rationally, one could argue: Should I not perform idolatry this one time so that I may continue to serve God for the rest of my life? And we say in Sanhedrin (7a): “‘And Aaron saw…’ (Ex. 32:5). What did Aaron see? He saw Hur slaughtered before his eyes. He said: If I don’t obey them now, they will do to me what they did to Hur.13According to the midrash, the Israelites first asked Hur (Moses and Aaron’s companion, and, according to Sanhedrin 69b, their nephew) to make them a Golden Calf. When he refused, they slaughtered him. In me will be fulfilled (Lam. 2:20): ‘Alas, in the Temple of the Lord, priest and prophet will be killed….’” It follows that Aaron transgressed a ḥok, and he was not in the same category as one “who perpetuates the acts of his fathers” (on whom punishment is visited for the fathers’ sins) with respect to [the sin of] “they slaughtered a kid goat…,” which transgressed a mishpat.
With this we can explain the verse [Leviticus 18:4] “My mishpatim, you shall do, and My ḥukkim, you shall observe….” Note the change in this verse: The admonition with respect to mishpatim is positive, and with respect to ḥukkim is negative (see Menaḥot 36b: the term “[be careful to] observe” in connection with a positive commandment [is equivalent to a negative commandment]…).14According to the passage in Menaḥot, the term “do” (“taasu”) connotes a positive commandment, whereas the term “observe” (“tishmoru”) connotes a negative commandment. Note also the change of order in the verses. In the first verse (Lev. 18:4), mishpat precedes ḥok, but in the next verse, “You shall observe My ḥukkim and mishpatim” – first ḥukkim, then mishpatim. For Rambam wrote (Laws of Repentance 3:1–2): Each and every human being has merits and sins. One whose merits exceed his sins is a righteous man. One whose sins exceed his merits is a wicked person. If they are half and half, he is an in between person …. This weighing is not by number of merits and sins but by their magnitude. A merit can equal several sins, as it is said (I Kings 14:13): “For something good was found in him.” And a sin can equal several merits, as it is said (Eccl. 9:12): “One sinner destroys much good.” And the judging is done only by the mind of the Divine Intellect. He is the One who knows how the merits are assessed as compared to the sins. Although there are certainly many causes that increase the weight of merits and sins, we shall not hold back from explaining a particular aspect of this matter, viz., “Many are the thoughts in the heart of man.”15See Proverbs 19:21. R. Salanter interprets this to mean that, as the psychology of the individual varies, there will be different weight to similar deeds based on the individual’s difficulty (or ease) in doing the act. One who pays attention to his own practices knows that he commits a certain sin frequently. (He cannot desist from it, he thinks) in his imagination, and so he does not embrace the sayings of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, which discuss it, thinking that “it is better to do it unintentionally.”16Compare Beitza 30a. As they, of blessed memory, said (Deuteronomy Rabba, Ki Tavo): “Whoever learned Torah and does not fulfill it, his punishment is more severe than one who never learned it at all.” See further there. This is not the way of God, to put the cloak of righteousness back on the wicked.17God does not want us to assume that we cannot stop sinning and consequently delude ourselves and avoid studying rabbinic texts in the vain hope that we will be considered unintentional sinners because we are ignorant. Rather, God wants us to fully recognize our sinfulness so we can then change and repent. Facing up to our addiction to the sin is important, despite the possible risk of falling into despondency. As the verse says (Ps. 90:3): “You bring a person to dust (daka).” The Rabbis, of blessed memory, expounded: “to despondency (dikhdukh) of the soul.” And the verse continues: “And you say to mankind, return….”18Y. Ḥagiga 9b:1 expounds the verse and cites the story of Elisha ben Avuya, who recognized his sin and as a result fell into despair, telling R. Meir that he was so ensnared in his sins that it was too late for repentance. R. Meir (using Psalms 90:3 for support) told him that it is never too late, and that even mired in the deepest sin, God wanted him to return and be accepted. In other words, one should know the full extent of his sins – even at the risk of falling into despair – for even in the moment of being totally in the grip of the sin, God is still saying, “Return to Me, and I will accept you.” How can a person be rescued to lop off the bough of sin?19I.e., cut off the branch of sin from the tree. Compare Isaiah 10:33. Where is the terror to motivate turning? He should take this to his heart,20Compare Lamentations 3:21. saying: Each deed is defined by its action and its actor.
From the perspective of the action, every good deed can be classified in accordance with the extent of its effects, in the face of which one will say that the actor should be blessed. The more the action continues to exert force (even if the originating force has departed), the more his reward increases.21I.e., as an action continues to have an effect, even if the person who performed the action has passed away, reward continues to accrue to that person. As they, of blessed memory, say (Kiddushin 40a): “A merit has principal and dividends (perot)…. A sin has principal but no dividends. And how do I reconcile this with (Prov. 1:31), ‘They shall eat the fruit (perot) of their ways and have their fill of their counsels’? A sin which produces fruit has an effect; one that has no fruits has no further effect.” Thus, it is certain that by the principle of benevolence (which is greater than the principle of retribution), a good deed which bears fruits will continue to produce greater and greater fruits.*22Lit. “path.” and repress his strong desire, without a heroic effort, when he sees clearly how his actions break through [controls] and do damage;23R. Salanter here makes another case for the need of Mussar analysis and the evaluation of all behaviors and their motivations. The weight (reward and punishment) of an act varies widely, depending on its spread or aftereffects. After analyzing beforehand, one will make extra efforts to do the right thing and not do the wrong thing. it is like shooting an arrow which cannot be recalled. [He can do this] as long as he does not snuff out the awareness of the obligation in his soul – which awareness grows out of much fine combing through the words of the Rabbis, of blessed memory. And how can a person lie to himself in his soul with this substitution, claiming to be an unaware sinner24And therefore, an unintentional sinner. in the lowest category of sin (this is only an illusory “unawareness” – for erroneous action growing out of not having studied is considered like a deliberate sin, as we say in Bava Metzia 33b), instead of making the effort to stay far from the transgression in the highest category?25Instead of trying to minimize guilt and punishment by making himself ignorant of the law in the vain hope of being considered an unintentional sinner, he should face the full extent of the sin (and his proneness to commit it) and repent at the fullest level.
From the perspective of the human actor: the value of each good deed can be classified in accordance with the effort of observing it. As they, of blessed memory, said (Avot 5:23): “According to the pain [of the effort] is the reward.” Each evil deed also can be classified in quality according to the pain of the effort of observing it. The more the effort, the lesser the category of guilt. As we say (Menaḥot 43b): “It was taught: R. Meir used to say: ‘Greater is the punishment for [not wearing] the white [tzizit] string than the punishment for [not wearing] the sky-blue [string].’ A parable: To what is this comparable? To a flesh-and-blood king who instructs two servants. To one he said: ‘Bring me a clay seal’; to the other he said: ‘Bring me a gold seal.’ Both transgressed and brought nothing. Which one’s punishment will be greater? You can be sure that the one to whom he said, ‘Bring me a clay seal,’ and who did not bring it.”26For it would have been an easier matter for him to do.
This, therefore, is the essential human doctrine: One must monitor all his actions so that he does not fall into the net of despair. For as long as his eyes are open to sensing his own wickedness, then, without a doubt, as long as the objective of his strong evil desire is not easily available, he will watch his step and will be saved from the greater part of sin. And what fool loves such foolishness as to smugly think,27Compare Deuteronomy 29:18. “Better that I close my mind’s eye, so as to minimize the magnitude [of the sin] by being unintentional vis-à-vis the smaller part [of sin],” for he abandons all safeguards against the greater part!?
These are the very words of Rambam cited above. It is not in a person’s hands to know how things will develop – that is, to ascertain the magnitude of mitzvot and sins according to their effects. The same is true of the magnitude of the effort to uphold and observe the Torah and the commandments. For the psychic forces of the human being proceed from the prior to the subsequent, [i.e., inductively,] from the deepest roots of the heart to their manifestation. And there are many external factors that expand and manifest some internal force which, at its root, is weak (in contrast with other forces).28There are certain psychic drives that are, by nature, weak, but are magnified and strengthened by environmental factors. Therefore, a person who looks with his mind’s eye from the subsequent to the prior will err greatly in judging the roots of the forces which give rise to pain and pleasure.29If a person attempts to understand his root motivations deductively, proceeding from their external manifestations to conclusions about his psychological make-up, he will necessarily err, because environmental factors affect the manifestation of those psychic forces, magnifying some at the expense of others. Moreover, as long as his psychic force, hidden in its roots, is obscured from human intelligence, it will continue to shoot its arrows30I.e., drive. into the person’s actions. Thus, it is impossible for a person to ascertain accurately the extent and the value of the pain of upholding and observing God’s Torah, blessed be He. God alone knows their true value, as they, of blessed memory, said (Avot 4:22): “God [alone] understands.”
In general, there are two levels in merits and sins: fulfillment and nuillification. That which accrues greater reward for fulfillment will, reciprocally, accrue a lower level of punishment for nullification, and that which is at the lower level of reward for fulfillment will reciprocally accrue a higher level of punishment for nullification.31I.e., the easier it is to refrain from doing something, the harder it is to do, and vice versa. Thus, fulfilling a difficult obligation will accrue greater reward, and reciprocally, negating that obligation will incur less punishment. Therefore, “doing mishpatim” (the aspect of fulfillment) and “observing ḥukkim” (the aspect of nullification) operate along the same line.32They can be judged side by side, as one is the mirror of the other.
Mishpat is one level, and the second level is ḥok. This is what Scripture states (Lev. 18:4): “My mishpatim, you shall do, and My ḥukkim (statutes), you shall observe” follows the order of the levels. Indeed, each of these matters is weighted in accordance with its form. However, when it comes to behavior, the matter is virtually reversed. The ḥukkim are the rungs on which one ascends the ladder of mishpatim. And especially when it comes to human character traits, which are mishpatim, all of a person’s efforts will not succeed in perfecting them or straightening them out within their given parameters unless one turns to human reason: naturally loving integrity and hating distortions (even absent the Torah’s admonitions) by means of much contemplation of the paths of human reason – for he is a human.
Will it help a person prone to excessive anger – the slightest provocation arouses it – even if he often reviews the statement of the Rabbis, of blessed memory (Nedarim 22a): “He who gets angry, all sorts of hell will take him over…,” until the statement shines before his face constantly? In any case, when the spirit of anger overcomes him, his heart will not be with him, and he will become a different person. All the lovely images that he acquired through his effort will quickly and easily fly away.33See Job 5:7. There is no cure for him unless he focuses his mind’s eye on penetrating the deepest roots of his heart. What are the general forces in him which are prone to be caught up even by a slight external provocation? He then should pour over them the waters of his understanding to extinguish them a bit, so that they do not ignite with such powerful swiftness.34Casual consideration and superficial analysis are not enough. Given the power of unconscious forces, one must analyze and penetrate deeply (using Mussar tactics) to really affect behavior. Ultimately he will become one who can restrain his spirit.35Compare Proverbs 16:32.
Yet, from where will the understanding come to the person? What will arouse him to restrain his unbridled desire, so that it is reined in by the effort of training his character traits? There is so much to do. The fundamental principle is the ḥok, the commandment of God’s Torah, not to get angry. For anger is a grave transgression, and all sorts of hell will take over the one who gets angry. This anxiety (according to its degree) can sharpen a person’s reason (in accordance with his condition) as he contemplates what he could not have imagined at first.36As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention. As we see in matters of business: out of anxiety and necessity, a person’s reason reaches a quality far beyond what he could have imagined. So it is with practically all the character traits: the entree to them is ḥok, a commandment of God’s Torah. For a bad character trait is a great transgression, as our Sages, of blessed memory, went far in describing their punishments. And a good character trait is a great mitzva, which our Sages, of blessed memory, praised at length. Thus, in accordance with their many effects, he will come to rational contemplation – until they are improved and reach the quality of mishpat, their true category.37It becomes a quality which reason persuades him is right or wrong. He is not just driven by knowing that it is a decree of the Torah. Put another way: developing good character traits becomes a commandment so compelling that we feel that if it were not written, it should have been written. This is the meaning of the second verse (Lev. 18:5): “And you will observe my ḥukkim” (first, and from them) “and my mishpatim….”
The same applies to observing the laws of the state. While these are types of mishpatim, and human reason judges to observe them completely, without diminution, even when no one sees, there is still an aspect of ḥok. It is the commandment of God’s Torah, from Scripture and tradition, which vigorously admonishes us to affirm and uphold all that issues forth from the government, may its glory increase. This will have the mighty effect of driving out all the thorns of strong desire so that the eyes of reason will be illuminated, to truly see the truth, to love the rulers of the state, and to give his life to obey their orders.38Presumably, this effusive language is meant to assure government censors that R. Salanter and all those who study Mussar are totally devoted to the observance of the general society’s laws.
Let us now return to see what is the nature of the mitzva of studying Torah. Is it ḥok or mishpat? It stands to reason that even learning the ḥok aspect of the Torah should be considered a mishpat, as we say in the Talmud (Bava Kamma 17a): “‘And they did great honor to him at his death’ (II Chr. 32:33) – this refers to King Hezekiah of Judah. They put a Torah scroll on his coffin and said: ‘This one fulfilled what is written in this one.’ And nowadays…even if we say, ‘He fulfilled,’ we do not say, ‘He studied.’ But did the Master not state: ‘Great is the study of Torah, for study leads to action…’?”39So why is studying Torah a greater and rarer compliment than fulfilling it?Tosafot stated: “And Rabbenu Tam says that this is the explanation: ‘Did the Master not say that study leads to action?’ Since we say, ‘He fulfilled,’ we imply that he studied, for if he did not study, how did he fulfill, if study leads to action?”
Thus, even if fulfillment is a ḥok, the obligation to study is mishpat, something that reason dictates that we undertake, for if one does not study, how can he fulfill? However, even the study of the mishpat aspect of the Torah should not be removed from the category of ḥok, for study is itself a mitzva even when it does not lead to action. Just as it is a mitzva to study the case of the “rebellious son” (according to the view that it will never actually occur), and even when human reason opposes it, except that “I, God, legislated this”40Compare Yoma 67b. – so too there is a ḥok aspect in the study of every part of Torah, which we can never separate off, except in theory.
Perhaps the Mishna alludes to this (Avot 4:5): “One who studies [Torah] with the condition of (al menat) performance….” It did not say: “One who studies to be able to (bikhedei) perform,” for it is good that the study itself be in the mode of ḥok (even if no action can come out of it), for it is a higher level than Torah study as mishpat.41It is harder to commit to mastering those parts of the Torah (such as ben sorer umoreh, the “wayward and rebellious son”) that have no real-world application, so the reward is greater. Although studying Torah law appears to be rationally compelling for one who is willing to live by the Torah, it is important that some element of Torah study be “ḥok” – performed solely for the reason that God commanded us to (whether or not it can be acted upon or shape our lives). Indeed, it is on condition that it is able to produce action. Therefore, study takes place in a manner that fulfills this condition, namely, to intellectually attain the mastery and sharpness (each person according to his level) to be a finely calibrated instrument of learning, according to the requisite condition – the desire to act.
With these words of ours, we can illuminate the words of our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Nedarim 81a): “‘They did not listen to My voice’ is the same as ‘They did not follow it’ [Jer. 9:12].42The verse in Jeremiah states: “They did not listen to My voice and they did not follow it.” The Talmud is asking about this apparent redundancy. R. Yehuda said in the name of Rav: [‘This means that] they do not bless on the Torah first….’” The commentators explain this to mean that they did not recite the blessing over the Torah when they arose early to study Torah; cf. ibid. Everyone should be astonished by this strange impulse – not to be derelict in studying Torah, which exhausts a person’s strength, but not to recite a blessing over it beforehand! (R. Nissim wrote in the name of R. Jonah of Girona, of blessed memory: “They studied Torah constantly, but they did not recite the blessing over the Torah first. That is, the Torah was not so important to them that they deemed it worthy of reciting a blessing over it. They did not study it for its own sake43R. Nissim maintains that they studied Torah for ulterior motives, and therefore did not respect it enough to make a blessing first. – and because of this they belittled the blessing.” This is most puzzling: to say that because of not studying Torah for its own sake, they would belittle the blessing over the Torah, which is a biblical commandment? Why would they do this absent any impulse to interfere with [the blessing]?)
However, we can explain this based on what we have ascertained: It is said (Menaḥot 42b): “Any mitzva whose performance completes the mitzva, such as circumcision…one must bless over it. Any mitzva whose performance does not complete the mitzva, such as tefillin (making them does not complete the mitzva; rather, only when they have been bound), it is not necessary to recite a blessing….” See further there. Accordingly, there is no need to recite a blessing on the mitzva of studying Torah as mishpat, for its performance – the study itself – is not the completion of the mitzva (not until he fulfills what he studied). The whole idea of the mitzva is to study in order to know what to do. But the premise of the blessing over the Torah was placed on the ḥok aspect of the mitzva of Torah study – that is, the study is itself a mitzva. It is possible, therefore, that they were governed by the impulse to study only as mishpat – for human reason demands this – but the ḥok aspect of study, which the intellect rejects and the evil urge questions, was repugnant to them. Thus, although they engaged in Torah study, their intention was only qua the mishpat aspect. [This study of Torah] was not the completion of a mitzva, so they did not recite a blessing over it.
We thus find that the reward for learning Torah is not only for the mishpat aspect; one who combines it with the ḥok aspect as well fulfills it with its proper intention.
This is the meaning of the statement that we placed in our opening remarks, “The matter of the rebellious son never was and never will be. Why then is it written [in Scripture]? To study it and receive the reward” (Sanhedrin 71a). That is, the reward is for the ḥok aspect [of Torah study] alone, which is at a higher level (in this respect, although it is of lesser value in that does not lead to action…. See Kiddushin 40b, “They all responded…”) than the other parts of Torah, whose basis is the mishpat aspect.
בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין (ע"א) בֶּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה לֹא הָיָה וְלֹא עָתִיד לִהְיוֹת. וְלָמָּה נִכְתַּב דְּרֹשׁ וְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר. הַתְּמִיהַּ גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד. הַאִם אֵין דַּי בִּשְׁאָר חֶלְקֵי הַתּוֹרָה אַף אִם אֶלֶף שָׁנִים יִחְיֶה הָאָדָם. לִדְרֹשׁ בָּהֶם לְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר:
Sanhedrin 71a [states]: “The case of the ‘rebellious son’1See Deuteronomy 21:18–21. never was and never will be. Why then is it written in Scripture? To expound it and receive the reward [of study].” This is very surprising. Isn’t there enough material in the other parts of the Torah – even if a person were to live a thousand years – to study and receive reward?
בַּיַּלְקוּט (שְׁמִינִי תקכ"א) וְכִי מָה רָאוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהָבִיא יוֹתֵר מֵאַהֲרֹן. אֶלָּא אָמַר לָהֶם. אַתֶּם יֵשׁ בְּיֶדְכֶם בִּתְחִלָּה. וַיִּשְׁחֲטוּ שְׂעִיר עִזִּים. וְיֶשׁ בְּיֶדְכֶם בַּסּוֹף. עָשׂוּ לָהֶם וְכוּ'. גַּם כֵּן מֻפְלָא מְאֹד. הֲלֹא גַּם אַהֲרֹן הָיָה לוֹ בִּתְחִלָּה וְגַם בַּסּוֹף, כְּמַאֲמַר הַכָּתוּב (דְּבָרִים ט') וּבְאַהֲרֹן הִתְאַנַּף וְגוֹ':
Yalkut Shimoni (Shemini, 521) [states]: “Why did [the people of] Israel see fit to bring more [sacrifices to the dedication of the Tabernacle] than Aaron?2At the dedication of the Tabernacle, Aaron was instructed to bring a young calf for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering. The Israelites were instructed to bring a kid goat for a sin offering, a calf and a lamb for a burnt offering, and a bullock and a ram for a peace offering. See Leviticus 9:2–4. Because he said to them: You have [sin] on your hands from the beginning – ‘And they slaughtered a kid goat’3See Genesis 37:31. The “sin on the hands” of the Israelite tribes is the sale of Joseph and the cover-up of the crime. – and you have [sin] on your hands at the end – ‘They have made for themselves a molten calf….’”4See Exodus 32:8. The sin of the desert generation of the Israelites was making the Golden Calf. This is also quite astonishing. Did not Aaron, too, have a share in sin at the beginning and at the end,5Aaron agreed to make an idol and asked the Israelites to give their jewelry of gold (Ex. 32:2). Aaron then made the Golden Calf (ibid. 32:4). as Scripture says (Deut. 9:20): “The Lord was angered at Aaron…”?6Moses had to pray that Aaron be forgiven for his role in making the Golden Calf.
בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין (כז:) וְהַכְּתִיב (שְׁמוֹת ל"ד) פּוֹקֵד עֲוֹן אָבוֹת וְגוֹ' כְּשֶׁאוֹחֲזִין מַעֲשֵׂה אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם וְכוּ'. וְהַדַּעַת נוֹתֵן. כִּי זֶה רַק בְּאֹפֶן אֲשֶׁר אֵיכוּת מַעֲשֵׂי הַבָּנִים שָׁוִים בְּעֶרְכָּם עִם מַעֲשֵׂי הָאָבוֹת. לֹא כַּאֲשֶׁר מַעֲשֵׂי הָאָבוֹת הָיוּ עֲוֹנוֹת גְּדוֹלִים בְּאֵיכוּת עֶרְכָּם מִמַּעֲשֵׂי עֲוֹן הַבָּנִים. וְאָמְרִינַן בְּיוֹמָא (סז:) אֶת מִשְׁפָּטַי תַּעֲשׂוּ. דְּבָרִים שֶׁאִלְמָלֵי לֹא נִכְתְּבוּ דִּין הוּא שֶׁיֵּכָּתְבוּ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן עֲבוֹדַת אֱלִילִים כוּ'. אֶת חֻקּוֹתַי תִּשְׁמְרוּ. דְּבָרִים שֶׁהַשָּׂטָן מֵשִׁיב עֲלֵיהֶם כוּ'. (יַעַן אֵין לְחִיּוּבָם מָבוֹא בְּשֵׂכֶל אֱנוֹשִׁי. רַק אֲנִי ה' חֲקַקְתִּים כוּ'). וְהַדַּעַת נוֹתֵן. כִּי אֵיכוּת עֲוֹן הַמִּשְׁפָּט תַּעֲלֶה לְמַעְלָה נֶגֶד אֵיכוּת עֲוֹן הַחֻקִּים. וְאָמְרִינַן (שָׁם פה:) אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה חַלֵּל עָלָיו שַׁבָּת אַחַת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁמֹר שַׁבָּתוֹת הַרְבֵּה. נִמְצָא לְפִי זֶה. הַגַּם שֶׁעֲוֹן עֲבוֹדַת אֱלִילִים הוּא מִשְׁפָּט (כְּמַאֲמַר הַגְּמָרָא הַנִּזְכַּר לְעֵיל). אָכֵן מַה שֶּׁהִזְהִירָה הַתּוֹרָה לָמוּת עַל עֲבוֹדַת אֱלִילִים. הִיא חֻקָּה. וְאָמְרִינַן בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין (ז') וַיַּרְא אַהֲרֹן כוּ'. מָה רָאָה אַהֲרֹן. רָאָה חוּר שֶׁזָּבוּחַ לְפָנָיו. אָמַר אִי לֹא שְׁמַעְנָא לְהוּ הַשְׁתָּא עָבְדִי לִי כִּדְעָבְדוּ בְּחוּר. וּמִיקַיָּם בִּי (אֵיכָה ב') אִם יֵהָרֵג בְּמִקְדַּשׁ ה' כֹּהֵן וְנָבִיא כוּ'. נִמְצָא הָיָה עֲוֹן אַהֲרֹן חֹק. וְלֹא הָיָה בִּבְחִינַת אוֹחֵז מַעֲשֵׂה אָבוֹת (אֲשֶׁר יִפְקְדוּ עָלָיו עֲוֹנוֹתֵיהֶם). נֶגֶד וַיִּשְׁחֲטוּ שְׂעִיר עִזִּים כוּ'. שֶׁהָיָה עֲוֹן מִשְׁפָּט:
Sanhedrin (27b) states: “Is it not written (Ex. 34:7), ‘He visits the sins of the fathers on children…’?7Deuteronomy 24:15 states that each person is responsible for his own sin, but the verse in Exodus implies that children are punished for the sins of their forebears. This is when they perpetuate the acts of their fathers….” It stands to reason that this holds true only when the quality of the acts of the children is equivalent to the acts of the fathers, not when the acts of the fathers were qualitatively greater sins than the sinful acts of the children.8R. Salanter continues to apply his principle that particular acts of mitzva or sin may be externally alike yet weighed differently for each person. The more difficult the act, the greater reward in doing a good deed and the lesser the punishment for the sin. The easier it is to act, the lesser the reward for doing a good deed and the greater the punishment for the sin (because it would have been easy to refrain from the act).
And we say in Yoma (67b): “‘My mishpatim (laws), you shall do’ (Lev. 18:4) – this refers to matters that, had they not been written, should have been written. They are: idolatry, murder…. ‘My ḥukkim (statutes), you shall observe’ – refers to matters which Satan questions…” (because their obligation has no entry in human reason – only “I the Lord have decreed them…”9Yoma ibid.). It stands to reason that transgression against mishpat is qualitatively worse than the transgression of a ḥok.10When our reason sees the need for a law, it is easier to observe. In the Talmud’s formulation, Satan does not urge us to question the need for such a law. This follows R. Salanter’s line of reasoning that laws that we find more compelling are easier to keep, and, correspondingly, one gets less reward for keeping them and more punishment for violating them.
And we say (ibid. 85b): “The Torah said: Violate one Sabbath for his sake so that he will be able to observe many Sabbaths.”11The Talmud reasons that it is permissible to violate the Sabbath to save a life on the grounds that the person thus saved will observe the Sabbath for the rest of his life, so it is a “net gain” for Sabbath observance. Torah, judging rationally, does not ask the individual to die rather than violate the Sabbath. Accordingly, though the sin of idolatry is a mishpat (per the aforementioned passage from the Talmud), the Torah’s instruction to die rather than perform idolatry is a ḥok.12Rationally, one could argue: Should I not perform idolatry this one time so that I may continue to serve God for the rest of my life?
And we say in Sanhedrin (7a): “‘And Aaron saw…’ (Ex. 32:5). What did Aaron see? He saw Hur slaughtered before his eyes. He said: If I don’t obey them now, they will do to me what they did to Hur.13According to the midrash, the Israelites first asked Hur (Moses and Aaron’s companion, and, according to Sanhedrin 69b, their nephew) to make them a Golden Calf. When he refused, they slaughtered him. In me will be fulfilled (Lam. 2:20): ‘Alas, in the Temple of the Lord, priest and prophet will be killed….’” It follows that Aaron transgressed a ḥok, and he was not in the same category as one “who perpetuates the acts of his fathers” (on whom punishment is visited for the fathers’ sins) with respect to [the sin of] “they slaughtered a kid goat…,” which transgressed a mishpat.
וּבָזֶה יֵשׁ לְבָאֵר הַכָּתוּב (וַיִּקְרָא י"ח) אֶת מִשְׁפָּטַי תַּעֲשׂוּ וְאֶת חֻקּוֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ כוּ'. אֲשֶׁר יֵשׁ לָשׂוּם לֵב עַל הַשִּׁנּוּי בַּפָּסוּק הַזֶּה. לְהַזְהִיר מִשְׁפַּט בִּבְחִינַת חִיּוּב. וְחֹק בִּבְחִינַת שְׁלִילָה (עַיֵּן מְנָחוֹת ל"ו: הִשָּׁמֵר דַּעֲשֵׂה כוּ'). גַּם שִׁנּוּי הַפְּסוּקִים. בַּפָּסוּק הָרִאשׁוֹן מִשְׁפָּט בִּתְחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֹק. וּבַפָּסוּק הַשֵּׁנִי (שָׁם) וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת חֻקּוֹתַי וְאֶת מִשְׁפָּטַי. בִּתְחִלָּה חֹק וְאַחַר כָּךְ מִשְׁפָּט. כִּי הָרַמְבַּ"ם כָּתַב (הִלְכוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה פֶּרֶק ג') וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ. כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הָאָדָם יֵשׁ לוֹ זְכֻיּוֹת וַעֲוֹנוֹת. מִי שֶׁזְּכֻיּוֹתָיו יְתֵרוֹת עַל עֲוֹנוֹתָיו צַדִּיק. וּמִי שֶׁעֲוֹנוֹתָיו יְתֵרוֹת עַל זְכֻיּוֹתָיו רָשָׁע. מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה בֵּינוֹנִי כוּ'. וְשִׁקּוּל זֶה אֵינוֹ לְפִי מִנְיַן הַזְּכֻיּוֹת וְהָעֲוֹנוֹת אֶלָּא לְפִי גָּדְלָם. יֵשׁ זְכוּת שֶׁהִיא כְּנֶגֶד כַּמָּה עֲוֹנוֹת. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מְלָכִים־א' י"ד) יַעַן נִמְצָא בּוֹ דָּבָר טוֹב. וְיֵשׁ עָוֹן שֶׁהוּא כְּנֶגֶד כַּמָּה זְכֻיּוֹת. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (קֹהֶלֶת ט', י"ח). וְחוֹטֵא אֶחָד יְאַבֵּד טוֹבָה הַרְבֵּה. וְאֵין שׁוֹקְלִין אֶלָּא בְּדַעְתּוֹ שֶׁל אֵל דֵּעוֹת. וְהוּא הַיּוֹדֵעַ הַאֵיךְ עוֹרְכִין הַזְּכֻיּוֹת כְּנֶגֶד הָעֲוֹנוֹת. עַד כָּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וְאִם כִּי בְּוַדַּאי יֶשְׁנָם סִבּוֹת רַבּוֹת הַמַּגְדִּילוֹת עֶרֶךְ הַזְּכֻיּוֹת וְהָעֲוֹנוֹת. לֹא נֶחְדַּל לְבָאֵר בָּזֶה אֵיזוֹ בְּחִינָה. וְהוּא. כִּי רַבּוֹת מַחֲשָׁבוֹת בְּלֵב אִישׁ. הַשָּׂם לִבּוֹ אֶל דְּרָכָיו וְיוֹדֵעַ כִּי בְּיָדוֹ עָוֹן אֲשֶׁר חָטָא לְמַרְבֶּה. (בַּל יִנָּזֵר מִמֶּנָּה לְפִי דַּעְתּוֹ) הַמְדֻמֵּית לְבַל לְסַלְסֵל בְּמַאַמְרֵי רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל הַמְדַבְּרִים בָּהּ. כִּי מוּטָב שֶׁיִּהְיֶה שׁוֹגֵג. כְּמַאֲמָרָם זַ"ל (מִדְרַשׁ רַבָּה דְּבָרִים פָּרָשַׁת תָּבוֹא) כָּל מִי שֶׁלָּמַד תּוֹרָה וְאֵינוֹ מְקַיֵּם אוֹתָהּ עָנְשׁוֹ חָמוּר מִמִּי שֶׁלֹּא לָמַד כָּל עִקָּר. עַיֵּן שָׁם. לֹא זֹאת דֶּרֶךְ ה'. לַעֲטֹף הָרָשָׁע בִּמְעִיל הַצֶּדֶק. וּכְמַאֲמַר הַכָּתוּב (תְּהִלִּים צ') תָּשֵׁב אֱנוֹשׁ עַד דַּכָּא. וְדָרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל. עַד דִּכְדּוּכָהּ שֶׁל נֶפֶשׁ. וַתֹּאמֶר שׁוּבוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם כוּ'. בַּמֶּה יִוָּשַׁע הָאָדָם לְסַעֵף פֹּארָה הַלָּזוֹ וְאַיֵּה הַמַּעֲרָצָה. זֹאת יָשִׁיב אֶל לִבּוֹ. לֵאמֹר: הֲלֹא כָּל דָּבָר יִתְחַלֵּק עַל פִּי הַפְּעֻלָּה וְעַל פִּי הַפּוֹעֵל:
With this we can explain the verse [Leviticus 18:4] “My mishpatim, you shall do, and My ḥukkim, you shall observe….” Note the change in this verse: The admonition with respect to mishpatim is positive, and with respect to ḥukkim is negative (see Menaḥot 36b: the term “[be careful to] observe” in connection with a positive commandment [is equivalent to a negative commandment]…).14According to the passage in Menaḥot, the term “do” (“taasu”) connotes a positive commandment, whereas the term “observe” (“tishmoru”) connotes a negative commandment. Note also the change of order in the verses. In the first verse (Lev. 18:4), mishpat precedes ḥok, but in the next verse, “You shall observe My ḥukkim and mishpatim” – first ḥukkim, then mishpatim. For Rambam wrote (Laws of Repentance 3:1–2):
Each and every human being has merits and sins. One whose merits exceed his sins is a righteous man. One whose sins exceed his merits is a wicked person. If they are half and half, he is an in between person …. This weighing is not by number of merits and sins but by their magnitude. A merit can equal several sins, as it is said (I Kings 14:13): “For something good was found in him.” And a sin can equal several merits, as it is said (Eccl. 9:12): “One sinner destroys much good.” And the judging is done only by the mind of the Divine Intellect. He is the One who knows how the merits are assessed as compared to the sins.
Although there are certainly many causes that increase the weight of merits and sins, we shall not hold back from explaining a particular aspect of this matter, viz., “Many are the thoughts in the heart of man.”15See Proverbs 19:21. R. Salanter interprets this to mean that, as the psychology of the individual varies, there will be different weight to similar deeds based on the individual’s difficulty (or ease) in doing the act. One who pays attention to his own practices knows that he commits a certain sin frequently. (He cannot desist from it, he thinks) in his imagination, and so he does not embrace the sayings of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, which discuss it, thinking that “it is better to do it unintentionally.”16Compare Beitza 30a. As they, of blessed memory, said (Deuteronomy Rabba, Ki Tavo): “Whoever learned Torah and does not fulfill it, his punishment is more severe than one who never learned it at all.” See further there.
This is not the way of God, to put the cloak of righteousness back on the wicked.17God does not want us to assume that we cannot stop sinning and consequently delude ourselves and avoid studying rabbinic texts in the vain hope that we will be considered unintentional sinners because we are ignorant. Rather, God wants us to fully recognize our sinfulness so we can then change and repent. Facing up to our addiction to the sin is important, despite the possible risk of falling into despondency. As the verse says (Ps. 90:3): “You bring a person to dust (daka).” The Rabbis, of blessed memory, expounded: “to despondency (dikhdukh) of the soul.” And the verse continues: “And you say to mankind, return….”18Y. Ḥagiga 9b:1 expounds the verse and cites the story of Elisha ben Avuya, who recognized his sin and as a result fell into despair, telling R. Meir that he was so ensnared in his sins that it was too late for repentance. R. Meir (using Psalms 90:3 for support) told him that it is never too late, and that even mired in the deepest sin, God wanted him to return and be accepted. In other words, one should know the full extent of his sins – even at the risk of falling into despair – for even in the moment of being totally in the grip of the sin, God is still saying, “Return to Me, and I will accept you.”
How can a person be rescued to lop off the bough of sin?19I.e., cut off the branch of sin from the tree. Compare Isaiah 10:33. Where is the terror to motivate turning? He should take this to his heart,20Compare Lamentations 3:21. saying: Each deed is defined by its action and its actor.
מִצַּד הַפְּעֻלָּה. יִתְחַלֵּק כָּל דָּבָר טוֹב לְפִי הִתְפַּשְּׁטוּת פִּרְיוֹ. לְעֻמָּתוֹ יֹאמַר בָּרוּךְ לְהָעוֹשֶׂה. וְכָל אֲשֶׁר יוֹסִיף תֵּת כֹּחוֹ. (אִם כִּי סָר כֹּחַ מְיַסְּדוֹ). כֵּן יוֹסִיף שְׂכָרוֹ. וּכְמַאֲמָרָם זַ"ל (קִדּוּשִׁין מ') הַזְּכוּת יֵשׁ לָהּ קֶרֶן וְיֵשׁ לָהּ פֵּרוֹת כוּ'. עֲבֵרָה יֵשׁ לָהּ קֶרֶן וְאֵין לָהּ פֵּרוֹת. וְאֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּם (מִשְׁלֵי א') וַיֹּאכְלוּ מִפְּרִי דַּרְכָּם וּמִמּוֹעֲצוֹתֵיהֶם יִשְׂבְּעוּ. עֲבֵרָה שֶׁעוֹשָׂה פֵּרוֹת יֵשׁ לָהּ פֵּרוֹת. שֶׁאֵין עוֹשָׂה פֵּרוֹת אֵין לָהּ פֵּרוֹת כוּ' עַד כָּאן. לָזֹאת בְּוַדַּאי בְּמִדָּה טוֹבָה (הַמְרֻבָּה מִמִּדַּת פֻּרְעָנִיּוּת). הָעוֹשָׂה פֵּרוֹת יִגְדַּל פִּרְיָהּ לְמַעְלָה לְמַעְלָה *)עַל פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ נוּכַל לְיַשֵּׁב קֻשְׁיַת הַתּוֹסָפוֹת (שַׁבָּת נ"ה) עַל הָא דְּאָמְרִינַן שָׁם מ"ש תָּיו (שֶׁאָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא לְגַבְרִיאֵל לֵךְ וּרְשֹׁם עַל מִצְחָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים תָּיו שֶׁל דְּיוֹ וְכוּ'), רַב אָמַר תָּיו תִּחְיֶה תָּיו תָּמוּת, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר תַּמָּה זְכוּת אָבוֹת, וְכֵן רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרוּ הָתָם אֵימָתַי תַּמָּה זְכוּת אָבוֹת כוּ', וַאֲנַן מַזְכִּירִין זְכוּת אָבוֹת עַיֵּן שָׁם. וּלְפִי הַנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל יֵשׁ לְפָרֵשׁ דִּשְׁתֵּי בְּחִינוֹת בַּדָּבָר. הָאַחַת הִיא זְכוּת אָבוֹת מִמַּעֲשֵׂיהֶם הַנּוֹרָאִים, אֲשֶׁר נִפְסְקוּ בְּהִסְתַּלְּקוּתָם, וְזֹהַר זְכֻיּוֹתָם מִתְנוֹצֵץ לְתוֹלְדוֹתָם בִּבְחִינָה קַיֶּמֶת וּקְצוּבָה, וּפְלִיגֵי אָמוֹרָאֵי אֵימָתַי גְּבוּל זְמַנָּם. הַשְּׁנִיָּה הִיא זְכוּת אָבוֹת הַנּוֹלֶדֶת מִמַּעֲשֵׂי הַבָּנִים, כִּי הָאָבוֹת הֵמָּה יְסוֹד וְשֹׁרֶשׁ אֲמִתִּי לְכָל מַעֲשֶׂה טוֹב אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשׂוּ הַבָּאִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם, וּזְכוּתָם עוֹשָׂה פֵּרוֹת בִּתְמִידִי בְּלִי גְּבוּל וְקִצְבָּה. וּבִבְחִינָה זוֹ אִי אֶפְשָׁר לִהְיוֹת תַּמָּה זְכוּת אָבוֹת, כִּי לֹא אַלְמָן יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּבְכָל דּוֹר וָדוֹר נִמְצְאוּ אֲנָשִׁים צַדִּיקִים. וְגַם פּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְלֵאִים מִצְוֹת כָּרִמּוֹן. וְאַהֲנִי מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם שֶׁל הָאָבוֹת, לָשֵׂאת פְּרִי וּלְגַדֵּל פֶּרַח זְכֻיּוֹתָם. וְכִדְאָמְרִינַן בַּעֲרָכִין (דַּף ט"ז) עַל שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים נְגָעִים בָּאִים, עַל לָשׁוֹן הָרָע וְכוּ', אֵינִי וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי עֲנָנִי בַּר שָׂשׂוֹן לָמָּה נִסְמְכָה פָּרָשַׁת בִּגְדֵי כְּהֻנָּה לְפָרָשַׁת קָרְבָּנוֹת, לוֹמַר לְךָ מַה קָּרְבָּנוֹת מְכַפְּרִין אַף בִּגְדֵי כְּהֻנָּה מְכַפְּרִין כוּ', מְעִיל מְכַפֵּר עַל לָשׁוֹן הָרָע כוּ', לֹא קַשְׁיָא הָא דְּאַהֲנוּ מַעֲשָׂיו הָא דְּלֹא אַהֲנוּ מַעֲשָׂיו, אִי אַהֲנוּ מַעֲשָׂיו אַתּוּ נְגָעִים עֲלֵיהּ אִי לֹא אַהֲנוּ מַעֲשָׂיו מְעִיל מְכַפֵּר עַיֵּן שָׁם. וְאִם כִּי דִּבּוּר לָשׁוֹן הָרָע שָׁוֶה בִּשְׁנֵיהֶם, בְּכָל זֹאת הַמֶּרְחָק רַב בֵּינֵיהֶם בְּעִנְיַן הַתּוֹלָדָה הַנּוֹלֶדֶת מִמֵּילָא, לִהְיוֹת אַהֲנִי מַעֲשָׂיו לְהַגְדִּיל כֹּחוֹ לְהִצְטָרֵךְ כַּפָּרָה יְתֵרָה. כֵּן גַּם בִּבְחִינַת הַטּוֹב, אִי אַהֲנוּ מַעֲשָׂיו, לִהְיוֹת נוֹשֵׂא פְּרִי תְּנוּבָה, יִגְדַּל מַעֲשֶׂה שָׁרְשׁוֹ לְהוֹסִיף זְכוּת, וְלָכֵן אֲנַחְנוּ מַזְכִּירִים תָּמִיד זְכוּת אָבוֹת, הַמִּתְעוֹרֶרֶת עַל יְדֵי מַעֲשֶׂה הַתּוֹלָדוֹת בַּל תִּפָּסֵק לְעוֹלָם:. וְכֵן כָּל דָּבָר רַע יִתְחַלֵּק לְפִי הִתְפַּשְּׁטוּת פִּרְיוֹ. וְכָל אֲשֶׁר יוֹסִיף תֵּת כֹּחוֹ לְגַדֵּל פְּרִי רֹאשׁ. כֵּן יִגְדַּל גְּרִיעות עֶרְכּוֹ וְיִכְבַּד עָנְשׁוֹ. וּפְעָמִים רַבּוֹת יִנְצֹר הָאָדָם אָרְחוֹ. לִכְבֹּשׁ תַּאֲוָתוֹ בְּלִי גְּבוּרָה. כַּאֲשֶׁר יִרְאֶה בַּעֲלִיל אֵיךְ מַעֲשָׂיו נִפְרְצוּ לְהַשְׁחִית. כְּזוֹרֵק חֵץ אֲשֶׁר אֵין לְהָשִׁיב. אִם לֹא נִכְבָּה מִנַּפְשׁוֹ חִיּוּבָהּ הַנּוֹלֶדֶת מֵסִּלְסוּל הַרְבֵּה בְּדִבְרֵי רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל. וְאֵיךְ יַעֲשֶׂה הָאָדָם שֶׁקֶר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ בַּתְּמוּרָה הַלָּזוֹ. לִהְיוֹת שׁוֹגֵג. (אֲשֶׁר רַק שׁוֹגֵג דִּמְיוֹנִי הוּא, כִּי שִׁגְגַת הַתַּלְמוּד עוֹלָה זָדוֹן. כִּדְאָמְרִינַן בְּבָבָא מְצִיעָא לג:) בַּבְּחִינָה הַנְּמוּכָה. מִלִּהְיוֹת מְרֻחָק מִן הָעֲבֵרָה בַּבְּחִינָה הַגְּבוֹהָה לְמַעְלָה הַרְבֵּה:
From the perspective of the action, every good deed can be classified in accordance with the extent of its effects, in the face of which one will say that the actor should be blessed. The more the action continues to exert force (even if the originating force has departed), the more his reward increases.21I.e., as an action continues to have an effect, even if the person who performed the action has passed away, reward continues to accrue to that person. As they, of blessed memory, say (Kiddushin 40a): “A merit has principal and dividends (perot)…. A sin has principal but no dividends. And how do I reconcile this with (Prov. 1:31), ‘They shall eat the fruit (perot) of their ways and have their fill of their counsels’? A sin which produces fruit has an effect; one that has no fruits has no further effect.” Thus, it is certain that by the principle of benevolence (which is greater than the principle of retribution), a good deed which bears fruits will continue to produce greater and greater fruits.*22Lit. “path.” and repress his strong desire, without a heroic effort, when he sees clearly how his actions break through [controls] and do damage;23R. Salanter here makes another case for the need of Mussar analysis and the evaluation of all behaviors and their motivations. The weight (reward and punishment) of an act varies widely, depending on its spread or aftereffects. After analyzing beforehand, one will make extra efforts to do the right thing and not do the wrong thing. it is like shooting an arrow which cannot be recalled. [He can do this] as long as he does not snuff out the awareness of the obligation in his soul – which awareness grows out of much fine combing through the words of the Rabbis, of blessed memory. And how can a person lie to himself in his soul with this substitution, claiming to be an unaware sinner24And therefore, an unintentional sinner. in the lowest category of sin (this is only an illusory “unawareness” – for erroneous action growing out of not having studied is considered like a deliberate sin, as we say in Bava Metzia 33b), instead of making the effort to stay far from the transgression in the highest category?25Instead of trying to minimize guilt and punishment by making himself ignorant of the law in the vain hope of being considered an unintentional sinner, he should face the full extent of the sin (and his proneness to commit it) and repent at the fullest level.
מִצַּד הַפּוֹעֵל. יִתְחַלֵּק כָּל דָּבָר טוֹב. בְּאֵיכוּת עֲשִׂיָּתוֹ לְפִי צַעַר קִיּוּמוֹ, כְּמַאֲמָרָם זַ"ל (אָבוֹת פֶּרֶק ה') לְפוּם צַעֲרָא אַגְרָא. וְכֵן כָּל דָּבָר רַע. יִתְחַלֵּק בְּאֵיכוּת צַעַר שְׁמִירָתוֹ. וְכָל אֲשֶׁר יוֹסִיף צַעֲרוֹ כֵּן יְמַעֵט בְּחִינָתוֹ. כִּדְאָמְרִינַן (מְנָחוֹת מג:) תַּנְיָא הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר גָּדוֹל עָנְשׁוֹ שֶׁל לָבָן יוֹתֵר מֵעָנְשׁוֹ שֶׁל תְּכֵלֶת. מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה לְמֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם שֶׁאָמַר לִשְׁנֵי עֲבָדָיו לְאֶחָד אָמַר הָבֵא לִי חוֹתָם שֶׁל טִיט וּלְאֶחָד אָמַר הָבֵא לִי חוֹתָם שֶׁל זָהָב וּפָשְׁעוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם וְלֹא הֵבִיאוּ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן עָנְשׁוֹ יוֹתֵר גָּדוֹל. הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הָבֵא לִי חוֹתָם שֶׁל טִיט וְלֹא הֵבִיא. עַד כָּאן:
From the perspective of the human actor: the value of each good deed can be classified in accordance with the effort of observing it. As they, of blessed memory, said (Avot 5:23): “According to the pain [of the effort] is the reward.” Each evil deed also can be classified in quality according to the pain of the effort of observing it. The more the effort, the lesser the category of guilt. As we say (Menaḥot 43b): “It was taught: R. Meir used to say: ‘Greater is the punishment for [not wearing] the white [tzizit] string than the punishment for [not wearing] the sky-blue [string].’ A parable: To what is this comparable? To a flesh-and-blood king who instructs two servants. To one he said: ‘Bring me a clay seal’; to the other he said: ‘Bring me a gold seal.’ Both transgressed and brought nothing. Which one’s punishment will be greater? You can be sure that the one to whom he said, ‘Bring me a clay seal,’ and who did not bring it.”26For it would have been an easier matter for him to do.
אִי לָזֹאת. זֹאת תּוֹרַת הָאָדָם לְפַקֵּחַ עַל כָּל דְּרָכָיו. לְבַל יִפֹּל בְּרֶשֶׁת הַיֵּאוּשׁ. כִּי כָּל עוֹד אֲשֶׁר עֵינָיו פְּקוּחוֹת לְהַרְגִּישׁ בְּרָעָתוֹ. בְּלִי סָפֵק. בְּאֵין תַּאֲוָה מוֹצֵאת יִשְׁמֹר דַּרְכּוֹ וְיִנָּצֵל מֵחֵלֶק הַיּוֹתֵר גָּדוֹל. וּמִי פֶּתִי יֹאהַב פְּתָיוּת כָּזוֹ. לְהִתְבָּרֵךְ בִּלְבָבוֹ לֵאמֹר. הֲלֹא טוֹב לִי לִסְתֹּם עֵין בִּינָתִי. לְמַעַן הַקְטִין הָעֶרֶךְ בִּהְיוֹתִי שׁוֹגֵג בַּחֵלֶק הַקָּטָן. וְיַעֲזֹב שְׁמִירָתָהּ בַּחֵלֶק הַיּוֹתֵר גָּדוֹל:
This, therefore, is the essential human doctrine: One must monitor all his actions so that he does not fall into the net of despair. For as long as his eyes are open to sensing his own wickedness, then, without a doubt, as long as the objective of his strong evil desire is not easily available, he will watch his step and will be saved from the greater part of sin. And what fool loves such foolishness as to smugly think,27Compare Deuteronomy 29:18. “Better that I close my mind’s eye, so as to minimize the magnitude [of the sin] by being unintentional vis-à-vis the smaller part [of sin],” for he abandons all safeguards against the greater part!?
הֵן הֵמָּה דִּבְרֵי הָרַמְבַּ"ם הַנִּזְכָּרִים לְעֵיל. כִּי אֵין בְּיַד הָאָדָם לֵידַע הִשְׁתַּלְשְׁלוּת הַדְּבָרִים. לְבָרֵר עֶרֶךְ הַמִּצְוֹת וְהָעֲוֹנוֹת עַל פִּי הִתְפַּשְּׁטוּתָם. וְכֵן עֶרֶךְ צַעַר קִיּוּם וּשְׁמִירַת הַתּוֹרָה וְהַמִּצְוָה. כִּי כֹּחוֹת נֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם, יֵלְכוּ מֵהַקּוֹדֵם אֶל הַמְאֻחָר. מֵעִמְקֵי שָׁרְשֵׁי הַלֵּב אֶל הִתְגַּלּוּתָם. וְסִבּוֹת הַחִיצוֹנִיּוֹת מוֹצְאוֹת לְמַרְבֶּה, לְהַרְחִיב וּלְגַלּוֹת אֵיזֶה כֹּחַ אֲשֶׁר יִגָּרַע חֶלְקוֹ (נֶגֶד יֶתֶר הַכֹּחוֹת) בְּשָׁרְשׁוֹ. לְזֹאת הָאָדָם הַמַּשְׁקִיף בְּעֵין בִּינָתוֹ מֵהַמְאֻחָר אֶל הַקּוֹדֵם, יִשְׁגֶּה הַרְבֵּה בְּשָׁפְטוֹ עַל שָׁרְשֵׁי הַכֹּחוֹת הַמּוֹלִידִים צַעַר וָעֹנֶג. וְכָל עוֹד אֲשֶׁר כֹּחַ נַפְשׁוֹ מִסְתַּתֵּר בְּשָׁרְשׁוֹ מִתְחַבֵּא מִבִּינַת אֱנוֹשׁ. כֵּן יוֹסִיף לִירוֹת חִצָּיו לִפְעֻלַּת אָדָם. עַל כֵּן אֵין בְּיַד הָאָדָם לִמְצֹא אֶל נָכוֹן מַצָּב וְעֶרֶךְ צַעַר קִיּוּם וּשְׁמִירַת תּוֹרַת ה' יִתְבָּרַךְ שְׁמוֹ. וְהוּא לְבַדּוֹ יוֹדֵעַ עֶרְכָּם עַל אֲמִתּוּתָם. כְּמַאֲמָרָם זַ"ל (אָבוֹת פֶּרֶק ד') הוּא הַמֵּבִין:
These are the very words of Rambam cited above. It is not in a person’s hands to know how things will develop – that is, to ascertain the magnitude of mitzvot and sins according to their effects. The same is true of the magnitude of the effort to uphold and observe the Torah and the commandments. For the psychic forces of the human being proceed from the prior to the subsequent, [i.e., inductively,] from the deepest roots of the heart to their manifestation. And there are many external factors that expand and manifest some internal force which, at its root, is weak (in contrast with other forces).28There are certain psychic drives that are, by nature, weak, but are magnified and strengthened by environmental factors. Therefore, a person who looks with his mind’s eye from the subsequent to the prior will err greatly in judging the roots of the forces which give rise to pain and pleasure.29If a person attempts to understand his root motivations deductively, proceeding from their external manifestations to conclusions about his psychological make-up, he will necessarily err, because environmental factors affect the manifestation of those psychic forces, magnifying some at the expense of others. Moreover, as long as his psychic force, hidden in its roots, is obscured from human intelligence, it will continue to shoot its arrows30I.e., drive. into the person’s actions.
Thus, it is impossible for a person to ascertain accurately the extent and the value of the pain of upholding and observing God’s Torah, blessed be He. God alone knows their true value, as they, of blessed memory, said (Avot 4:22): “God [alone] understands.”
וּבִכְלַל שְׁתֵּי מַדְרֵגוֹת בִּזְכֻיּוֹת וַעֲוֹנוֹת. בְּחִיּוּב וּשְׁלִילָה. וְאֶת אֲשֶׁר יָבוֹא בַּמַּדְרֵגָה הַנִּשָּׂאָה בִּבְחִינַת חִיּוּב לְקַבָּלַת הַשָּׂכָר. כֵּן גַּם לְעֻמָּתוֹ יָבוֹא בַּמַּדְרֵגָה הַנְּמוּכָה בִּבְחִינַת הַשְּׁלִילָה לְקַבָּלַת הָעֹנֶשׁ. וְאֶת אֲשֶׁר יָבוֹא בַּמַּדְרֵגָה הַנְּמוּכָה בִּבְחִינַת חִיּוּב לְקַבָּלַת הַשָּׂכָר. כֵּן יָבוֹא לְעֻמָּתוֹ בַּמַּדְרֵגָה הַגְּבוֹהָה לְקַבָּלַת הָעֹנֶשׁ בִּבְחִינַת שְׁלִילָה. לָכֵן עֲשִׂיַּת הַמִּשְׁפָּט (בְּחִינַת חִיּוּב). וּשְׁמִירַת הַחֹק (בְּחִינַת שְׁלִילָה) בְּמֵתָר וְקַו אֶחָד יָבוֹאוּ:
In general, there are two levels in merits and sins: fulfillment and nuillification. That which accrues greater reward for fulfillment will, reciprocally, accrue a lower level of punishment for nullification, and that which is at the lower level of reward for fulfillment will reciprocally accrue a higher level of punishment for nullification.31I.e., the easier it is to refrain from doing something, the harder it is to do, and vice versa. Thus, fulfilling a difficult obligation will accrue greater reward, and reciprocally, negating that obligation will incur less punishment. Therefore, “doing mishpatim” (the aspect of fulfillment) and “observing ḥukkim” (the aspect of nullification) operate along the same line.32They can be judged side by side, as one is the mirror of the other.
וְהִנֵּה הַמִּשְׁפָּט. מַדְרֵגָה הָאַחַת. וּמַדְרֵגָה הַשְּׁנִיָּה הִיא הַחֹק. הוּא מַאֲמַר הַכָּתוּב (וַיִּקְרָא י"ח) אֶת מִשְׁפָּטַי תַּעֲשׂוּ וְאֶת חֻקּוֹתַי תִּשְׁמְרוּ. כְּסֵדֶר הַמַּדְרֵגוֹת. אָכֵן כָּל אֶחָד הָעִנְיָנִים לְפִי צוּרָתָם בְּעֶרְכָּם. וּבְהַהַנְהָגָה הַדָּבָר כִּמְעַט לְהֵפֶךְ. הַחֻקִּים הֵמָּה הַשְּׁלִיבוֹת לַעֲלוֹת בָּהֶם אֶל סֻלָּמֵי הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים. וּבִפְרָט בִּדְבַר הַמִּדּוֹת. מִשְׁפָּטִים הֵמָּה. וְכָל עֲמַל הָאָדָם לֹא יוֹעִיל לְתַקְּנָם וּלְיַשְּׁרָם בְּגִדְרָם הַנְּכוֹחָה. אִם לֹא יָשִׂים פָּנָיו אֶל שֵׂכֶל הָאֱנוֹשִׁי. לֶאֱהֹב אֶת הַיַּשְׁרוּת וְלִשְׂנֹא אֶת הַמְעֻקָּלוּת בְּטִבְעוֹ (גַּם בְּלִי אַזְהָרַת הַתּוֹרָה). עַל יְדֵי הִתְבּוֹנְנוּת רַבָּה בְּדַרְכֵי שֵׂכֶל אֱנוֹשִׁי כִּי אָדָם הוּא:
Mishpat is one level, and the second level is ḥok. This is what Scripture states (Lev. 18:4): “My mishpatim, you shall do, and My ḥukkim (statutes), you shall observe” follows the order of the levels. Indeed, each of these matters is weighted in accordance with its form. However, when it comes to behavior, the matter is virtually reversed. The ḥukkim are the rungs on which one ascends the ladder of mishpatim. And especially when it comes to human character traits, which are mishpatim, all of a person’s efforts will not succeed in perfecting them or straightening them out within their given parameters unless one turns to human reason: naturally loving integrity and hating distortions (even absent the Torah’s admonitions) by means of much contemplation of the paths of human reason – for he is a human.
הֲיוֹעִיל לְאִישׁ עָלוּל לְרַגְזָנוּת יְתֵרָה עַל יְדֵי הִתְעוֹרְרוּת קְטַנָּה הַמְעִירַתּוּ. גַּם אִם יַחֲזֹר הַרְבֵּה פְּעָמִים בְּמַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (נְדָרִים כ"ב) כָּל הַכּוֹעֵס כָּל מִינֵי גֵּיהִנֹּם שׁוֹלְטִין בּוֹ כו'. עַד אֲשֶׁר הַמַּאֲמָר יָאִיר תָּמִיד מוּל פָּנָיו. בְּכָל זֹאת כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּעֲלֶה עָלָיו רוּחַ הָרַגְזָנוּת. לִבּוֹ בַּל עִמּוֹ וְנֶהְפַּךְ אָז לְאִישׁ אַחֵר. קַל מְהֵרָה יַגְבִּיהוּ עוּף מִמֶּנּוּ כָּל צִיּוּרָיו הַיָּפִים אֲשֶׁר קָנָה בַּעֲמָלוֹ. וְאֵין רְפוּאָה לוֹ. בִּלְתִּי אִם יָשִׂים עֵין בִּינָתוֹ לַחְתֹּר בְּמַעֲמַקֵּי שָׁרְשֵׁי לְבָבוֹ. מַה הֵמָּה הַכֹּחוֹת הַכְּלָלִיּוֹת אֶצְלוֹ. הָעֲלוּלִים לְהִתָּפֵשׂ בְּהִתְעוֹרְרוּת קְטַנָּה מִחוּצָה לָהֶם. וְלִשְׁפֹּךְ עֲלֵיהֶם מֵי תְּבוּנָתוֹ. לְכַבּוֹתָם מְעַט שֶׁלֹּא יֵלְכוּ כָּל כָּךְ בְּחִפָּזוֹן עָצוּם. עַד אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בְּכֹחוֹ לִהְיוֹת אִישׁ עוֹצֵר בְּרוּחוֹ:
Will it help a person prone to excessive anger – the slightest provocation arouses it – even if he often reviews the statement of the Rabbis, of blessed memory (Nedarim 22a): “He who gets angry, all sorts of hell will take him over…,” until the statement shines before his face constantly? In any case, when the spirit of anger overcomes him, his heart will not be with him, and he will become a different person. All the lovely images that he acquired through his effort will quickly and easily fly away.33See Job 5:7. There is no cure for him unless he focuses his mind’s eye on penetrating the deepest roots of his heart. What are the general forces in him which are prone to be caught up even by a slight external provocation? He then should pour over them the waters of his understanding to extinguish them a bit, so that they do not ignite with such powerful swiftness.34Casual consideration and superficial analysis are not enough. Given the power of unconscious forces, one must analyze and penetrate deeply (using Mussar tactics) to really affect behavior. Ultimately he will become one who can restrain his spirit.35Compare Proverbs 16:32.
אָכֵן מֵאַיִן תָּבוֹא לָאָדָם הַתְּבוּנָה. וּמַה תְּעוֹרְרֵהוּ לָכוּף תַּאֲוָתוֹ הַחָפְשִׁית. לְהֵאָסֵר תַּחַת עֲמַל כִּשְׁרוֹן הַמִּדּוֹת כִּי רַב הוּא. הַיְסוֹד הָרָאשִׁי. הוּא הַחֹק. מִצְוַת תּוֹרַת ה'. כִּי הַכַּעַס עֲבֵרָה חֲמוּרָה הִיא. וְכָל מִינֵי גֵּיהִנֹּם שׁוֹלְטִין בְּהַכּוֹעֵס. הַדְּאָגָה הַלָּזוֹ (לְפִי עֶרְכָּהּ) בְּכֹחָהּ לִלְטֹשׁ שֵׂכֶל הָאָדָם (לְפִי מַצָּבוֹ) בְּהִתְבּוֹנְנוֹ אֶת אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְשֹׁעַר בִּתְחִלָּתוֹ. כַּאֲשֶׁר אֲנַחְנוּ רוֹאִים תָּמִיד בְּעִנְיְנֵי הַמִּסְחָר. אֲשֶׁר עַל יְדֵי הַדְּאָגָה וְהַהֶכְרֵחַ יַעֲלֶה שֵׂכֶל הָאָדָם לִבְחִינָה נִשְׂגָּבָה מֵאֵת אֲשֶׁר יְשֹׁעַר. וְכֵן כִּמְעַט בְּכָל הַמִּדּוֹת. הַפֶּתַח לְהִכָּנֵס בָּהֶם. הוּא הַחֹק. מִצְוַת תּוֹרַת ה'. כִּי מִדָּה רָעָה עֲבֵרָה נִשְׂגָּבָה הִיא. כַּאֲשֶׁר חֲכָמֵינוּ זַ"ל הִפְלִיגוּ בְּעָנְשָׁם. וּמִדָּה טוֹבָה מִצְוָה גְּדוֹלָה הִיא. כַּאֲשֶׁר חֲכָמֵינוּ זַ"ל הֶאֱרִיכוּ בְּמַעֲלָתָם. וְלָזֹאת. לְפִי רֹב פָּרִים יָבוֹא לַהִתְבּוֹנְנוּת הַשִּׂכְלִית. עַד אֲשֶׁר יְתֻקְּנוּ וְיָבוֹאוּ לִבְחִינַת מִשְׁפָּט. גִּדְרָם הָאֲמִתִּי. הוּא מַאֲמַר הַכָּתוּב הַשֵּׁנִי (וַיִּקְרָא י"ח) וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת חֻקּוֹתַי (בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה. וּמֵהֶם) וְאֶת מִשְׁפָּטַי תַּעֲשׂוּ וְגוֹ':
Yet, from where will the understanding come to the person? What will arouse him to restrain his unbridled desire, so that it is reined in by the effort of training his character traits? There is so much to do.
The fundamental principle is the ḥok, the commandment of God’s Torah, not to get angry. For anger is a grave transgression, and all sorts of hell will take over the one who gets angry. This anxiety (according to its degree) can sharpen a person’s reason (in accordance with his condition) as he contemplates what he could not have imagined at first.36As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention. As we see in matters of business: out of anxiety and necessity, a person’s reason reaches a quality far beyond what he could have imagined.
So it is with practically all the character traits: the entree to them is ḥok, a commandment of God’s Torah. For a bad character trait is a great transgression, as our Sages, of blessed memory, went far in describing their punishments. And a good character trait is a great mitzva, which our Sages, of blessed memory, praised at length. Thus, in accordance with their many effects, he will come to rational contemplation – until they are improved and reach the quality of mishpat, their true category.37It becomes a quality which reason persuades him is right or wrong. He is not just driven by knowing that it is a decree of the Torah. Put another way: developing good character traits becomes a commandment so compelling that we feel that if it were not written, it should have been written. This is the meaning of the second verse (Lev. 18:5): “And you will observe my ḥukkim” (first, and from them) “and my mishpatim….”
וְכֵן בִּדְבַר שְׁמִירַת חֻקֵּי הַמְּדִינָה. אִם כִּי בְּסוּגֵי הַמִּשְׁפָּט יָבוֹאוּ. וְשֵׂכֶל הָאָדָם שׁוֹפֵט לְשָׁמְרָם בִּשְׁלֵמוּת בְּאֵין מִגְרַעַת. גַּם בְּאֵין רוֹאֶה. בְּכָל זֹאת. גַּם בְּחִינַת הַחֹק. הִיא מִצְוַת תּוֹרַת ה'. מֵהַכָּתוּב וְהַקַּבָּלָה. הַמַּזְהִירִים בְּכָל עֹז. לְאַשֵּׁר וּלְקַיֵּם כְּכָל הַיּוֹצֵא מֵהַמֶּמְשָׁלָה יָרוּם הוֹדָהּ. הִיא תִּתֵּן חֵילָהּ לְמַכְבִּיר. לְגָרֵשׁ כָּל חוֹחֵי הַתַּאֲוָה לְמַעַן יָאִירוּ עֵינֵי הַשֵּׂכֶל. לִהְיוֹתוֹ רוֹאֶה הָאֱמֶת לַאֲמִתּוֹ. לֶאֱהֹב אֶת מוֹשְׁלֵי הַמְּדִינָה. וְלִמְסֹר נַפְשׁוֹ לְמַלְּאוֹת תַּפְקִידָם:
The same applies to observing the laws of the state. While these are types of mishpatim, and human reason judges to observe them completely, without diminution, even when no one sees, there is still an aspect of ḥok. It is the commandment of God’s Torah, from Scripture and tradition, which vigorously admonishes us to affirm and uphold all that issues forth from the government, may its glory increase. This will have the mighty effect of driving out all the thorns of strong desire so that the eyes of reason will be illuminated, to truly see the truth, to love the rulers of the state, and to give his life to obey their orders.38Presumably, this effusive language is meant to assure government censors that R. Salanter and all those who study Mussar are totally devoted to the observance of the general society’s laws.
עַתָּה נָשׁוּב לִרְאוֹת בְּמִצְוַת לִמּוּד הַתּוֹרָה מַה הִיא. חֹק אוֹ מִשְׁפָּט. הַדַּעַת נוֹתֵן כִּי גַּם לִמּוּד תּוֹרַת הַחֹק. לְמִשְׁפָּט יֵחָשֵׁב. כִּדְאָמְרִינַן בַּגְּמָרָא (בָּבָא קַמָּא י"ז) וְכָבוֹד עָשׂוּ לוֹ בְּמוֹתוֹ. זֶה חִזְקִיָּה מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה. שֶׁהִנִּיחוּ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה עַל מִטָּתוֹ וְאָמְרוּ קִיֵּם זֶה מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בְּזֶה. וְהָאִידְנָא כוּ' אֲפִלּוּ קִיֵּם אָמְרִינַן לִמֵּד לֹא אָמְרִינַן. וְהָאָמַר מַר גָּדוֹל לִמּוּד הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁהַלִּמּוּד מֵבִיא לִידֵי מַעֲשֶׂה כוּ'. וְכָתְבוּ הַתּוֹסָפוֹת. וְאוֹמֵר רַבֵּנוּ תַּם דְּהָכֵי פֵּרוּשׁוֹ. וְהָא אָמַר מַר שֶׁהַלִּמּוּד מֵבִיא לִידֵי מַעֲשֶׂה. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁאָנוּ אוֹמְרִים קִיֵּם הֲרֵי אָנוּ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁלָּמַד. דְּאִי לֹא לָמַד אֵיךְ קִיֵּם. שֶׁהַלִּמּוּד מֵבִיא לִידֵי מַעֲשֶׂה. עַד כָּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. הֲרֵי אַף שֶׁהַקִּיּוּם יִהְיֶה חֹק. מִכָּל מָקוֹם חִיּוּב הַלִּמּוּד. הוּא מִשְׁפָּט אֲשֶׁר יְחַיְּבֶנּוּ שֵׂכֶל הָאֱנוֹשִׁי. דְּאִם לֹא יִלְמֹד אֵיךְ יְקַיֵּם:
Let us now return to see what is the nature of the mitzva of studying Torah. Is it ḥok or mishpat? It stands to reason that even learning the ḥok aspect of the Torah should be considered a mishpat, as we say in the Talmud (Bava Kamma 17a): “‘And they did great honor to him at his death’ (II Chr. 32:33) – this refers to King Hezekiah of Judah. They put a Torah scroll on his coffin and said: ‘This one fulfilled what is written in this one.’ And nowadays…even if we say, ‘He fulfilled,’ we do not say, ‘He studied.’ But did the Master not state: ‘Great is the study of Torah, for study leads to action…’?”39So why is studying Torah a greater and rarer compliment than fulfilling it? Tosafot stated: “And Rabbenu Tam says that this is the explanation: ‘Did the Master not say that study leads to action?’ Since we say, ‘He fulfilled,’ we imply that he studied, for if he did not study, how did he fulfill, if study leads to action?”
אָכֵן גַּם מִגֶּדֶר הַחֹק. בַּל יֵצֵא אַף לִמּוּד תּוֹרַת הַמִּשְׁפָּט. כִּי הַלִּמּוּד בְּעַצְמוֹ מִצְוָה הִיא. אַף אִם לֹא הָיְתָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי מַעֲשֶׂה. כְּמוֹ שֶׁמִּצְוָה לִדְרֹשׁ בְּבֶן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. (לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא עָתִיד לִהְיוֹת). וְהַשֵּׂכֶל הָאֱנוֹשִׁי מְנַגְּדָהּ. רַק אֲנִי ה' חִקַּקְתִּים. וְכֵן בְּכָל חֶלְקֵי הַתּוֹרָה בְּלִמּוּדָהּ. גַּם מִצְוָה חֻקִּית בָּהּ. אֲשֶׁר אֵין לְהִתְחַלֵּק רַק בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה:
Thus, even if fulfillment is a ḥok, the obligation to study is mishpat, something that reason dictates that we undertake, for if one does not study, how can he fulfill? However, even the study of the mishpat aspect of the Torah should not be removed from the category of ḥok, for study is itself a mitzva even when it does not lead to action. Just as it is a mitzva to study the case of the “rebellious son” (according to the view that it will never actually occur), and even when human reason opposes it, except that “I, God, legislated this”40Compare Yoma 67b. – so too there is a ḥok aspect in the study of every part of Torah, which we can never separate off, except in theory.
וְאוּלַי לָזֶה רָמְזָה הַמִּשְׁנָה (אָבוֹת פֶּרֶק ד') וְהַלּוֹמֵד עַל מְנָת לַעֲשׂוֹת וְכוּ'. וְלֹא אָמַר הַלּוֹמֵד בִּכְדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת. כִּי הַלִּמּוּד בְּעַצְמוֹ. טוֹב שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בַּמַּחֲשָׁבָה הַחֻקִּית. (אַף אִם לֹא הָיָה נִצְמָח מִמֶּנָּה הַמַּעֲשֶׂה). כִּי הִיא בְּחִינָה נִשָּׂאָה מִלִּמּוּד הַמִּשְׁפָּטִי. אָכֵן בִּתְנַאי שֶׁתּוֹלֵד הַמַּעֲשֶׂה מִמֶּנָּה. עַל כֵּן דְּבַר הַלִּמּוּד יִתְנַהֵל בְּאֹפֶן שֶׁיִּתְקַיֵּם הַתְּנַאי. הַיְנוּ לְהַשִּׂיג בְּרֹאשׁ הַבְּקִיאוּת וְהַחֲרִיפוּת (אִישׁ אִישׁ לְפִי עֶרְכּוֹ). לִהְיוֹת כְּלִי מֻכְשָׁר לִלְמֹד עַל פִּי תְּנַאי הַנִּדְרָשׁ. הוּא חֵפֶץ הַמַּעֲשֶׂה:
Perhaps the Mishna alludes to this (Avot 4:5): “One who studies [Torah] with the condition of (al menat) performance….” It did not say: “One who studies to be able to (bikhedei) perform,” for it is good that the study itself be in the mode of ḥok (even if no action can come out of it), for it is a higher level than Torah study as mishpat.41It is harder to commit to mastering those parts of the Torah (such as ben sorer umoreh, the “wayward and rebellious son”) that have no real-world application, so the reward is greater. Although studying Torah law appears to be rationally compelling for one who is willing to live by the Torah, it is important that some element of Torah study be “ḥok” – performed solely for the reason that God commanded us to (whether or not it can be acted upon or shape our lives). Indeed, it is on condition that it is able to produce action. Therefore, study takes place in a manner that fulfills this condition, namely, to intellectually attain the mastery and sharpness (each person according to his level) to be a finely calibrated instrument of learning, according to the requisite condition – the desire to act.
וּבִדְבָרֵינוּ אֵלֶּה. יָאִירוּ דִּבְרֵי רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ"ל (נְדָרִים פ"א) הַיְנוּ לֹא שָׁמְעוּ בְּקוֹלִי הַיְנוּ לֹא הָלְכוּ בָּם. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב שֶׁאֵין מְבָרְכִין בַּתּוֹרָה תְּחִלָּה כוּ'. וּפֵרְשׁוּ. שֶׁלֹּא בֵּרְכוּ בִּרְכַּת הַתּוֹרָה כְּשֶׁהֵן מַשְׁכִּימִין לִלְמֹד תּוֹרָה. עַיֵּן שָׁם. אֲשֶׁר כָּל אֱנוֹשׁ יִתְפַּלֵּא עַל הַתַּאֲוָה הַזָּרָה הַזֹּאת. לְבִלְתִּי הֱיוֹת עָצֵל בְּלִמּוּד הַתּוֹרָה הַמַּתֶּשֶׁת כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם. רַק שֶׁלֹּא לְבָרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ בִּתְחִלָּתָהּ. (וְהָרַ"ן כָּתַב בְּשֵׁם הָרַב רַבֵּנוּ יוֹנָה זַ"ל. עוֹסְקִין הָיוּ בַּתּוֹרָה תָּמִיד. וְלֹא הָיוּ מְבָרְכִין בַּתּוֹרָה תְּחִלָּה. כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה הַתּוֹרָה חֲשׁוּבָה בְּעֵינֵיהֶם כָּל כָּךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא רָאוּי לְבָרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ. שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ עוֹסְקִין בָּהּ לִשְׁמָהּ. וּמִתּוֹךְ כָּךְ הָיוּ מְזַלְזְלִין בַּבְּרָכָה. עַד כָּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וְהַדָּבָר תָּמוּהַּ מְאֹד. לֵאמֹר שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ כָּךְ יְזַלְזְלוּ בְּבִרְכַּת הַתּוֹרָה. אֲשֶׁר הִיא מִדְּאוֹרָיְתָא. בְּאֵין כָּל תַּאֲוָה לְהַפְרִיעָהּ):
With these words of ours, we can illuminate the words of our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Nedarim 81a): “‘They did not listen to My voice’ is the same as ‘They did not follow it’ [Jer. 9:12].42The verse in Jeremiah states: “They did not listen to My voice and they did not follow it.” The Talmud is asking about this apparent redundancy. R. Yehuda said in the name of Rav: [‘This means that] they do not bless on the Torah first….’” The commentators explain this to mean that they did not recite the blessing over the Torah when they arose early to study Torah; cf. ibid.
Everyone should be astonished by this strange impulse – not to be derelict in studying Torah, which exhausts a person’s strength, but not to recite a blessing over it beforehand! (R. Nissim wrote in the name of R. Jonah of Girona, of blessed memory: “They studied Torah constantly, but they did not recite the blessing over the Torah first. That is, the Torah was not so important to them that they deemed it worthy of reciting a blessing over it. They did not study it for its own sake43R. Nissim maintains that they studied Torah for ulterior motives, and therefore did not respect it enough to make a blessing first. – and because of this they belittled the blessing.” This is most puzzling: to say that because of not studying Torah for its own sake, they would belittle the blessing over the Torah, which is a biblical commandment? Why would they do this absent any impulse to interfere with [the blessing]?)
וְאָמְנָם לְפִי מַה שֶּׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. יֵשׁ לְפָרֵשׁ דְּאָמְרִינַן (מְנָחוֹת מב:) כָּל מִצְוָה דַּעֲשִׂיָּתָהּ גְּמַר מִצְוָה כְּגוֹן מִילָה כוּ' צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵךְ. וְכָל מִצְוָה דַּעֲשִׂיָּתָהּ לָאו גְּמַר מִצְוָה כְּגוֹן תְּפִלִּין. (עֲשִׂיָּתָן לֹא זוֹ הִיא גְּמַר מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיִּקְשְׁרֵם). אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵךְ כוּ' עַיֵּן שָׁם. עַל כֵּן לְפִי זֶה עַל מִצְוַת לִמּוּד תּוֹרָה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִי. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵךְ. דַּעֲשִׂיָּתָהּ הַיְנוּ הַלִּמּוּד. לָאו גְּמַר מִצְוָה הִיא (עַד שֶׁקִּיֵּם אֶת אֲשֶׁר הוּא לוֹמֵד). כִּי כָּל עִנְיַן הַמִּצְוָה הוּא. לִלְמֹד בִּכְדֵי לֵידַע הַמַּעֲשֶׂה. וִיסוֹד בִּרְכַּת הַתּוֹרָה. הֻנְחָה עַל מִצְוַת לִמּוּד הַתּוֹרָה בִּבְחִינַת חֹק. הַיְנוּ שֶׁהַלִּמּוּד בְּעַצְמוֹ מִצְוָה. אִי לָזֹאת יוּכַל הֱיוֹת. כִּי שָׁלְטָה עֲלֵיהֶם הַתַּאֲוָה. שֶׁלֹּא רָצוּ רַק לִלְמֹד בְּגֶדֶר הַמִּשְׁפָּט. יַעַן הַשֵּׂכֶל הָאֱנוֹשִׁי מְחַיְּבוֹ. אֲבָל לִלְמֹד בִּבְחִינַת חֹק. לִהְיוֹת. שֶׁהַשֵּׂכֶל מְנַגְּדוֹ וְהַיֵּצֶר מֵשִׁיב עָלָיו. גָּעֲלָה נַפְשָׁם. לְזֹאת אַף שֶׁעָסְקוּ בַּתּוֹרָה. הָיְתָה כַּוָּנָתָם רַק בְּתוֹר בְּחִינַת מִשְׁפָּט. וְלֹא הָיָה גְּמַר מִצְוָה וְלֹא בֵּרְכוּ עָלֶיהָ:
However, we can explain this based on what we have ascertained: It is said (Menaḥot 42b): “Any mitzva whose performance completes the mitzva, such as circumcision…one must bless over it. Any mitzva whose performance does not complete the mitzva, such as tefillin (making them does not complete the mitzva; rather, only when they have been bound), it is not necessary to recite a blessing….” See further there.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite a blessing on the mitzva of studying Torah as mishpat, for its performance – the study itself – is not the completion of the mitzva (not until he fulfills what he studied). The whole idea of the mitzva is to study in order to know what to do. But the premise of the blessing over the Torah was placed on the ḥok aspect of the mitzva of Torah study – that is, the study is itself a mitzva. It is possible, therefore, that they were governed by the impulse to study only as mishpat – for human reason demands this – but the ḥok aspect of study, which the intellect rejects and the evil urge questions, was repugnant to them. Thus, although they engaged in Torah study, their intention was only qua the mishpat aspect. [This study of Torah] was not the completion of a mitzva, so they did not recite a blessing over it.
נִמְצָא לְפִי זֶה. שְׂכַר לִמּוּד הַתּוֹרָה אֵינָהּ רַק בְּחִינַת מִשְׁפָּט. הַמִּשְׁתַּתֵּף עִמָּהּ גַּם בְּתוֹר בְּחִינַת חֹק. בְּכַוָּנָתָהּ הָרְצוּיָה:
We thus find that the reward for learning Torah is not only for the mishpat aspect; one who combines it with the ḥok aspect as well fulfills it with its proper intention.
הוּא הַמַּאֲמָר אֲשֶׁר הִצַּבְנוּ בְּפֶתַח דְּבָרֵינוּ (סַנְהֶדְרִין ע"א) בֶּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה לֹא הָיָה וְלֹא עָתִיד לִהְיוֹת. וְלָמָּה נִכְתַּב דְּרֹשׁ וְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר. הַיְנוּ שָׂכָר עַל בְּחִינַת חֹק לְבַדָּהּ. הַנַּעֲלָה בְּמַדְרֵגָתָהּ (בַּבְּחִינָה הַלָּזוֹ. אִם כִּי נִגְרַעַת בְּעֶרְכָּהּ. יַעַן אֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה לִידֵי מַעֲשֶׂה כוּ'. עַיֵּן קִדּוּשִׁין מ: נַעֲנוּ כֻּלָּם כוּ') מִשְּׁאָר חֶלְקֵי הַתּוֹרָה. אֲשֶׁר יְסוּדָתָם הִיא בְּחִינַת מִשְׁפָּט:
This is the meaning of the statement that we placed in our opening remarks, “The matter of the rebellious son never was and never will be. Why then is it written [in Scripture]? To study it and receive the reward” (Sanhedrin 71a). That is, the reward is for the ḥok aspect [of Torah study] alone, which is at a higher level (in this respect, although it is of lesser value in that does not lead to action…. See Kiddushin 40b, “They all responded…”) than the other parts of Torah, whose basis is the mishpat aspect.