Group None

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?

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.

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.*Tosafot (Shabbat 55a) about what is said: “Why specifically tav? (Why did the Holy One, blessed be He, tell Gabriel: Go and inscribe on the forehead of the righteous man a tav in ink?…[compare Ezek. 9:4]). Rav says: Tav stands for tiĥyeh (you shall live); tav stands for tamut (you shall die). Shmuel says: Tav stands for tama zekhut avot (the merits of the fathers have been used up). R. Yehoshua ben Levi and R. Yoĥanan likewise said there: When were the merits of the fathers used up?… We still mention the merits of the fathers [in our prayers]!?” See further there. According to our words above, we can answer: There are two aspects in this matter. One is the merits of the fathers because of their awesome deeds, which stopped upon their death, but the radiance of which shines for their descendants in permanent and measured fashion. The Amora’im disagree as to when their time of effectiveness reached its limit.The second is the merits of the fathers which are born from the deeds of the children. For the fathers are the true basis and root of all the good deeds which those who follow them do. These merits bear fruit continually, without limit or end. In this category, it is impossible for the merits of the fathers to be used up. “For Israel is not left bereft” [lit. “widower.” See Jer. 51:5], and in each generation righteous men were found; even the sinners of Israel “are as full of good deeds as a pomegranate [is full of seeds]” [compare Eiruvin 19a].The deeds of the fathers are efficacious to bear fruit and grow blossoms of merit. As we say in Arakhin (16a):“For seven actions, plagues come: for speaking evil of others…. How is this? Did not R. Anani bar Sason say: ‘Why is the portion dealing with the priestly vestments in proximity with the portion dealing with sacrifices? To tell you that as sacrifices atone for sins, so the priestly vestments atone…. The priestly cloak atones for speaking evil….’ [How can there ever be a plague for speaking evil if the priestly cloak atones for speaking evil?] There is no problem: here is a case where his actions were efficacious; here is a case where his actions had no effect. If his actions have an effect, then a plague comes because of it. [Since they spread evil, they outstripped the power of the cloak to atone.] If his actions had no effects, then the cloak atones for it.”Even though the act of speaking evil was the same in both cases, the gap between them is great because of the effect that comes from it. If his words have an effect, he needs much more atonement. It is the same with the category of the good. If his deed has effects, bearing fruit, then his deed continues to add merits. Therefore, we always mention the merits of the fathers – which is continually awakened by the deeds of the descendants and will never ever end. So too, each evil action can be distinguished according to the spread of its effects. The more the action continues to have effects by growing bitter fruit, the more its negative quality will grow and its punishment increase.Many times, a person will guard his behavior22Lit. “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.