Group None

Leviticus Rabba, chapter 2 (section 11): “New ones and old ones I have held aside for you, my beloved” (Song. 7:14) – Abraham, Isaac, Jacob are “old ones”; Amram, son of Kehat, and all the righteous ones who were in Egypt are “new ones.” The company of Moses and the company of Joshua, the company of David and of Hezekiah are “old ones”; the company of Ezra, of Hillel, of R. Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, of R. Meir and his colleagues are “new ones.” Of all these, it is said: “New ones and old ones.”1According to this midrash, the “old ones” and “new ones” have distinctive weights – reflecting the difficulty of living up to the Torah in their circumstances, as will be explained below.Pesaḥim 116a–b: Rabban Gamliel used to say: Whoever does not speak of these three matters on Passover has not fulfilled his obligations: pesaḥ [the paschal sacrifice], matza [unleavened bread], and maror [bitter herbs].Rashbam2R. Samuel ben Meir (Troyes, 1085–1158) was a leading French Tosafist and grandson of Rabbi Shlomo Yitzḥaki (Rashi). explains: [“Who does not speak of” means] one who did not explain their reasons. So regarding these mitzvot, it is certainly permitted to explore and investigate their reasons. Let us look carefully: Why is maror placed after the matza? After all, in the actual event, [the sequence] was the opposite?3Maror commemorates the slavery whereas matza symbolizes the Exodus. Chronologically, slavery comes first, so it stands to reason that its commemoration should as well. Likewise, the reason for eating the maror is first chronologically.

Our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said in Kiddushin (40b): “[When on trial on Rosh HaShana,] a person should always view himself as equally balanced between guilty and exonerated…” although sometimes a person sees patently that this is not so, for better etc.4Or for worse. R. Salanter deliberately elides the negative alternative. Indeed, Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote in Mishneh Torah, the Laws of Repentance 3:1:Each individual person has merits and sins. One whose merits exceed his sins is a righteous person; one whose sins exceed his merits is a wicked man…. This weighing is not [simply] by the quantity of merits and sins, but according to their magnitude. One merit can outweigh several sins…and there are sins that outweigh several merits…. The weighing is only according to the judgment of the God of Understanding, who knows how to assess merits against sins.See further there.

Certainly this matter has many variables that increase the value of merits and sins. Let us explain a bit about one variable. It is known that commandments are evaluated according to the pain in the effort of observing them. As the Rabbis, of blessed memory, said: “According to the pain [of the effort] is the reward.”5Avot 5:23. Thus, sometimes a person does one mitzva at two different times. They are the same [mitzva] in outward appearance, yet with respect to the pain of observing them, the difference between them is an order of magnitude in the thousands, for everything can be broken down into many little parts, and the pain varies according to the format of the way they are done.6R. Salanter continues to shift the assessment of actions from their external performance level, in which they appear to be uniform from person to person or in the same person on different occasions and are taken at face value, to judging actions by Mussar standards, i.e., by their internal weight. Similar actions, externally, turn out to be vastly different when judged by the internal intentions and meanings brought by the individual, or in terms of the great variation between people as to their ease or propensity to observe or even within the same person on different occasions. The thrust of the Mussar approach is to turn religion into a highly individual and highly intentional set of actions and beliefs. Another far-reaching consequence of this approach is developed by R. Salanter in later letters. Actions that externally appear to be fulfillment of the Torah’s instructions may turn out to be just the opposite because of wrong intentions or because of psychological distortions, which turn the actions negative. For example, one learned for one hour at one time and his mind was clear for learning; his nature did not oppose it; he felt no pain or at least only a little when he learned. At another time, [however,] the situation was quite the contrary. The learning was like a heavy burden7Literally, “like the weight of sand.” See Proverbs 27:3. on his soul; his pain was fierce. In outward form, [the two acts] of learning one hour are equivalent. But the internal make-up has changed overwhelmingly, and so on with all matters. No hour resembles another with respect to its internal make-up. So too with his actions: even if he fulfills them with no change in their outward form, with respect to their internal make up, the difference between them is vast.

It is the same with respect to sins. Punishments vary according to the degree of pain involved in refraining from the sin. The less the pain, the greater the punishment, as the Rabbis, of blessed memory, said in 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]….” See further there.8See previous letter. So it is with sins: although a person will be punished for every sin, whether in this [world] or the next, the punishment nevertheless varies according to context; the same sin, if committed by a person at a time when it was easy for him to refrain from the sin, will accordingly be punished more severely. Accordingly, with regard to sins, a person might commit the same sin on two different occasions that are identical with respect to severity, yet the punishment will vary on an order of magnitude in the thousands, based on different internal contexts9I.e., difficulty level. of refraining from the sin.

Based on this, one can contemplate – if he pays enough attention to delve deeply into it – the qualitative intensity of punishment for sins, be they doing what the Torah forbade, or not doing what the Torah commanded to do. When he considers the extent of his obligation to observe, whether by commission or omission, the law of the Torah, as transmitted to us from the Talmud and codes, against the pain incurred by observing it, [he will realize] that if he transgresses, his punishment will certainly be more severe than the pain he would incur by observing it, since by the very definition of variable punishment – which cautions the person to be vigilant about what he was commanded – [this pain] will be much greater than the pain of keeping the commandment. And afterward he will note how many thousands and thousands of levels his pain is lessened by keeping the commandments. And by this principle, his punishment [if he does violate] will multiply thousands upon thousands of times.

These words will strike roots in a person’s heart if he resolves to delve deeply into Torah study, each according to his own measure; to know to weigh obligations against pain, especially in those matters that are especially relevant to him. For almost every person, certain specific obligations apply especially to him, according to his nature and condition. For some, the obligation is to go deeper into laws of Torah study; for some it is laws of usury; for others, laws of exploitation; and the like.

These matters loom large during the Ten Days of Repentance: finding a way to abandon sin. This is the primary foundation, the cornerstone – but it is hard to find a way [to eliminate] things that are habitual. However, when a person closely scrutinizes all his activities in all their specifics, categorizing the easier and the more difficult, it will be easier for him to accept upon himself an enduring resolution to observe those that he regards as being easy, which belong in a separate category. He will thus, with relative ease, refrain from most of his sins, for the sins deemed easy are much more severe [with respect to punishment], as mentioned above.

Accordingly, we find that, in general, we can divide the commandments and the sins into categories of easier ones and more difficult ones. In each category, as noted above, there are many particulars. Sometimes a person errs, thinking this matter for him is in the difficult category, which is good for him – in a mitzva it increases his reward and in a sin it decreases punishment – but it is not so! For sometimes it is difficult for a person, not because of his inborn nature but because he attracted the [evil] urge upon himself – that is why it became difficult for him. Or, he brought the urge into another matter, which made this matter difficult, too – for human drives are connected and dependent on each other. In such a case, it is not considered a difficult condition for him but [is judged] in the “easy” category – because by his own free choice he has brought this evil upon himself.

The same is true for good. Sometimes, it is easy for a person to do a mitzva – not because of his inborn good temperament and the like, but rather by acquiring reverence, Mussar, and [proper] habituation in this matter or in something connected to this matter. Then it is considered a difficult category for him and the reward is very great – even though it is easy for him. So the quality of a mitzva or sin: whether they are [actually] in the difficult category or the “easy” one, and how and what is each specifically, can never be known to a person perfectly. Rambam’s words are right: only God, blessed be His name, Himself knows how to assess the value of good deeds and sins.

We can hang this [idea] onto the words of the Rabbis, of blessed memory, in Sukka (52a): “In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring the evil urge [and slaughter him]…. To the righteous, [the evil urge] appears as a huge mountain; to the wicked, it appears as a strand of hair….” See further there. It is an astonishing thing – why this variance? Indeed, this is what we said: for the wicked who brought the urge on themselves, of course, it was very difficult for them to conquer their urge; so they think that although they will certainly be punished, it would only be in the category of “difficult [to resist]” sins. But in truth, it is not so, because by their choice they brought the urge on themselves, making it become difficult for them. It is shown to them that their evil urge is really only a strand of hair – the opposite of what they imagine.

Similarly, the righteous, who by conditioning made service of God, blessed be His name, a pleasure, thought they would receive reward only in the category of “easy” observance. But it is not so. Since the ease was created by their choice and efforts, their “easy” observances are weighed as difficult ones and their reward is great. So [the evil urge] is shown to them [as big] as a mountain.

How much a person’s heart must tremble when he thoroughly considers his condition and nature! Who knows how many thousands of levels will afterward be considered “easy” for him [to have kept] because he brought the difficulty upon himself by his choices! His punishment will be much, much greater than he imagines. On the basis of these words, we can now illuminate the mishna in Avot (4:22): “Willing or not, in the future, you will give a reckoning and account [before the supreme King of kings]….” That is, the reckoning (din) is based on the state of the person, and the accounting is based on what his situation would have been had he not brought the urge upon himself, in which case it would have been much easier for him [to resist].

We find accordingly that what magnifies the aspect of a mitzva, that is, its weight, reduces the aspect of a sin. One observance will outweigh many sins in this aspect. So in Egypt, where the “difficulty” aspect was overwhelming, [Israel] was on so elevated a level that they were worthy of miracles and wonders. This is the [meaning of] the scriptural verse: “Their groaning went up…out of their travail” (Ex. 2:23).10Numerous statements by the sages (see, for example, Rashi on Ex. 12:6) note that the Israelites in Egypt were bare of mitzvot and even indistinguishable from the Egyptians. Nevertheless, under these oppressive circumstances, every mitzva and good deed carried tremendous weight. That is, why was their prayer accepted, which evinces a high level? Because it went up “out of their travail” – so these mitzvot exceeded the sins qualitatively, even though they were few in number.

[Returning to our opening questions,] matza [represents] the redemption, which is the effect, and maror [represents] the oppression, which was the cause [of the redemption]. So it is understandable that although in action, the cause precedes the effect, in a story we reverse the order. First we tell the effect, then [we explain] its cause. So first comes matza, then maror. And in Egypt, they were considered difficult as compared to the patriarchs,11Because of the greater degree of difficulty of doing the mitzvot. and so the second Temple as compared to the first.12Because of the greater degree of difficulty of doing the mitzvot. So they are categorized as “new ones,” a higher category, and this is the meaning of “new ones and old ones.”13See the opening paragraph of this letter, above.

Similarly, we can say: Mussar study in its own right is easy – to study sometimes at a set time, with enthusiasm of the soul. But it is a “new one” – so it enters into the category of difficult ones!14Notice that despite his continuing emphasis on the supremacy of Torah learning, de facto R. Salanter has described Mussar study as a “new one,” that is to say, it is weightier than the “old one,” Torah study. This ranking is because of the difficulties of the time, which Mussar is addressing. Take possession of it;15Compare Genesis 34:10. do not let it go; and your reward will be great. Let me know if my words have reached you, and may you be blessed with a good year as good as your own good souls!Your friend who seeks your peace.Israel.Erev Rosh HaShana, 1860