39b: The Reward For Keeping Mitzvot (3)

A scan of the classic printed daf can be found at: http://dafyomi.org/index.php?masechta=kiddushin&daf=39b&go=Go http://www.e-daf.com/dafprint.asp?ID=2705 Key words and phrases in Hebrew and Aramaic are marked in blue, and their translation/explanation can be seen by placing the cursor over them.  From time to time, the shiur will include instructions to stop reading and do some task on your own. This will be marked by a red pause box  It is highly recommended that you follow those instructions. I am working on a way to have your computer melt if you don't, but as of yet, the technical details are still beyond me. Within the quoted texts, my explanations and additions are also noted in red.

We have spent the last two weeks studying the mishna on 39b and the gemara's analysis of that mishna. The mishna states that one who does any mitzva receives reward, including long life. We have already seen the gemara's discussion of the whether one may receive this reward in this world or only in the World to Come. The gemara we will study this week analyzes the mishna from a different angle. We begin six lines from the bottom of 39b. 

 

 

Rav Tovi bar Rav Kisna pointed out a contradiction to Rava: "It states in the mishna: 'Anyone who does one mitzva receives good;' if he did, yes (he receives good); if he did not do, no. But there is a contradiction: 'If he sat and did not sin he receives reward as one who does a mitzva!'" [Rava] said to him: "There, for instance if a sinful matter came to his hand (confronted him) and he was saved from it; like the case of Rabbi Chanina bar Pappi, who was propositioned by a certain [non-Jewish] noblewoman; he said something and filled himself with boils and scabs, she did something and he was cured; he ran and hid in a certain bathhouse, that when people would enter in pairs even by day they would be harmed [by demons]. The next day, the rabbis said to him: 'Who protected you?' He said to them, 'Two bearers of the Caesar protected me the whole night.' They said to him, 'Perhaps an immoral matter came to your hand (confronted you) and you were saved from it, for we learned: "Anyone to whose hand an immoral matter comes and is saved from it, a miracle is done for him."'"

רמי רב טובי בר רב קיסנא לרבא, תנן: כל העושה מצוה אחת - מטיבין לו; עשה אין, לא עשה לא. ורמינהי: ישב ולא עבר עבירה - נותנים לו שכר כעושה מצוה! אמר ליה: התם, כגון שבא דבר עבירה לידו וניצול הימנה; כי הא דרבי חנינא בר פפי תבעתיה ההיא מטרוניתא, אמר מלתא ומלי נפשיה שיחנא וכיבא, עבדה היא מילתא ואיתסי, ערק טשא בההוא בי בני, דכי הוו עיילין בתרין אפילו ביממא הוו מיתזקי. למחר, אמרו ליה רבנן: מאן נטרך? אמר להו: שני נושאי קיסר שמרוני כל הלילה. אמרו ליה: שמא דבר ערוה בא לידך וניצלת הימנו, דתנינא: כל הבא דבר ערוה לידו וניצל הימנו, עושין לו נס.

The gemara has already discussed the implications of sinful thoughts that are not put into action. As we will see, Rav Tovi brings up the reverse case. He deduces from the mishna that reward is only given for good deeds, as the mishna states, "Anyone who does a mitzva." This implies that one does not receive reward for positive spiritual accomplishments that are not expressed in an active way. However, this contradicts a beraita, which guarantees reward for people who refrain from sin; apparently, refraining from sin, which involves no action, is enough to earn heavenly reward!

Rava answers that the beraita is referring to a case in which a person had a specific opportunity and desire to sin and held back from doing so; in that case, reward is granted for the fact that the person did not sin. Otherwise, reward is granted only for the active fulfillment of mitzvot. Rabbi Chanina bar Pappi is held up as an example of one who resisted temptation. A certain noblewoman (literally, "matron") propositioned him, and due to his desire and to her position of authority, it was difficult to resist; nevertheless, Rabbi Chanina went to great lengths to do so. First he uttered a formula and filled himself with boils and scabs so as to make himself repulsive. The woman was able to miraculously cure him. He then went and hid in a bathhouse that was frequented by demons and was so dangerous that people would be hurt even when they entered in pairs and during the day, both of which are factors that make it unlikely for demons to cause harm. The next day, the rabbis asked how Rabbi Chanina was able to survive the whole night in such a place, and he explained that two imperial guards had protected him. The rabbis understood that Rabbi Chanina had received divine protection, and asked if he had refrained from taking advantage of an opportunity to perform an immoral act; refraining from sin in such circumstances warrants miraculous divine protection.

The gemara continues with another story of the great lengths to which an Amora went in order to avoid sin. We are on the fourth line of 40a.

 

 

"Strong warriors, those who do His bidding to obey the sound of His word;" like Rabbi Tzadok and his friends. Rabbi Tzadok was propositioned by a certain noblewoman.   He said to her, "I am weak and I cannot [carry out this act]; is there anything to eat?" She said to him, "There is something impure (non-kosher)." He said to her, "What is the difference? He who does this, eats this." She lit the oven and placed [a piece of meat] for him [in the oven]; he went and sat in it. She said to him, "What is this?" He said to her, "He who does this, falls into this." She said to him, "If I had known this much (that the matter is so severe to you) I would not have troubled you."

גבורי כח עושי דברו לשמוע בקול דברו; כגון רבי צדוק וחביריו. ר' צדוק תבעתיה ההיא מטרוניתא. אמר לה: חלש לי ליבאי ולא מצינא; איכא מידי למיכל? אמרה ליה: איכא דבר טמא. אמר לה: מאי נפקא מינה? דעביד הא אכול הא. שגרת תנורא קא מנחא ליה, סליק ויתיב בגויה. אמרה ליה: מאי האי? אמר לה: דעביד הא נפיל בהא. אמרה ליה: אי ידעי כולי האי לא צערתיך.

The gemara starts by quoting Tehillim (103:20), which refers to "strong warriors (gibborei koach), those who do His bidding to obey the sound of His word." The gemara applies this verse to people like Rabbi Tzadok, who are termed "strong warriors" because of their ability to go to great lengths in order to subjugate their desires and safeguard their status as people who "obey the sound of His word." This calls to mind the well-known mishna in Avot (4:1), which states: "Who is strong (gibbor)? He who subdues his inclination." The gemara relates why Rabbi Tzadok earned the status of a gibbor: he was propositioned by a noblewoman, and refrained from sinning with her. He claimed not to have energy because he was hungry; when she lit the fire and started to cook him something to eat, he went and actually sat in the fire. Shocked, she asked what the reason was for his strange behavior. He explained that one who commits an immoral act falls into the fires of hell. She rescinded her advances, saying that had she known the matter was of such grave concern to him, she would never have troubled him with the proposition.

The gemara relates yet another story of resisting temptation; we are up to the first medium sized line on 40a.

 

 

Rav Kahana was selling baskets; he was propositioned by a certain noblewoman. He said to her, "I will go and adorn myself."   He went and was falling from the roof to the ground; Eliyahu came and caught him. [Eliyahu] said to him, "You troubled me [to travel] four hundred parsos!" He said to him, "What caused me [to be in this situation] if not my poverty?" [Eliyahu] have him a chest of dinars.

רב כהנא הוה קמזבין דיקולי, תבעתיה ההיא מטרוניתא. אמר לה: איזיל איקשיט נפשאי. סליק וקנפיל מאיגרא לארעא, אתא אליהו קבליה. אמר ליה: אטרחתן ארבע מאה פרסי! א"ל (אמר ליה): מי גרם לי, לאו עניותא? יהב ליה שיפא דדינרי.

 

Rav Kahana was a seller of baskets. Rashi (s.v. Dikkulei) explains that these were the type of baskets that women would use to store their weaving instruments; thus, Rav Kahana's trade brought him into close contact with women. A certain noblewoman propositioned him, and Rav Kahana bought some time by saying that he was going to prepare to carry out the immoral act. Afraid that he might not be able to avoid sin, Rav Kahana apparently attempted suicide by jumping off a roof! Eliyahu ha-Navi (Elijah the Prophet) came and caught him. Eliyahu admonished Rav Kahana, saying that he had to travel a great distance to carry out this rescue mission. Rav Kahana responded that it was his dire poverty that forced him to have to enter this trade in order to make a living. Eliyahu gave him a chest of coins so that Rav Kahana would not have to continue in that line of work.

 

Why does the gemara need to relate three stories that show the same point? Do the latter stories add anything to the first?

The gemara makes its point, that it is a significant accomplishment to avoid sin and that people are sometimes willing to go to great lengths in order to do so, in a graduated way. Rabbi Chanina went so far as to put himself in a dangerous situation in which he could be harmed by outside forces. Rabbi Tzadok went further and actually placed himself in a fire, which would certainly have burned him; however, he was still able to walk out of the fire. Rav Kahana actually jumped from a roof, an irreversible act that would presumably have led to his demise.

It is important to note Rashi's comment (40a s.v. Shagrat) regarding the story of Rav Kahana. He explains that in addition to the temptation involved, Rabbi Tzadok was in danger because the woman was very powerful and had the ability to have him killed. Presumably, he is seeking to explain why Rabbi Tzadok found it necessary to endanger himself in order to subdue his evil inclination; perhaps a similar comment can be suggested with regard to the story of Rav Kahana.

Nevertheless, we do need to analyze the means that these three sages used to accomplish their lofty goals. Rabbi Chanina put himself in a dangerous situation, but Rabbi Tzadok and Rav Kahana went even further, taking actions that could have led directly to their deaths; Rav Kahana, in particular, was only saved due to the miraculous intervention of Eliyahu ha-Navi! In general, we have rules about when a person must give up his life in order to avoid sin. There are three sins that fall into the category of yehareg ve-al ya'avor, meaning that one should be killed rather than violating the sin: idol worship, murder and gilui arayot, forbidden sexual relations (Sanhedrin 74a). [In addition, during a time of oppression or as part of a public spectacle of forcing a Jew to violate Halakha, any precept achieves the severity of yehareg ve-al ya'avor.] Do the cases of our gemara fit the bill and require one to give one's life in order to avoid sin?

The obvious category into which one would suspect that these cases fall is gilui arayot; however, this is not totally clear. The Torah (Devarim 7:3) prohibits marrying members of the seven Canaanite nations that occupied the Land of Israel at the time that the Jewish people possessed the land. Some authorities (e.g., Tur, EH 16) maintain that this prohibition is actually limited to members of those nations, while a relationship between a Jew and non-Jew from another nation is a rabbinic prohibition. Others (see Rashi, Menachot 43a s.v. Mishum zona) contend that the biblical prohibition applies to all relationships between Jews and non-Jews. The majority position (see Shulchan Arukh, EH 16:1) takes a compromise view, arguing that the prohibition is biblical with regard to all non-Jews, but only when there is a marriage relationship. In a case of sexual relations in the absence of marriage, the prohibition is of rabbinic origin. Based on this view, Rema (ibid., se'if 2) rules that only marriage relationships with non-Jews are yehareg ve-al ya'avor. He applies that status as well to public acts of sexual relations that are outside of the context of marriage, as one can be killed on the spot for such a violation (see the biblical story of Pinchas - Bamidbar 25:1-9). The clear implication of the Rema's ruling is that private acts of immorality between Jew and non-Jew, while certainly forbidden on a rabbinic level, should not have the status of yehareg ve-al ya'avor. Based on all of this, how could the heroes of our gemara have taken the step of giving up their lives in order to avoid a sin that does not demand one to do so?

The commentators suggest a number of possible approaches to this problem. Ramban (Milchamot Hashem, Sanhedrin 18a in dapei ha-Rif) suggests that since public immoral acts of this nature are subject to the rules of gilui arayot, private violations, though prohibited only rabbinically, also attain this status, and are therefore included in the policy of yehareg ve-al ya'avor. Apparently, he is of the opinion that the sages have the ability to define categories of biblical law; the rabbinic prohibition under discussion in our gemara is merely an extension of the already existing halakhic category of forbidden relationships between Jews and non-Jews, and therefore becomes subsumed under that category, which has the status of gilui arayot. Therefore, one would be required to give up one's life rather than violate this rabbinic prohibition. 

Another possibility is to assume that the rabbis of our gemara were actually not required at all to give up their lives, as the prohibition involved is actually not included in the category of gilui arayot; nevertheless, these rabbis went beyond the call of duty and decided to give up their lives anyway in order to avoid the sin with which they were confronted. This relates to a major debate among halakhic authorities with regard to a person's ability to take such action. Rambam (Hilkhot Yesodei Ha-Torah 5:4) rules that one who is not required to give up his life in order to avoid sin is forbidden to do so. Voluntarily giving up one's life in such circumstances would constitute a tragic misjudgement rather than an act of heroism. According to his view, it would be impossible to suggest that Rabbi Tzadok and Rav Kahana were willing to give up their lives if they were not required to do so. However, Tosafot (Avoda Zara 27b s.v Yachol) rule that one is permitted to voluntarily give up one's life in order to avoid sin. Based on their view, it would be possible to suggest that Rabbi Tzadok and Rav Kahana were going beyond the letter of the law in giving up their lives.

From the perspective of accepted Halakha, it seems that neither of these two answers suffice. The Rema (EH 16:2, and see Shakh, YD 157:12) seems to rule that private acts of immorality between a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman are not included in the category of yehareg ve-al ya'avor. And the Shulchan Arukh rules (YD 157:1) that one may voluntarily give up one's life in order to avoid sin only if the intention of the persecutor is to make the Jew violate Halakha, but not if the persecutor is motivated by personal interests or pleasure. In our gemara, it seems likely that the women were motivated by selfish considerations and not because they wanted to make the Jews violate halakha.

Therefore, it seems likely that a third approach is the one accepted by the Posekim. A number of authorities rule that although, in general, the Rambam is correct that one may not voluntarily give up one's life when such a course of action is not required, an exception is made in the case of prominent individuals who want to do so in order to serve as role models for a generation that is in danger of succumbing to moral or religious decay. Rema (YD ibid.) does seem to confirm this ruling. Thus, it is possible that Rabbi Tzadok and Rav Kahana were going beyond the call of duty because the circumstances made it necessary for them to make a strong stand against immoral actions of this type.