Reward In This World, The Afterlife, And Divine Providence

One of the Corner stone's of Orthodox Judaism is the belief in an afterlife. Even though this belief is of the utmost importance, it is curious to see that the Rambam leaves it out of his thirteen principles of faith, or does he? The eleventh principle states (Translation taken from here):

The Eleventh Principle is that He, may He be exalted, rewards him who obeys the commands of the Torah and punishes him who violates its prohibitions; and, that the greatest of His rewards is the World-to-Come while the severest of His punishments is "being cut off."

This seems to indicate that the belief in the afterlife or the "World-to-Come" is part of the belief that there is reward and punishment. Therefore, it is essential for us to understand the varying opinions about reward and punishment if we are to understand the afterlife and vice versa. 

In order to have this discussion I think we must first look in the Gemara in Kiddushin (39b) where the views of the afterlife are hinted at and reward and punishment are discussed (Translations from Gemara are Soncino):

MISHNAH. HE WHO PERFORMS ONE PRECEPT IS WELL REWARDED, HIS DAYS ARE PROLONGED, AND HE INHERITS THE LAND,BUT HE WHO DOES NOT PERFORM ONE PRECEPT, GOOD IS NOT DONE TO HIM, HIS DAYS ARE NOT PROLONGED, AND HE DOES NOT INHERIT THE LAND.

This Mishna seems to be telling us that reward and punishment are things that are given over in this world, as well as the afterlife. Rashi explains that "He is well rewarded" implies in this world and when it says "And he inherits the land" this refers to the World-to-Come. The Gemara will now discuss this idea. Continuing in the Gemara (ibid):

GEMARA. But a contradiction is shewn: These are the things the fruit of which man eats in this world, while the principal remains for him for the future world. Viz., honoring one's parents, the practice of loving deeds, hospitality to wayfarers, and making peace between man and his neighbour; and the study of the Torah surpasses them all.

This Braisah, let's call it Braisah A, (Tannaic literature, for a similar version of this found in the Mishna see Mishna Pe'ah) implies that it is only for these few commandments that a person is rewarded in this world and in the afterlife. Therefore, the Gemara tries to explain the apparent contradiction by saying (ibid),

Said Rab Judah: This is its meaning: HE WHO PERFORMS ONE PRECEPT in addition to his [equally balanced] merits IS WELL REWARDED, and he is as though he had fulfilled the whole Torah.

Thus, Rav Yehuda is explaining that our Mishna is dealing with a person that has equal amounts of sins and righteous deeds and then does a good deed. That good deed will cause him to be rewarded. Therefore, our Mishna is teaching something different than Braisah A. Our Mishna teaches us that a righteous act, meaning fulfilling a commandment, helps a person earn reward in this world and the afterlife if he has an equal amount of sins and righteous deeds (He now has 101 merits and 100 sins, before it was 100 merits and 100 sins). However, this leads to an untenable understanding of Braisah A: 

Hence it follows that for these others (quoted in Braisah A) [one is rewarded] even for a single one! (And that makes no sense. How can a person have an infinite amount of sins and one good deed yet still be rewarded in this world and the next?) Said R. Shemaiah: That teaches that if there is an equal balance, it tips the scale.

According to Rav Yehuda's explanation, we would conclude that Braisah A means to tell us that even if a person only does one righteous deed (one of the deeds in Braisah A), but has a list of sins he is still rewarded. This is remarkable and can not be true. Therefore, Rav Shemiah comes along and tells us Braisah A is only saying if a person has an equal amount of righteous deeds and sins, if one of the righteous deeds is on the list stated in Braisah A, they are still rewarded (even though this person has an equal amount of sins and merits). 

Now that we understand the difference between Braisah A and the Mishna, because for some reason (which I am not going to explain now) they can't contradict each other (or be teaching the same thing), the Gemara quotes another Braisah, let's call it Braisah B, that seems to contradict this perfectly reasonable explanation that was proposed by Rav Yehuda and Rav Shemiah.

Yet is it a fact that he who performs one precept in addition to his [equally balanced] merits is rewarded? But the following contradicts it: He whose good deeds outnumber his iniquities is punished, and is as though he had burnt the whole Torah, not leaving even a single letter; while he whose iniquities outnumber his good deeds is rewarded, and is as though he had fulfilled the whole Torah, not omitting even a single letter!

According to Braisah B it seems to be that a person with more righteous deeds than sins is punished while a person who has more sins than righteous deeds is rewarded. This seems to contradict the interpretation offered by Rav Yehuda and Rav Shemiah of the Mishna and Braisah A. The Gemara now puts forth two possible explanations as to why Braisah B is not a problem.  The first explanation is Abaye,

Said Abaye: Our Mishnah means that a festive day and an evil day are prepared for him,

 I am going to explain Abaye according to Tosfos and talk about Rashi later because I think Rashi believes in something I am going to discuss later (see Tosfos' question on Rashi). Tosfos, in the name of Rabbeinu Tam, explains (My translation),

The Mishna prepares for a man a good day and an evil day in this world. [Also,] Braisah B's "IS WELL REWARDED" is explained just like it is in the Mishna [with regards to someone who has more sins than merits] there are times that [G-D] makes a good day for him (even though he is really wicked) in order that he accept his reward for a righteous deed in this world and on that day (that he is being rewarded) he is similar to someone who fulfills the whole Torah. However, the majority of the life of a wicked person is filled with bad because his sins are greater than his merits. [The explanation of] And it is bad for him [is with regards to someone who has more merits than sins and] there are times [G-D] makes for him a bad day in order to cleanse him of his sins in this world. On this [bad day] he is like one who burned the whole Torah. However, the majority of the days of a righteous person are filled with good because his merits are more numerous than his sins.

According to Tosfos, Abaye seems to explain Braisah B as discussing a different idea about reward in this world. Braisah B agrees, according to Abaye, with Rav Yehuda and Rav Shemiah's explanation of the Mishna and Braisah A . According to Braisah B, if you are a wicked person (more sins than merits) and you perform a righteous deed then you will be rewarded in this world. However, the majority of your days will be filled with punishment. If you are a righteous person (more merits than sins) and you sin then you will be punished in this world. However, the majority of your days will be filled with good. The originality of Braisah B is that it tells us a wicked person is still rewarded for his good deeds in this world and a righteous person is still punished for his wicked deeds in this world. 

However, Rava comes to offer an alternate explanation. He says,

Raba said: This latter agrees with R. Jacob, who said: There is no reward for precepts in this world. For it was taught: R. Jacob said: There is not a single precept in the Torah whose reward is [stated] at its side which is not dependent on the resurrection of the dead.

Rava says, that Braisah B does not contradict anything, rather it is a dissenting opinion. He would explain Braisah B in the following way, according to Tosfos: A person who has a majority of merits and a minority of sins is punished in this world for his sins in order that he should receive the maximum amount of reward in the next world and a person who has a majority of sins and a minority of merits is rewarded in this world for his merits in order that he should not be rewarded at all in the World-to-Come. Braisah B disagrees with the Mishna and Braisah A since they hold the opposite, the righteous are rewarded in this world and the wicked are punished in this world.

We assume, according to Rava, that the Mishna and Braisah A are according to the mainstream views, that is why they must be reconciled. However, since Braisah B is according to a "Singular" opinion (known as Daas Yachid) it is not a contradiction to the Mishna and Braisah A even though it argues on them.

This is where we see the two views on reward and punishment. Rav Yaakov clearly holds that there is no reward given in this world and Rava explains that this is the view of Braisah B, a dissenting Tannaic opinion. However, Rava is implying that the Mishna and Braisah A are of the opinion that reward and punishment are meted out in this world according to who actually deserves it. Essentially, the Mishna and Braisah A believe, as we stated earlier, a righteous person should be rewarded in this world and a wicked person should be punished.  

Rabbi Akiva seems to have a similar understanding to Rav Yaakov, according to Tosfos, that is seen in Ruth Rabbah (6:4, translation from artscroll)

One time [Elisha] was sitting and studying in the valley of Ginosar and he saw a man who ascended to the top of a date palm on the Sabbath, took the mother bird with the young, and descended safely. On Motzei Shabbos, [Elisha] saw another man ascend to the top of the date palm tree, he took the young after he had sent away the mother bird, he descended, and a snake bit him and he died. Thereupon, [Elisha] said, "It is written, 'You shall surely send away the mother and take the young for yourself, so that it will be good for you and will prolong your days' (Devarim 22:7); where is this second man's good and where is his prolonging of days?" And [Elisha] did not know that Rabbi Akiva had publicly expounded that verse as follows: "So that it will be good for you" in the world that is entirely good, "and you will prolong your days" in the world that is entirely long (i.e. the World-to-Come).

Here we also see that Rabbi Akiva understood that reward is not given to a person in this world, but in the World-to-Come. (In fact, Rabbi Akiva explains this verse in the exact same way Rav Yaakov does.)

However, if you have not noticed, Rav Yaakov, according to Tosfos, seems to imply that reward and punishment are given in this world even though he states, straight out, that they are not. According to Rava's explanation of Braisah B, Rav Yaakov says, in Tosfos' opinion,  that reward is given in this world, at least, to a wicked person so that he should not get it in the next world and that punishment is given in this world, at least, to a righteous person so that he will not receive it in the World-to-Come.

This idea, that a righteous person can receive punishment in this world in order to receive his full capacity of reward in the world to come is also brought down in the name of Rabbi Akiva in Sanhedrin 101a:

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: When R. Eliezer fell sick, his disciples entered [his house] to visit him.He said to them, ‘There is a fierce wrath in the world.They broke into tears, but R. Akiba laughed. ‘Why dost thou laugh?’ they enquired of him ‘Why do ye weep?’ he retorted. They answered, ‘Shall the Scroll of the Torah lie in pain, and we not weep?’ — He replied, ‘For that very reason I rejoice. As long as I saw that my master's wine did not turn sour, nor was his flax smitten, nor his oil putrefied, nor his honey become rancid, I thought, God forbid, that he may have received all his reward in this world [leaving nothing for the next]; but now that I see him lying in pain, I rejoice [knowing that his reward has been treasured up for him in the next].’ He [R. Eliezer] said to him, ‘Akiba, have I neglected anything of the whole Torah? He replied, ‘Thou, O Master, hast taught us, For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth not. 

This Gemara also teaches us a new idea. This new idea is that any person, not just a wicked person, can receive his reward in this world and thereby lose his reward in the World-to-Come. It has even been explicitly stated in Tractate Arachin (16b):

The School of R. Ishmael taught: Anyone upon whom forty days have passed without [divine] visitation (some version of suffering), had received his world (his reward for the good things he has done in this world).

The final proof we can bring that Shows Rabbi Akiva believed there is reward for righteous deeds in this world is found in Gemara Shabbos (156b):

From R. Akiba too [we learn that] Israel is free from planetary influence. For R. Akiba had a daughter. Now, astrologers told him, On the day she enters the bridal chamber a snake will bite her and she will die. He was very worried about this. On that day [of her marriage] she took a brooch [and] stuck it into the wall and by chance it penetrated [sank] into the eye of a serpent. The following morning, when she took it out, the snake came trailing after it. ‘What did you do?’ her father asked her. ‘A poor man came to our door in the evening.’ she replied, ‘and everybody was busy at the banquet, and there was none to attend to him. So I took the portion which was given to me and gave it to him. ‘You have done a good deed,’ said he to her. Thereupon R. Akiba went out and lectured: But charity delivereth from death’: and not [merely] from an unnatural death, but from death itself.

Clearly, Rabbi Akiva holds that the reward for a good deed can be actualized in this world. Therefore, we see Rabbi Akiva holds that reward and punishment are meted out in this world. However, he also seems to be holding that reward can be "saved up" for the World-to-Come. Either way we look at it, Rav Yaakov, according to Tosfos, and Rabbi Akiva are holding that reward and punishment ARE given in this world, so I am unsure how they can be understood to be saying that reward for fulfilling the commandments in this world does not exist according to Tosfos.

The truth is, maybe this is not the correct way to understand Rav Yaakov. Maybe Tosfos' question on Rashi is not a good question. Also, If we remove Tosfos' understanding of Rav Yaakov then Rabbi Akiva and Rav Yaakov might not be saying the same thing. That would remove some very challenging difficulties. Perhaps this is the route to follow? However, to understand a possible answer, we must understand the possible views of how G-D interacts with this world, we have to understand divine providence.

According to Rambam, as stated in the "Guide For The Perplexed" (3:51),  divine providence only rests on those who have intellects that qualify them for divine providence. All other beings are left to "chance."

Divine Providence is constantly watching over those who have obtained that blessing which is prepared for those who endeavor to obtain it. If man frees his thoughts from worldly matters, obtains a knowledge of God in the right way, and rejoices in that knowledge, it is impossible that any kind of evil should befall him while he is with God, and God with him. When he does not meditate on God, when he is separated from God, then God is also separated from him; then he is exposed to any evil that might befall him; for it is only that intellectual link with God that secures the presence of Providence and protection from evil accidents. Hence it may occur that the perfect man is at times not happy, whilst no evil befalls those who are imperfect; in these cases what happens to them is due to chance...It is now clearly established that the cause of our being exposed to chance, and abandoned to destruction like cattle, is to be found in our separation from God.

The idea of "chance" is something that I have referenced before (Individual Divine Intervention) and can be found in the Gemara (Mo'ed Katan 28a and Shabbos 156a-b). (According to the Rambam these Gemaras are talking about chance and not planetary influence because he does not believe in astrology.) In Mo'ed Katan it seems to be that "chance" is the dominant force ruling the world.

Raba said: [Length of] life, children and sustenance depend not on merit but [rather on] mazzal (chance). For [take] Rabbah and R. Hisda. Both were saintly Rabbis; one master prayed for rain and it came, the other master prayed for rain and it came. R. Hisda lived to the age of ninety-two, Rabbah [only] lived to the age of forty. In R. Hisda's house there were held sixty marriage feasts, at Rabbah's house there were sixty bereavements. At R. Hisda's house there was the purest wheaten bread for dogs, and it went to waste; at Rabbah's house there was barley bread for human beings and that not to be had.

We see that most things in life are not dependent on good deeds or sins, but on "chance." Great people are able to pray for things like rain, but that is a rare exception.

However, this seems to be an argument in Tractate Shabbos:

It was stated. R. Hanina said: Chance (The planetary influence) gives wisdom, chance (the planetary influence) gives wealth, and Israel stands under chance (planetary influence) (This view is in accordance with Rava from the Gemara in Mo'ed Katan). R. Johanan maintained: Israel is immune from chance (planetary influence)...Rab too holds that Israel is immune from chance (planetary influence). For Rab Judah said in Rab's name:...

Here we see that there is an argument whether chance is the dominant influence among the Jewish people or if G-D intervenes in the lives of Jews for righteous deeds. According to Rava and Rav Chanina G-D does not really intervene in the lives of righteous Jews. Only if they pray for a specific type of intervention are they able to receive direct divine intervention. Otherwise, even the completely righteous are left to "chance." On the other hand, Rav Yochanan, Rav and Rav Yehuda seem to be of the opinion that G-D will intervene for those that are extremely righteous even if they do not pray. This is best seen in the cases that follow in the Gemara in Shabbos (ibid):

From Samuel too [we learn that] Israel is immune from "chance" (planetary influence). For Samuel and Ablat were sitting, while certain people were going to a lake. Said Ablat to Samuel: ‘That man is going but will not return, [for] a snake will bite him and he will die.’ ‘If he is an Israelite,’ replied Samuel.'he will go and return.’ While they were sitting he went and returned. [Thereupon] Ablat arose and threw off his [the man's] knapsack, [and] found a snake therein cut up and lying in two pieces —Said Samuel to him, ‘What did you do?’ ‘Every day we pooled our bread and ate it; but to-day one of us had no bread, and he was ashamed. Said I

to them, "I will go and collect [the bread]". When I came to him, I pretended to take [bread] from him, so that he should not be ashamed.’ ‘You have done a good deed,’ said he to him. Then Samuel went out and lectured: But charity delivereth from death, and [this does not mean] from an unnatural death, but from death itself....

This is the first of three cases, but I think the point is clear. Therefore, I believe we can explain the apparent contradiction between Rav Yaakov's stated stance according to Tosfos and what we see in reality based on his view of divine providence. But first, let's explain the argument between Braisah B (which goes according to Rav Yaakov) and the Mishna and Braisah A (which goes according to Rav Yehuda and Rav Shemiah). If you noticed, the argument for whether Israel is governed by "chance" (excluding most possibilities of divine intervention) and whether Israel is not governed by "chance" (allowing for much more divine intervention) is between Rava (among others) on one side (Rava, the one who states Rav Yaakov's opinion) and Rav Yehuda (the same Rav Yehuda that explains the Mishna as referring to reward in this world). Essentially, Rav Yaakov can be said to be holding that divine providence is extremely limited (in accordance with Rava) and "chance" is what governs most occurrences in this world, therefore, righteous deeds are not rewarded in this world. Whereas, Rav Yehuda and his compatriots (Rav Shemiah and Abaye to name a couple) hold Israel is not ruled by "chance" (however, chance can effect them if there is no divine intervention) and divine intervention occurs all the time for righteous deeds.  This is the foundation of the argument between Rav Yehuda and Rav Yaakov.  

We can explain Rav Yaakov very easily now (not like Tosfos). According to Rav Yaakov G-D does not intervene and allows "chance" to rule the world. Therefore, we can explain Braisah B as follows:

He whose good deeds outnumber his iniquities is punished, and is as though he had burnt the whole Torah, not leaving even a single letter; 

This means that a person who performs good deeds is left to "chance" and "chance" will be harsher to him than G-D would be. He will be treated just like someone who completely rejects the Torah. And the second part of Braisah B is as follows:

while he whose iniquities outnumber his good deeds is rewarded, and is as though he had fulfilled the whole Torah, not omitting even a single letter!

It is beneficial for a wicked person to be governed by "chance" because "chance" will be much kinder than G-D. In fact, "chance" will treat this wicked person just the same as if he were completely righteous. 

If we interpret the Gemara like this then Rabbi Akiva is not similar to Rav Yaakov at all. Rabbi Akiva actually believes in reward and punishment in this world. The distribution of reward and punishment may be different than how it is explained in the Mishna and Braisah A, but he still believes in reward and punishment in this world.

Also, I believe this interpretation is how Rashi understands the Gemara. I will now quote Rashi as he explains Abaye (the interpretation that Tosfos argues on).

Said Abaye: Our Mishnah means that a festive day and an evil day are prepared for him: For we learned it is good for him (he is rewarded) and it is bad for him (he is punished) that it is made for him a festive day and a bad day.  Someone who does an extra righteous deed that makes him have a majority of merits it is established for him in this world a festive day because he is repaid (punished) for his sins and it is fixed for him to have a festive day in the World-to-Come. [However, someone who does a righteous deed but] he has a majority of sins and we learn it is bad for him, because it is made for him an evil day for he is paid the reward for his righteous deeds here [in this world] to fix for him a bad day [in the World-to-Come.] 

So, according to Rashi, Abaye is explaining Braisah B in accordance with Rabbi Akiva. However, it is not in accordance with Rav Yaakov. In fact, according to Rashi, Braisah B is just another idea that fits with how reward is distributed in this world. Rashi is saying that Braisah B, according to Abaye, tells us G-D can choose to reward someone in this world or in the next. Just like the story in Sanhedrin (101a) by Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva was worried that Rabbi Eliezer had already received all of his reward in this world because he had only experienced good in this world. However, once Rabbi Akiva saw that he was suffering he immediately knew that a "Festive Day" was set aside for him in the World-to-Come. Also, this fits well with the story of Rabbi Akiva's daughter in Shabbos (156b). She was clearly rewarded in this world for her act of kindness and that is why Rabbi Akiva started teaching that "Giving charity can save you from death."

To clarify Rashi's opinion on how to understand Abaye, the Mishna is saying that if a person performs one good deed and he had equal amounts of sins and merits, he is rewarded in this world and the World-to-Come. Braisah A is saying that if a person has an equal amount of sins and merits, but one of those merits is from the list of righteous deeds in Braisah A, he is still rewarded in this world and the World-to-Come. Finally, Braisah B, according to Abaye, is teaching us something very important. Even though the Mishna and Braisah A teach us reward is distributed in this world as well as the next, Braisah B tells us that it is possible G-D will choose to cause punishment in this world to a righteous person in order for him to receive more reward in the World-to-Come and that G-D will reward the wicked in this world in order to detract from their reward in the World-to-Come. Therefore, the Mishna and Braisah A tell us that it is possible G-D will reward someone in this world, but Braisah B tells us about the possibility that a person will also have his reward saved for the World-to-Come. 

With this explanation there is no question on Rav Yaakov. According to Tosfos, it seems like Rav Yaakov does believe that, at least, wicked people are rewarded in this world and righteous people are punished in this world . However, Rava clearly states in the name of Rav Yaakov, "There is no reward for precepts in this world." This statement is not qualified, it is a blanket statement that would not work with Tosfos' explanation, in my opinion. No reward in this world means no reward in this world.

According to Rav Yaakov, there is no reward in this world because G-D does not intervene in this world for individuals. Rav Yaakov is of the opinion that "chance" governs the Jewish people (like we discussed earlier) and all reward is saved for the afterlife. On the other hand, Rav Yehuda and his group hold that G-D does intervene in this world and that is why reward can be received in this world as well as the World-to-Come.

Now, I would like to understand how it is that Rav Yaakov came to the conclusion that G-D does not intervene in this world. For this, we need only read a bit further in the Gemara (Kiddushin 39b):

[Thus:] in connection with honoring parents it is written (Devarim 5:16), that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee. In reference to the dismissal of the nest it is written (ibid 22:7), that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days. Now, if one's father said to him, ‘Ascend to the loft and bring me young birds,’and he ascends to the loft, dismisses the dam and takes the young, and on his return falls and is killed — where is this man's happiness and where is this man's prolonging of days? But ‘in order that it may be well with thee’, means on the day that is wholly good (the World-to-Come); and ‘in order that thy days may be long’, on the day that is wholly long (The World-to-Come)...R. Jacob saw an actual occurrence.

Rav Yaakov actually saw an incident that proved to him that there must be no reward for the righteous in this world. How could someone perform a righteous deed that the Torah explicitly states they will have a prolonged life if they perform it and then immediately be killed? The only way, in Rav Yaakov's mind, is to say the reward that is promised is only referring to the World-to-Come. If this is the case, then it must be that G-D does not intervene in this world. For, if all reward is saved for the World-to-Come, then why would G-D ever intervene? Whether you perform good deeds or wicked deeds, all reward and punishment is saved for the afterlife. There is no need for G-D to intervene on an individual level.

I would like to bring down some final thoughts on reward and punishment from the Meiri and the Rambam and how they, seemingly, understood this Gemara. The Meiri says (Kiddushin 39b, from here):

It is a principle of faith that there is reward and punishment both in this world and in the next world. One should not be confused by the apparent success of the wicked or the tribulations of the righteous. All is just. A righteous person may have committed certain transgressions. It is better to atone now for these sins, to prepare him for a "good day" in the world to come. The reverse is true of the wicked person. He receives his reward now to prepare him for a "bad day," that is, not to receive a share of the world to come.

So, we see that the Meiri holds of Rabbi Akiva's idea, that reward may be given to the wicked in this world in order to take away their share in the afterlife and punishment may come upon a righteous person in order to increase his share in the World-to-Come. However, he maintains the idea of the Mishna and Braisah A that reward and punishment can be given out normally (meaning, good fortune to righteous people and bad fortune to wicked people). As a side point, it seems like the Meiri holds like Abaye.

The Rambam, on the other hand, does not seem to agree with the Meiri and excludes Rabbi Akiva's idea from the final "halacha"(Teshuva 9:1, from here)

Thus, these blessings and curses can be interpreted as follows: If you serve God with happiness and observe His way, He will grant you these blessings and remove these curses from you in order that you may be free to gain wisdom from the Torah and involve yourselves in it so that you will merit the life of the world to come. "Good will be granted you" - in the world that is entirely good; "and you will live long" - in the world which is endlessly long, [the world to come].
Thus, you will merit two worlds, a good life in this world, which, in turn, will bring you to the life of the world to come. For if a person will not acquire wisdom in this world and he does not possess good deeds, with what will he merit [a portion in the world to come]? [Thus, Ecclesiastes 9:10] states: "There is no work, no accounting, no knowledge, and no wisdom in the grave."
[Conversely,] if you have abandoned God and become obsessed with food, drink, lewdness, and the like, He will bring all these curses upon you and remove all blessing until you will conclude all your days in confusion and fear. You will not have a free heart or a complete body to fulfill the mitzvot in order that you forfeit the life of the world to come.
Thus, you will forfeit two worlds for when a person is occupied in this world with sickness, war, and hunger, he cannot involve himself with either wisdom or mitzvot which allow him to merit the life of the world to come.

The Rambam is of the opinion that if you do good, only good will come of that. If a person follows the Torah and Mitzvot then he will be granted a life free from pain and suffering that will allow him to acquire as much knowledge as possible. This acquisition of knowledge will then propel this righteous individual into the World-to-Come. The Rambam (Guide For The Perplexed 3:51) holds, as we quoted earlier in this essay, any evils that befall a man who is righteous are due to "chance."

Hence it may occur that the perfect man is at times not happy, whilst no evil befalls those who are imperfect; in these cases what happens to them is due to chance...It is now clearly established that the cause of our being exposed to chance, and abandoned to destruction like cattle, is to be found in our separation from God.

Rambam's view seems very simple. You are rewarded in this world and the next for the good that you do and you are punished in this world and the next for the evil that you do. All the bad that happens to righteous people is by "chance" when the righteous person is not connected to G-D because G-D only gives divine intervention while someone is "connected" to G-D, like the Rambam explains. As a side note, Rambam appears to be holding like Rava's understanding of the Gemara. He holds that the Mishna and Braisah A are arguing on Braisah B and, therefore, he entirely ignores Braisah B. That is why the Rambam does not hold of this idea of Rabbi Akiva that righteous people receive punishment in this world and wicked people receive reward in this world. The Rambam only holds of the Mishna and Braisah A, that the righteous are rewarded and the wicked are punished.  

The idea of Rabbi Akiva, that the Meiri endorses, seems difficult to understand. According to this idea, G-D sometimes decides to reward people, even righteous people, in this world. Why would G-D choose to reward some righteous people in this world and others only in the world to come?  The Meiri's own explanation lacks clarity (Kiddushin 39b)

This is not to say that there cannot be a reward for good deeds in this world as well as in the next. It is the force of circumstances which may delay rewards until the next world. For example, assume that a person heeds his parent's order to fetch young birds, and to send the mother bird away before taking the chicks. How is it that such a person can die while performing two precepts, for each of which Scripture promises long life? The force of circumstances delays reward until the next world!

What is this force of circumstance that the Meiri talks about? Just because this righteous person dies that creates a "force of circumstance?" If G-D is going to reward this righteous individual, reward him, why does he die? Why would G-D choose to reward a righteous individual in this world if it detracts from the world to come? There are many ideas that are left unclear according to Rabbi Akiva's idea.

I feel much more comfortable with the Rambam. It makes a lot more sense to me. Therefore, if I have a Rishon that explains things that I can wrap my head around, I would prefer to follow him than a Rishon that is left unclear to me. It is interesting that Rabbi Akiva does not hold like the Rambam's viewpoint specifically because, as we saw in the Gemara in Shabbos 156b, he listened to stargazers who told him his daughter would die on her wedding day (he held that "chance," in some form, has power over people). Why he explains bad things happening to good people as punishments from G-D instead of "chance" or planetary influence is unclear to me as well.

I hope my explanation of the Gemara and the different viewpoints was as clear as possible. Hopefully, I will discuss the different opinions about what the afterlife entails. I have tried to express the different viewpoints about reward and punishment to the best of my ability. Any questions or comments are welcome. 

Meiri On Taamei Hamitzvos (Reasons for the Commandments) and Rationalist Judaism

There are some very important points that the Meiri brings down in his Sefer Hamidos (Book of Characteristics). The best way to discuss this is to translate the first paragraph on page 61 of his book where the Meiri discusses the reasons for Mitzvos (Commandments). I will interject when I feel it is appropriate. The Meiri says:

Fulfilling the Mitzvos (Commandments) with the intent that they are being performed to serve the creator is sufficient for the masses and the nation.

The Meiri is subtly telling us something very important. The lowest level of performing Mitzvos (commandments) is to fulfill them WHILE having in mind to serve THE CREATOR. I think this language was not callously chosen. I believe that the Meiri is telling us that the most basic reason for the Mitzvos that a person needs to understand in order for their performance to have any value is appreciation. G-D created us and, therefore, when He asks us to do something we do it because He asked. This is important because anyone who realizes that the Mitzvos, at the very least, exist to show appreciation will be more aware of what others do for him or her. This is the most basic character trait a person needs, the trait of appreciation, to be a good person.

The Meiri continues:
However, it is proper for individuals to try and understand all that is possible, according to their capabilities, [of what are the reason for the Mitzvos]. As it says in Psalms (119:66), "Teach me good reason and knowledge; for I have believed in Your Mitzvos (commandments)." What [Psalms] means is that even though I believe in Your Mitzvos and I fulfill all of the Torah, I request to know the reason and wisdom [behind] them. This is not in order to doubt the witnesses that have testified that these Mitzvos are true, because I already believe in them. Also, my belief (emunah) does not rely on the study of these things to the extent that if I found a good connection I would believe or if I found something I considered a lie I would deny them, because this is Kefira (Heresy) and a removal of the religion completely.   

I think the Meiri sums up rationalist Judaism very well here. Judaism is based on laws that were given by G-D. One can not follow Judaism if he or she does not believe this idea no matter what. Without this simple tenant of faith there is no Judaism to follow. Once a person accepts the idea that G-D gave the laws then one must follow these laws whether or not they understand them. However,  the Meiri is telling us that a person SHOULD strive to understand the laws, but not make their beliefs contingent on their understanding of the laws.

This is what, I believe, Rationalist Judaism is all about, understanding the laws, understanding why we do things. In the end of the day everyone, from the Rambam to the Maharal, agrees that Jews follow the laws, simply, because G-D said we should follow them. However, the disagreement comes when we discuss the understanding of the laws. Some say we should not strive to understand the Mitzvos because they are not capable of being understood properly, rather they are just decrees made by G-D that we must follow. The other side is that we should strive to understand the Mitzvos on the deepest level that we can so that we can learn what G-D wants from us. The difference between these two opinions is, in my mind, clear. In a situation where the law goes against what G-D actually wants from us then we would go against the law and follow G-D's will. The best example is Pikuach Nefesh (When a life is in Danger). The law says straight out that we can not violate Shabbos. However, the Rabbis learn out that a person is supposed to desecrate Shabbos in order to save a life. This would, seemingly, be a situation where we use the idea of Reasons for the Mitzvos to contradict a straight out law.

I know, this is said in the Gemara, but the idea still stands. Would the Tannaim or Amoraim that hold there are no reasons for the Mitzvos also say that Pikuach Nefesh does push off the sanctity of the Shabbos? This is something worth exploring, but I don't know enough yet to adequately conclude anything with authority. However, the Torah Temmimah quotes the source for this idea, that Pikuach Nefesh pushes off the sanctity of Shabbos, and it is an Amorah in Tractate Yoma (85b):

וחי ב הם. תנ יא, מנין לפקוח נ פש שדחה את השב ת , אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, דכתיב
ושמרתם את חקתי ואת משפטי אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי ב ה ם , ולא שימות בהם
And live by them- We learned in a Braisa, from where do we know that Pikuach Nefesh (A life in danger) pushes off [the sanctity of] Shabbos? Says Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel (an Amora), it is written (Vayikra 18:5) And you shall guard my ordinances and laws that you shall do them and LIVE BY THEM and not die by them.

If there is no alternate understanding, why does only one Amora say it?

Where is the source in the Mishna/Gemara for this argument of whether there is a reason for the Mitzvos or not? It is found in Babba Metzia (115a) among other places:

MISHNAH. A MAN MAY NOT TAKE A PLEDGE FROM A WIDOW, WHETHER SHE BE RICH OR POOR, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, THOU SHALT NOT TAKE A WIDOW'S RAIMENT TO PLEDGE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Whether a widow be rich or poor, no pledge may be taken from her: this is R. Judah's opinion. R. Simeon said: A wealthy widow is subject to distraint,but not a poor one, for you are bound to return [the pledge] to her, and you bring her into disreputeamong her neighbours. Now, shall we say that R. Judah does not interpret the reason of the Writ,whilst R. Simeon does?17 But we know their opinions to be the reverse. For we learnt: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, [that his heart turn not away]; R. Judah said: He may multiply [wives], providing that they do not turn his heart away. R. Simeon said: He may not take to wife even a single one who is likely to turn his heart away; what then is taught by the verse, Neither shall he multiply wives to himself? Even such as Abigail! — In truth, R. Judah does not Interpret the reason of Scripture; but here it is different, because Scripture itself states the reason: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, and his heart shall not turn away. Thus, why ‘shall he not multiply wives to himself’? So ‘that his heart turn not away.’ And R. Simeon [argues thus]: Let us consider. As a general rule, we interpret the Scriptural reason: then Scripture should have written, ‘Neither shall he multiply [etc.].’ whilst ‘and his heart shall not turn away’ is superfluous, for I would know myself
that the reason why he must not multiply is that his heart may not turn away. Why then is ‘shall not turn away’ [explicitly] stated? To teach that he must not marry even a single one who may turn his heart.

We see from here, as well as many other places, that Rebbe Shimon learns out that there are reasons for the Mitzvos whereas Rebbe Yehuda does not. However, according to the Rambam in the Moreh Nevuchim (The Guide for The Perplexed) in Part 3 Chapter 48 we Poskin (rule) like Rebbe Shimon. As he says:

When in the Talmud (Ber. p. 33b) those are blamed who use in their prayer the phrase, "Thy mercy extendeth to young birds," it is the expression of the one of the two opinions mentioned by us, namely, that the precepts of the Law have no other reason but the Divine will. We follow the other opinion [that the Laws have reasons].

This is, most likely, why we decide the Pekuach Nefesh is Docheh Shabbos (Life Endangerment pushes off the sanctity of Shabbos), because we follow the opinion that the laws have reasons. One of the basic reasons for the Mitzvos is in order that we, as Jews, observe them. If the Mitzvos lead to our death then we can not observe them, therefore, we desecrate the Sabbath in order to live another day and observe the Mitzvos.

Getting back to the topic of Rationalist Judaism, if we truly hold of the idea that the Mitzvos have reasons, then doesn't it follow that everything in Judaism, stemming from the fact that Judaism is solely based on the written and oral Torah, should have a reason? This is what Rationalist Judaism is based on, finding reasons and questioning ideas that are, seemingly based on faulty logic. For example, science has shown that it is highly likely that the world is older than 5771 years old. Is Judaism forced into the position that the world must only be 5771 or is that just some idea that cropped up in the past that some antiquated people cling to as if it were a religious dogma? If reason and understanding is desired in our religion, as the Meiri points out, why are there people who call any form of reason and understanding Kefirah (heresy)?

It bothers me that some people make a topic, like the age of the universe, into such a big deal when, in truth, it matters very little to the Jewish religion. If the universe is 13-15 billion years old does that mean G-D didn't create it? That G-D did not speak to the Jewish people at Mt. Sinai? That none of the prophets spoke to G-D? All this does is make the people who refuse to discuss these issues look foolish. Worse, it makes the pseudo-scientific explanations look idiotic. I dislike when people try to make their pseudoscience look like real science. Why am I so against it? Because I once fell for pseudoscience until someone actually took the time to explain to me why those pseudo-scientists were spewing nonsense. If one takes a logical approach then they can never go wrong.

The Meiri and the Rambam (my two favorite Rishonim) teach us a very valuable lesson with this whole reason for Mitzvos. True, one must follow the Torah whether they understand the reasons or not. However, we should always search for the true meaning. Why? Because, it is only through the true meaning that we will come to be better people and correct our character traits. It is only through understanding the deeper meaning of the Mitzvos that we can truly understand what it is that G-D wants from us. That does not come from closing our eyes and just doing what we are told, but rather it comes from opening our minds and ears and figuring out the deeper meanings of this complicated and intricate religion.

Think of it like this. A person who just performs the Mitzvos without understanding their deeper meanings is more likely to lie and cheat than someone who actually researches and understands the deeper meanings behind the Mitzvos. The former does not understand that lying and cheating in a way that is not explicitly forbidden in the Torah is still abhorrent to G-D. He figures there is a "loophole" for him to comfortably do these despicable atrocities in. However, the latter realizes that lying and cheating, whether explicitly stated is abhorrent to G-D and he or she will not allow themselves to take that evil path.

Why No One Should Act Holier Than Thou

I was learning a little bit of Sotah and I wanted to share the following Gemorah and my thoughts on it. Footnotes for explanations are found at the bottom as well as a link to the original site where the translation is from.

In the Gemorah on 22b it quotes the mishna and discusses the following idea (Soncino Translation):

AND THE PLAGUE OF PHARISEES etc. Our Rabbis have taught: There are seven types of Pharisees: the shikmi Pharisee, the nikpi Pharisee, the kizai Pharisee, the 'pestle' Pharisee, the Pharisee [who constantly exclaims] 'What is my duty that I may perform it?', the Pharisee from love [of God] and the Pharisee from fear. The shikmi Pharisee — he is one who performs the action of Shechem.4 The nikpi Pharisee — he is one who knocks his feet together.5 The kizai Pharisee — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He is one who makes his blood to flow against walls.6 The 'pestle' Pharisee — Rabbah b. Shila said: [His head] is bowed like [a pestle in] a mortar. The Pharisee [who constantly exclaims] 'What is my duty that I may perform it?' — but that is a virtue! — Nay, what he says is, 'What further duty is for me that I may perform it?'7 The Pharisee from love and the Pharisee from fear — Abaye and Raba said to the tanna [who was reciting this passage], Do not mention 'the Pharisee from love8 and the Pharisee from fear'; for Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab: A man should always engage himself in Torah and the commandments even though it be not for their own sake,9 because from [engaging in them] not for their own sake, he will come [to engage in them] for their own sake. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: What is hidden is hidden, and what is revealed is revealed; the Great Tribunal will exact punishment from those who rub themselves against the walls.10 King Jannai11 said to his wife', 'Fear not the Pharisees and the non-Pharisees but the hypocrites who ape the Pharisees; because their deeds are the deeds of Zimri12 but they expect a reward like Phineas'.13

The main point of this Gemorah is to show religious Jews how important it is to not act holier than thou. All of these different types of Pharisees represent character traits that were found among the Jews in the second temple period and how they represent false righteousness. It was because of these haughty attitudes that King Jannai told his wife to watch out for the Pharisees. At the end of his life, before his wife took over in his stead, King Jannai realized that there were some righteous Pharisees and not all were fakers. However, the hypocrites that existed among the Pharisees ruined all of their standings among the King. This was so unfortunate because it led to the King and the Pharisees constantly quarreling. The Pharisees represented the Jews that believed in the oral law and the reason they were shunned was because of these ridiculous impostors that were accepted among them.

The story that points out how some of the Pharisees acted foolishly because of their phony righteousness is found in Kedushin 66a. Yehuda Ben Gedidya, one of the Pharisees, had to insult the king. He claimed that the King was not allowed to be the Kohen Gadol. However, this was completely based on Motzei Shame Ra (false gossip). It was because he was trying to be overly righteous, like the Gemorah states here in Sotah that some of the Pharisees act overly righteous, he ruined the relationship between the king and the Pharisees. Not only did he ruin that relationship, but King Jannai ended up killing many Rabbis because of his newfound distrust of the Pharisees due to the statements made by Yehuda Ben Gedidya.

I think there is a very valuable lesson for us to learn nowadays from this story. There are many religious Jews that live their lives according to halacha and are not hypocrites. However, for all of their good deeds they allow the hypocrites and the wicked people to prosper among them without any type of confrontation. This was the same attitude of the Pharisees back in the day and it led to much tension with the king. Had they stood up to the hypocrites then who knows what would have happened in the second temple era. Unfortunately, they allowed these foolish people to prosper and continue on with their detrimental actions.

I hope we can all take a lesson from these Gemorahs and learn from them. No longer can we stand by and allow hypocrisy within our nation. People are always looking for the way to be more frum than the next guy. This is a complete sham and it is a disgrace to our religion. We need to realize that truth is more important than these false ideals.

The main thing I speak of now is the acceptance of other people's halachas. What do I mean by this? Well, if you have not noticed, for some reason a lot of people think that Rav Elyashiv has the last word on halachic matters, or other people that they consider "Gedolim." This is the most outlandish thing I have ever heard. Without a Sanhedrin, there is no unified halacha, there is no vote on the halacha and there is no consensus that is reached on halacha. As the Mishna in avos points out, Asseh Licha Rav, make for yourself a Rabbi. This is very telling of how we are supposed to live. Find a Rabbi that is learned in halacha and follow his psak. That is how every orthodox Jew should live their life. Whether it be ultra orthodox or modern orthodox, that is what being orthodox means, following your Rabbi's halachic psak. However, some people think that means that everyone has to follow the person that they consider to be a "Gadol." The most ridiculous thing I have seen is that people think it is absolutely crucial to not just follow one "Gadol" but every single "Gadol." What is really absurd about this is that the "Gedolim" often contradict one another. The type of person that tries to follow everyones halacha instead of making a Rabbi for himself is missing the boat and is someone who would be considered overly righteous. That is a HUGE problem.

This is what I think was the problem with Yehuda Ben Gedidya, he was overly righteous. This brings me to the Meiri. The Meiri says on Sotah 21, "Everyone who is overly righteous is someone who is removed from the world. Someone who is overly righteous is a person that his righteousness causes damage to himself or to others. For example, he fasts all the time, or if he sees a woman drowning will not save her because he does not want to look at her inappropriately or touch her(or come close to an Ervah)."

This Meiri points out exactly what Yehuda Ben Gedidya did. He did not want someone who he thought might have possibly been unkosher for the Kehuna to be the Kohein Gadol, even thought halachicly the King was fine to be the Kohein Gadol. Yehuda forgot one important fact, he based his opinion on false gossip. First off, not only was what he did against he Torah, but also listening to the false gossip was against the Torah. Secondly, even if it were true, it was a rumor without witnesses. A rumor without witnesses caused him to risk the Kings anger? It caused him to put all of his Pharisee brethren in harms way? He ended up causing hundreds upon thousands of Pharisees to die because of his holier than thou attitude!

The message is clear, do not act holier than thou and look down on others. This is a dangerous attitude and is clearly against the Torah. G-D wants us to help each other and unite in order to bring Moshiach. If we just point and say you are not holy enough because you only follow Rav so and so, but I follow 25 different Rabbis. That will bring our destruction, not our savior.

This is not to say that a Rabbi that does not follow halacha is appropriate. However, even if a Rabbi relies on a mesorah that is not in the majority, that does not mean he is unorthodox. If someone wants to follow the Nodah Beyehuda, even though all other achronim disagree, that is a Rabbi's choice. Again, without a Sanhedrin to vote and decide no one can say that another Rabbis decisions that are based on the Gemorah, rishonim and achronim is unworthy.

This brings me to the whole banning of Rav Nosson Slifkin's books. Why were they banned? One of the reasons was because someone thought the world was not older than 5770(see note 14 below) and that evolution was against the Torah. That is my point exactly, many Rabbis say that evolution is not against the Torah, as long as you believe that G-D is the one who guided evolution then there is no contradiction. Also, many Rabbis, since before the Gemorah was written believed that the world was older than 5770. True, there are some that believe the world is only 5770, but it is in no way against the Torah to believe it is older. Also, the scientific approach has been embraced by Rabbis of the past, to declare that it is against the Torah is to deny the truth.

In the end of the day one of the reasons for the ban on Rav Slifkin's books is the attitude of holier than thou. This is the exact problem that the Gemorah is dealing with. Unfortunately, we as a nation have not yet learned that the holier than thou bit destroys us as a people instead of bringing us together. Not only that, but it makes outsiders look at us as a ridiculous people, which delegitimizes us. This is why the Mishna says that these types of Pharisees bring destruction to the world, because they destroy the Jewish people and their reputation.

1. Tosaphoth explains this to mean after forty years of study. It may, however, be connected with the statement in Ab. V, 24, At forty for understanding.
2. He died at the age of forty; v. R. H. 18a.
3. Since they were not his superiors in learning, he decided questions although less than the requisite age. [Tosaf. s.v. [H] explains that Rabbah surpassed all other scholars in his town, and the restriction applies only where there are others equal in learning to the young scholar. For further notes on the passage, v. A.Z. (Sonc. ed.) p. 101.]
4. Who was circumcised from an unworthy motive (Gen. XXXIV). The J. Talmud (Ber. 14b) explains: who carries his religious duties upon his shoulder (shekem), i.e., ostentatiously.
5. He walks with exaggerated humility. According to the J. Talmud: He says: Spare me a moment that I may perform a commandment.
6. In his anxiety to avoid looking upon a woman he dashes his face against the wall. The J. Talmud explains: calculating Pharisee, i.e., he performs a good deed and then a bad deed, setting one off against the other.
7. As though he had fulfilled every obligation.
8. [Abaye and Raba understood 'love' and 'fear' to denote love of the rewards promised for the fulfilment of precepts and fear of punishment for transgressing them. In J. Ber., however, they are both taken in reference to God — i.e., love of God and fear of Him.]
9. From pure and disinterested motives.
10. In simulated humility. Others render: who wrap themselves in their cloaks. The meaning is that hypocrisy is of no avail against the Judge Who reads the heart.
11. Alexander Jannaeus. For his advice, given on his death-bed to his wife Salome, v. Josephus, Ant. XIII, XV, 5.
12. Num. XXV, 14.
13. Ibid. 11ff. [He probably had in mind the treacherous act by a group of Zealots — not Pharisees — in resisting foreign assistance — Demetrius Eucerus, King of Syria — in their struggle with Alexander Jannaeus. Josephus, op. cit. XIII, 13, 5. V. Klausner, [H] 11, 128.
14. The Brooklyn-based Rabbi Yitzchok Sheiner wrote a letter in Hebrew confirming that Slifkin’s books were “hair-raising to read…. He believes that the world is millions of years old—all nonsense!—and many other things that should not be heard and certainly not believed.”
     

Translation and footnotes of the Gemorah found on this site: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_22.html

How to Acquire Wisdom

In Mishlei (13:10) the verse says, "Only by willfulness is strife fomented; but wisdom is with those who take counsel."

The Vilna Goan tells us that "Only by willfulness is strife fomented" is referring to someone who is unwilling to budge from the understanding that they achieve through their own learning. Someone who specifically needs to always be right is a person that is always causing strife, because they are never willing to hear the other opinions involved. On the other hand the phrase "But wisdom is with those who take counsel" means that the true way to acquire knowledge is to take advice from everyone. A person must listen to every opinion with an open mind, in Torah learning, before coming to a final conclusion. This is what the Mishna in Pirkei Avos (4:1) means when it says, "Who is wise? Someone who learns from every person." The Vilna Goan tells us that true wisdom is found by those people who are always asking for other people's advice.

The Meiri on this mishna in avos tells us that in order for a person to truly learn they need to approach the subject they are learning without haughtiness and assumed authority. For example, a person should never say to themselves, "How can I learn anything from so and so." A person should view every person as having something to offer them and then they will truly be able to learn and acquire wisdom.

However, the Meiri brings up a Gemorah that seemingly says the opposite of this teaching. In Chullin (18B) there is a discussion about what Rav and Shmuel said about a certain type of animal slaughter and whether it was kosher. Rav Yosef comes and says what he heard was the teaching of Rav and Shmuel on the subject. However, the Gemorah goes on to tell us that Rav Zeira ate meat that would be unkosher according to Rav Yosef's understanding of Rav and Shmuel. When this was pointed out to Rav Zeira he said, "Who says Rav and Shmuel says this? Yosef the son of Chiya?!?! He learns from anyone." When Rav Yosef heard what Rav Zeira said he was very upset and he exclaimed, "Did I learn this teaching from just anyone?! I learned it from Rav Yehuda!" This Gemorah seems to be saying that one should not learn from anyone, but only recognized scholars. How do we reconcile this apparent contradiction?

The Meiri tells us that it is possible to say that in specific areas there are always people that one should turn to for answers. For example, if there is a talmud of a Rabbi, that talmud most likely knows what his Rebbe said better than some random guy. That is the point of the Gemorah, that in a specific area there are some people better to listen to than others.

The Mishna in avos, says the Meiri, is different. The Mishna in avos is giving a general rule for how to find a person that is an expert in a certain area. A person needs to be willing to listen to all people because an expert might be found in the most uncommon of places. For instance, who would have thought that a boy that went to a modern orthodox high school in Skokie, Illinois would become Rav Nosson Tzi Finkel? The point of this Mishna is to teach us not to judge a book by its cover, rather we must learn from everyone. This will allow us to find all the wisdom that is available.

Is "Everything" Really In the Torah?

Many religious Jews are always taught that everything, all knowledge that exists and will exist, can be found in the Torah. However, we have to ask ourselves, "Whose opinion is this and where does this idea come from?"

In Pirkei Avos the following mishna exists (This mishna is listed differently in different pirkei avos. It is found at the end of the fifth chapter, but the mishna can be anywhere from 19-26). "Ben Bag Bag says, Turn to it, and turn to it again, for everything is in it. Pore over it, grow old and gray over it. Do not budge from it. You can have no better guide for living than it.'" (translation is from the book of legends from Judaica classic library)

Ben Bag Bag seems to be the source of this idea that everything can be found in the Torah. However, is he actually saying that all knowledge that exists or will exist can be found in the Torah? Perhaps, the idea of "everything can be found in it" refers to something else, something a little more specific? Maybe the last words of his quotation "You can have no better guide for living than it" can shed some light on what he is really trying to say.

In relation to this Mishna, most people have heard of the following Medrash Rabba (Genesis 1:1). It says, "R. Hoshaia Rabbah began his discourse with the verse 'Then I was by Him as a nursling (amon)' (Prov. 8:30). The word amon may be read umman, meaning "overall design"--I was in the mind of the Holy One, says the Torah, like the overall design in the mind of a craftsman. In the way of the world, when a king of flesh and blood builds a palace, he builds it not according to his own whim, but according to the idea of an architect. Moreover, the architect does not build it out of his own head; he has [a design]--plans and diagrams to know how to lay out the chambers and where to put in wicket doors. Even so the Holy One looked into the Torah as He created the world."

This Medrash seemingly tells us that G-D had the Torah before He created the physical world and that He used the Torah to create the physical world. On a simple level it seems that since G-D used the Torah to create the entire world that everything in the physical world (physics, biology, etc) should be able to be found in the Torah. However, this Medrash might not be as simple as it appears. Perhaps the Medrash is coming to teach us about the goal of creation and not just some simplistic reading that the Torah was an actual blueprint for all of creation.

I think that once we understand this Medrash in the proper way then we will be able to understand what Ben Bag Bag is trying to tell us. The Medrash is pointing out to us that G-D created the physical world with a specific purpose and that purpose can be found in the Torah. Therefore, once we understand the purpose of creation then we can understand the true meaning of the Torah. So what is the purpose of creation?

If we look at some verses in Tanach a proper understanding of this Medrash can be attained. In Mishlei (3:19) it says, "G-D founded the earth on wisdom." Then in Psalms (111:10) it says, "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of G-D." The Eitz Yosef and the Anaf Yosef on the first Medrash in Medrash Tanchuma tell us that the Torah is referred to as "the beginning." This means that the only way for one to acquire wisdom is to fear G-D and the only way to fear G-D is to learn the Torah. Therefore, "G-D looked into the Torah and created the world" means that He saw that the only way man could acquire wisdom in this world was to couple all of his (man's) learning with a fear of G-D. The Gra in the beginning of Mishlei tells us this as well. Only once a person has a fear of G-D can they acquire any type of knowledge. They can learn as much as they want, but until they have a fear of G-D all of their learning, in any subject, is worthless. This is because without a proper foundation nothing is stable. Learing anything without having a fear of G-D is like building a castle on quicksand, it takes a lot of work, but in the end there is nothing.

I think the idea that attaining knowledge is contingent on a fear of G-D needs to be explained. It seems to me that the only way one can truly know something is true is by having a belief in G-D. For example, no archeologist can ever be 100% certain that something happened in the past. They can make logical assumptions based on fractured pieces of evidence that they put together, but they can never really KNOW. However, a belief in G-D allows the believer to know that something is true. I can know that certain things are true because I believe in a G-D that controls the world or that set up nature in a certain way. However, why should someone who does not believe in G-D think that nature will remain constant? What is causing that person to think that nature works indefinitely? Therefore, a person that does not believe in G-D can never truly know something. Without G-D there are no objective truths.

This leads us to the purpose of creation. The purpose of creation, according to this Medrash, would then be for man to acquire wisdom. This goes beautifully with the Rambam and Ralbag's understanding of the immortality of the human soul. What part of a man is considered to live eternally? The Rambam and Ralbag both tell us that it is the acquired intellect of a person that lives eternally and will experience heaven. If this is true, then it must be that the goal of G-D's creation was man and his ability to acquire heaven.

Now we can explain the idea that Ben Bag Bag brings down. What does it mean that everything is found in the Torah? It does not literally mean that all wisdom is found in the Torah, but something much more basic. Everything that will lead you on the proper path to acquiring a fear of G-D is found in the Torah. This can also be seen from the last words that Ben Bag Bag says, "You can have no better GUIDE for living than it." It is impossible to live properly without a fear of G-D. Without a fear of G-D there is no wisdom to be acquired and your life will end up without meaning. However, with a fear of G-D, all wisdom is attainable and furthermore, heaven WILL be acquired.

*********(Later Addition to show I didn't make this up myself)
This is exactly what the Meiri says on this Mishna in Avos. The Meiri says,

"(Ben Bag Bag) is giving a warning that it is not enough to just have a crude reading of the Torah, rather it needs to be read over and over, meaning many times. If one reads it over and over then a person will be able to answer any doubts they had in their heart with it (the Torah). This is the idea of "Everything is in it."

The Meiri is telling us that when Ben Bag Bag says that "Everything is in it" he is telling us that we can answer up any questions that we have with the validity of the Torah. We don't need to look at other religions or science to figure out the truth of the Torah, we just need to really understand the Torah and what it is coming to teach. Since it comes to teach a fear of G-D this means that we will be able to truly believe in G-D and have a fear of G-D once we understand the Torah in all of its glory. Now, once you understand the Torah and you have acquire this fear of G-D, you are ready to acquire true knowledge.

The Medrash and Ben Bag Bag do not mean to say that one can learn to become a doctor through the Torah. However, they are teaching us that in order to acquire real knowledge that will lead a person to the proper path, the path to heaven, then a person needs a fear of G-D.

****UPDATE*******
See Rav Josh Waxman's post that deals with this issue as well:
parshablog: Should one study secular subjects, independently of Torah?

Meiri- Who Should Get Tzedaka (Charity) and Loving Kindness

The Meiri in Tractate Chulin on page 133A talks about who should receive Tzedaka (Charity). He says,

"Even though loving kindness is a superior trait and the paths of the Torah are great, one is not obligated to give kindness to someone that will not recognize it."

Also, the Meiri goes further and tells us in Tractate Succah that the trait of loving kindness is greater than Tzedaka (Charity) since Tzedaka is only by poor people, but the trait of loving kindness applies to poor people and rich people. Also, tzedaka only applies to money, whereas loving kindness applies to money and other types of help.

It seems like even though a person can be completely loving and kind, if the recipient of this love and kindness does not deserve this treatment they should not receive it. Anyone that looks down on you for any reason does not deserve your tzedaka or loving kindness. If anyone will not appreciate you or your lifestyle, if they look down on you for how you live, then it seems like the Meiri is saying that they don't deserve your loving kindness or your tzedaka.

The moral here is that anyone can give money to whoever they choose. Anyone can help people out, no matter who they are. However, we should all realize who we are really obligated to help out. The people in our communities that will appreciate our charity deserve our help more than people in other communities and people that will take our help without appreciation. Also, people accepting the tzedaka and loving kindness should be appreciative of all the tzedaka and loving kindness that they receive. They should never think that they are entitled to the tzedaka that they receive or the loving kindness, one should always be appreciative because they should realize that one day they might not receive this kindness or tzedaka.

Medieval Commentators on Equality In Judaism

I was looking for the Meiri's position that further discusses Judaism and Morality. So to follow up on my previous post, found here, I wanted to translate a Meiri in Bava Kama that discusses this equality. He says (Bava Kama: 37B),

"An ox that belongs to a Jew that gores an ox of a non-Jew is exempt from paying from the law of neighbor and if a non-Jew's ox gores the ox of a Jew, whether it is a delinquent ox or not, pays full damages. This law only refers to a non-Jew that is not careful for the property of others (damaging them without care), therefore, we fine him that he, the non-Jew, should not become used to this type of action of damaging other people's property without care. This which is stated in the Gemorah only applies to nations that do not have laws and are barbaric people. For these types of people the Gemorah says that the non-Jews accepted upon themselves the seven Noahide commandments and if they are not followed then their property becomes unprotected by the law. However, all non-Jews that keep the seven Noahide commandments are considered like full fledged Jews."

First just to state the seven Noahide laws are:

1)Prohibition of Idolatry
2)Prohibition of Murder
3)Prohibition of Theft
4)Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity
5)Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.
6)Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4)
7)Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to enforce the preceding six laws fairly.

With these ideas in mind it is clear to see what the Meiri is saying. If a state does not have just laws, like protecting people's property then their property, in turn, is not protected. These seven Noahide laws are very moral laws, I don't know why anyone would say they are not a just basis for a law. Thus, if a person is unjust and cheats and steals, the Gemorah tells us that you do not have to respect his protection under the law. Obviously, you can not make these decisions yourself, but there must be a court that decides this, a beis din.

With this idea from the Meiri in mind, it is clear to see that even a Jew that acts unjustly would fall under this category of the "non-Jew" that does not have protection under the law. Therefore, I see equality in the laws of the Torah. The non-Jew is protected just as much as the Jew. If a state is unjust then their rules do not apply, because they are unjust. However, in a country like America since the laws are just a Jew must follow them. Anyone who says otherwise clearly misses the point of the laws of the torah.

UPDATE*****

The Rambam on the same Gemarah as the Meiri (Bava Kama 37B) states a very similar Halacha as that of the Meiri. He says,

"An ox of a Jew that gores the ox of a non-Jew, whether it is a delinquent animal or not, is exempt. This is because the non-Jewish courts do not require a man to pay for the damage his ox does, therefore we judge this case like they would judge it. An ox of a non-Jew that gores the ox of a Jew, whether it is delinquent or not, pays full damages. This is a punishment that is enforced on non-Jews since they are not careful in the laws and do not try to prevent damage. For if they were not punished in this manner they would not watch their animals and they would let them damage everyone and everything."

This Rambam clearly tells us the qualifications of what is going on in this case. At first glance, one would think that a non-Jew is discriminated against. However, this is not the case. The only reason the non-Jew is treated like this is because he is not careful to prevent his ox from damaging other people's property. However, if he would treat his ox like a Jew treats his ox, namely trying to prevent his ox from damaging other people's property, then this non-Jew would be treated like a Jew.