Swapping The Holiness Of The Firstborns Of Israel To All The Levites

The swapping of holiness from the eldest children in Israel to all of the Levites is a very peculiar occurrence. In this week's Parsha, Bamidbar, we see G-D request this transference. The text tells us (Bamidbar 3:45)

45. Take the Levites instead of all the firstborns among the children of Israel and the Levites' animals instead of their animals, and the Levites shall be Mine I am the Lord.

מה. קַח אֶת הַלְוִיִּם תַּחַת כָּל בְּכוֹר בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת בֶּהֱמַת הַלְוִיִּם תַּחַת בְּהֶמְתָּם וְהָיוּ לִי הַלְוִיִּם אֲנִי יְהוָֹה:

What is the purpose of this "transference" of holiness and how was it effective?

In order to give a possible answer we have to understand what this "transference" of holiness accomplished. The, apparent, reason for this holiness is the ability to perform the sacrificial service. This is seen from the Gemara in Zevachim (112b) where it describes the job of the firstborns before the transference of holiness.

BEFORE THE TABERNACLE WAS SET UP BAMOTH WERE PERMITTED AND THE SERVICE WAS PERFORMED BY THE FIRSTBORN; AFTER THE TABERNACLE WAS SET UP BAMOTH WERE FORBIDDEN AND THE SERVICE WAS PERFORMED BY PRIESTS.

The Ramban explains this idea very well, he says (ibid (3:45)

הנה הבכורים נתקדשו להיות לשם מעת שציוה (שמות יג ב): קדש לי כל בכור בבני ישראל באדם וגו'. והיו בכורים רבים בישראל, ולא נפדו עד הנה, שעדין לא נאמר למי יהיה הפדיון, כי עתה הוא שנתקדשו הכוהנים ועדין לא נצטוו במתנות הכהונה. והנה הם עומדים בקדושתן סתם, ויתכן שהייתה בהן עבודת הקורבנות כדברי רבותינו (זבחים קיב ב).ב).

Behold, the firstborns were made holy to G-D from the point when it was commanded (Shemos 13:2) "Make holy for me all of the male [human] firstborns of Israel etc." There were many firstborns in Israel and they were not redeemed (replaced) until now because it still was not said who it would be redeeming them. Even now that the Kohanim (priests) were sanctified there was still no commandment about the gifts that are given to the Kohanim. Behold, they (the firstborns) were standing with their simple holiness. It is possible that they (the firstborns) were performing the sacrificial service, like our Rabbis said (Zevachim 112b).  

The Ramban continues:

ועתה החליפם בלווים והם פדיונם, וציוה שיפדו הנותרים, ונתן הפדיון לאהרן ולבניו כאשר היא מצווה לדורות.

Now (in this Parsha) [the firstborns] were swapped with the Levites and they were redeemed and it was commanded that the remainders (the extra 273 that had no Levite counterpart) be redeemed [through money.] The money redemption was given to Aharon and his sons just like the [redeeming of the first born] commandment that was for the generations (in the future). 

The reason the firstborns had to have their holiness transferred to the Levites was because the sacrificial service had to be handed over to the Levites and the Kohanim. This transference was good enough to imbue holiness in the Levites for the present and the future. However, why does it seem like it did not work to remove the holiness from future firstborns? Levites can not be used to redeem firstborns nowadays, redemption of the firstborn is only possible through money given to a Kohain. Why is this so if redemption with a Levite worked during the time of the desert?

The answer can be found in the Chizkuni (ibid 3:45)

קח את הלוים תחת כל בכור בבני ישראל: מה שאין הלוים של עכשיו פודין את הבכורות הנולדים לישראל מכאן ולהבא היינו טעמא שהרי הלוים של עכשיו נולדו מאבותיהם הלוים שכבר פדו בכורי ישראל ואין הדין נותן שיהיה להם כח לפדות אותו יותר מפעם אחת וכל הבכורות של עכשיו אינם מבכורות שנפדו כבר בלוים במדבר אלא נולדים הם מפשוטי ישראל שלא נפדו מעולם והבכורות שנפדו בלוים במדבר אינן ידועין לפטור את הבאים מהן

Take the Levites instead of all the firstborns among the children of Israel: [The reason] the current Levites (In the time of Chizkuni) can not redeem (replace) the firstborns that are born to [regular] Israelites now and in the future is because the current Levites were born from their fathers, the Levites that already redeemed (replaced) the firstborns of Israel and the law does not give them the power to redeem more than one time. Also, all of the firstborns now are not from the firstborns that were already redeemed (replaced)  by the Levites in the desert, rather they are from regular Israelites that were never redeemed (replaced) and the firstborns that were redeemed (replaced) with the Levites in the desert did not know to permit (basically, redeem or replace the future firstborns with Levites) the [children] that came from them (the people that were not redeemed).     

This allows us to understand this transfer of holiness. The firstborns had a holiness (being designated by G-D) that set them aside to perform the sacrificial service. For some reason, it was decided that the Levites were to become the ones that would perform the sacrificial service in place of the firstborns. Hence, the holiness of the firstborns during the time of the "Generation of the Desert" was transferred to the Levites. The Levites acquired this holiness in such a way that it still carries on to their children today. However, the holiness in any firstborn that was born after this transference is still present  because, unlike being a Levi, being a firstborn is not inherited. Therefore, the original firstborns were not able to "give away" the holiness of future generations. This is why the firstborns continue to be redeemed even today. The Rambam even lists this as one of the 613 commandments (Positive commandment 80). He also lists it in his Mishna Torah (Bikkurim 11:1, Translation found here),

מצות עשה לפדות כל איש מישראל בנו שהוא בכור לאמו הישראלית שנאמר כל פטר רחם לי. ונאמר אך פדה תפדה את בכור האדם:

It is a positive commandment1 for every Jewish man2 to redeem his son who is the firstborn of his Jewish mother, as [Exodus 34:19] states: "All first issues of the womb are mine" and [Numbers 18:15] states: "And you shall surely redeem a firstborn man."

Now that it is clear there was a transference of holiness from the firstborns to the Levites, specifically so the Levites could replace the firstborns in the sacrificial service, we need to understand why the Levites replaced the firstborns. For this we have a Midrash Rabba on our verse (found here) that tells us:

תחת כל בכור פטר רחם בבני ישראל בתחלה היתה העבודה בבכורות ולפי שקלקלו בעגל, זכו לוים על שלא טעו בעגל ליכנס תחתיהם. כי לי כל בכור וגו' כמה דתימא: קדש לי כל בכור וגו', לי יהיו אני ה'. לפי שהוא אומר: ואני הנה לקחתי את הלוים מתוך בני ישראל תחת כל בכור שומע אני מיום ההוא ואילך לא יהיו הבכורות קדושים?! ת"ל: יהיו מלמד שהם צריכין פדיון

"[The Levites were chosen] in the place of every firstborn, opening of the womb, of Israel (Bamidbar 3:12)." In the beginning, the sacrificial service was done by the firstborns and because they became spoiled through the [sin of the Golden] Calf the Levites merited to take their place because they did not err with the [Golden] Calf. "Because every firstborn is mine etc (ibid 3:13)." It is like that which is said: "Make holy for me every firstborn...for me they will be, I am G-D(ibid)." Because He said: I, behold, I am taking the Levites from the midst of Israel in the place of every firstborn. Should I think that from that day and onward the firstborns are no longer holy? [The Torah] comes to teach us with the words "they will be" that they (the firstborns) need to be redeemed (because they are still holy).

We see that it was the sin of the "Golden Calf" that caused G-D to reject the firstborns from performing the sacrificial service and choose the Levites in their stead.

The final idea I want to delve into that will complete this discussion is why did the sin of the "Golden Calf" cause the firstborns to lose their right to serve in the sacrificial service? Why was it that the sin of the "Golden Calf," a sin that only a small minority of Jewish people participated in, was so detrimental to the firstborns that they needed to hand over their holiness to the Levites? For this, we have to understand the nature of the holiness of the firstborn. For this idea I will use a Sefer called Eretz Chemda (Bamidbar 3:12): 

Just like the firstborn is the first for impurity so too he is the first for holiness. Meaning, if impurity occurs, it is an extreme occurrence of impurity (they are the leaders). [On the other hand,] if holiness occurs, it is an extreme occurrence of holiness (They are the leaders). This that is written (Shemos 13:3), "Moses said to the people, 'Remember this day, when you went out of Egypt,'" was stated because the firstborns of Egypt sinned because of the impurity that occurred in them. So too, the firstborns of Israel are sanctified because of the holiness that occurs in them (This is why the previous verse of Shemos 13:2 talks about the holiness of the first born of Israel)...Behold, before the sin of the "Golden Calf" the sacrificial service was done [by the firstborns] without [their] choice and their holiness came from above (the firstborns were imbued with holiness from G-D) and because of this the firstborns are holy. However, after the sin of the "Golden Calf" the holiness (for performing the sacrificial service) came from below (the people had to imbue themselves with holiness)...And this that it says (Bamidbar 3:12), "As for Me I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel in place of all firstborns among the children of Israel, who have opened the womb,"  The reason for "the Levites shall be Mine" is because they chose to be (the Levites imbued themselves with holiness). [However, when the verse says (Bamidbar 3:13)] "For all the firstborns are Mine," that is because of the inherent holiness [they were created with.] For when all of the firstborns of Egypt were struck down, right then [G-D] sanctified the [Jewish] firstborns. However, once the sin [of the "Golden Calf" occurred] the sacrificial service was taken from the firstborns and given to the Levites.  

The Eretz Chemda teaches us an important aspect of firstborns. The reason the firstborns are holy is because G-D gives them a special characteristic of being zealous. This trait can either be used for purification or desecration. This is why the firstborns were so severely punished for the sin of the "Golden Calf," they were the ones held responsible because of their zeal. This is also why the firstborns of Egypt were the ones that were most severely punished, because this zeal leads to the firstborns being the leaders in either wickedness or righteousness. 

The firstborns, because of their zeal which caused them to become leaders of the sin, had to take responsibility for the "Golden Calf." This distanced them from G-D and forced G-D to choose someone else to perform the sacrificial service. The Levites were a perfect choice because they chose to imbue themselves with the same holiness as the firstborns by rising up. As the verse says (Shemos 32:26),

26. So Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said: "Whoever is for the Lord, [let him come] to me!" And all the sons of Levi gathered around him.

כו. וַיַּעֲמֹד משֶׁה בְּשַׁעַר הַמַּחֲנֶה וַיֹּאמֶר מִי לַיהֹוָה אֵלָי וַיֵּאָסְפוּ אֵלָיו כָּל בְּנֵי לֵוִי:

It is this zeal that the tribe of Levi displayed that allowed them to take the place of the firstborns. They showed their ability to lead in a holy way, unlike the firstborns that showed their ability to lead in a disgraceful way.

Thus, we see the original purpose of the firstborns was to perform the sacrificial services. The reason for this is because of their inherent holiness, as described by the Eretz Chemda. This holiness is a double edged sword because it can also lead to their downfall, which it did because it led to the sin of the "Golden Calf." This caused their holiness to be transferred to the Levites because the Levites showed self imbued zeal for G-D, which created their own holiness. This is why the Levites took over for the firstborns. Now, the Levites, because of inheritance, pass on their holiness, which allows them to perform the sacrificial services, to their children. However, the firstborns are still born with their holiness and that is why they must be redeemed.      

Rambam's (Maimonides') View of Medical Care (Rationalistic Approach)

The rationalistic approach to medical care, in Jewish thought, is best represented by Rambam (Maimonides). The reason for this, I believe, has to do with his view on G-D's role in the world. Where Ramban (Nachmanides) believes that G-D intervenes in every aspect of life, the Rambam believes "nature" is the dominant force in a person's life. G-D only intervenes for the extremely righteous and only on occasion. Rambam says (The Guide For The Perplexed 3:51):

But those who, perfect in their knowledge of God, turn their mind sometimes away from God, enjoy the presence of Divine Providence only when they meditate on God; when their thoughts are engaged in other matters, divine Providence departs from them...Hence it appears to me that it is only in times of such neglect that some of the ordinary evils befall a prophet or a perfect and pious man: and the intensity of the evil is proportional to the duration of those moments, or to the character of the things that thus occupy their mind... 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 (nature). This principle I find also expressed in the Law. Comp. "And I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them: so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?" (Deut. xxxi. 17).

The Rambam believes that a normal person does not experience divine providence for the majority of their lives. It is only an extremely righteous and knowledgeable individual that experiences divine providence. Therefore, most occurrences are not due to G-D's direct intervention, but through chance (nature). This approach leads the Rambam to take a much more proactive approach to medical care. Medical care is necessary, in fact obligatory, because G-D did not cause this illness. Chance (nature) is what causes most illness and that is why a Jew needs to take care of himself by staying healthy and going to the doctor. Also, this is why a doctor has an obligation to heal and not just permission.

The Rambam's obligation for a person to seek out a doctor can be inferred from his introduction to Mishna Avos (Ethics of Our Fathers, Chapter 3)

Likewise, just as when people, unacquainted with the science of medicine, realize that they are sick, and consult a physician, who tells them what they must do, forbidding them to partake of that which they imagine beneficial, and prescribing for them things which are unpleasant and bitter, in order that their bodies may become healthy, and that they may again choose the good and spurn the bad

Rabbi H. Norman Strickman explains this excerpt to mean that the Rambam believes a person should consult a physician in times of illness. This idea is also seen in the Rambam's Mishna Torah (De'os 2:1, translation found here)

To those who are physically sick, the bitter tastes sweet and the sweet bitter. Some of the sick even desire and crave that which is not fit to eat, such as earth and charcoal, and hate healthful foods, such as bread and meat - all depending on how serious the sickness is. Similarly, those who are morally ill desire and love bad traits, hate the good path, and are lazy to follow it. Depending on how sick they are, they find it exceedingly burdensome...What is the remedy for the morally ill? They should go to the wise, for they are the healers of souls. They will heal them by teaching them how to acquire proper traits, until they return them to the good path.

It seems like the Rambam believes that the remedy for someone who has bad character traits is the same as for someone who is sick, consult a wise healer. By the morally ill, the healer is someone who can help them with their lack in morality. For a physically ill person, the healer is a physician. This can best be illustrated later on in this section of the Mishna Torah (De'os 4:1 translation found here)

Since maintaining a healthy and sound body is among the ways of God - for one cannot understand or have any knowledge of the Creator, if he is ill - therefore, he must avoid that which harms the body and accustom himself to that which is healthful and helps the body become stronger.

The Rambam clearly states that one must maintain a healthy body in order to properly serve G-D. He then goes on to list advice, as a physician, as to how people should maintain their health. So, it appears to be that the Rambam believes that there is an obligation, if not a necessity, for an ill person to consult a physician. (This allows us to contrast the Rambam with Ramban. The Ramban believes a person SHOULD NOT consult a physician as seen here.)

The Rambam's obligation for a Jewish Physician to heal is, actually, somewhat innovative. As pointed out by Benjamin Gesundheit (In Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal),

Maimonides did not accept this well known apologetic attitude of the Talmud towards medicine based on his philosophy of life (Weltanschauung), and he was the first Rabbinic author to understand medicine as a fundamental and a-priori religious duty anchored in a well known Biblical source and further supported by its Talmudic interpretation.

The reason for the Rambam's innovation is, as Gesundheit says, because of his philosophy of life. This also led him to a very interesting source for a physician's obligation to heal. Most commentators bring the verse from Shemos (21:19), "And he shall surely be healed." This is talked about in the Gemara (Babba Kama 85a)

The School of R. Ishmael taught: [The words] "And to heal he shall heal’’[is the source] whence it can be derived that authorization was granted [by God] to the medical man to heal.

However, this verse only creates permission for a physician to heal. Therefore, many commentators conclude that a physician has no obligation, only permission. That is why the Rambam learned a physician's obligation to heal from a completely different verse. This is seen in the Rambam's commentary on the Mishna (Nedarim 4:4),

There is a Biblical obligation for the physician to heal a sick Jew. This is included in what is explained about the verse (Devarim 22:2) "And you shall return it to him." [This includes] healing his body, for this is like when you see him in danger and you are able to save him with your body, your money, or your knowledge.

Ingeniously, the Rambam takes the obligation to return a lost object to mean anything that is "lost" must be returned. In this case, if a person has "lost" his health and a physician has the ability to "return" it to him, then the physician is obligated to do so. (See also Mishna Torah Hilchos Nedarim 6:8)

Rambam's unique source that leads to the physician's obligation to heal also leads to another innovation. A Jewish physician is obligated to heal even a sick non-Jew in a case where it will create a sanctification of G-D's name, a desecration of G-D's name if he does not, or simply because it is "the way of peace" (Laws of Theft and Lost Objects 11:3). We also see that the Rambam "practiced what he preached" from his letter to Rabbi Samuel Ibn Tibbon (found in Freidlander introduction to The Guide),

I reside in Egypt (or Fostat); the king resides in Cairo, which lies about two Sabbath-day journeys from the first-named place. My duties to the king are very heavy. I am obliged to visit him every day, early in the morning; and when he or any of his children or the inmates of his harem are indisposed, I dare not quit Cairo, but must stay during the greater part of the day in the palace. It also frequently happens that one or two of the royal officers fall sick, and then I have to attend them. As a rule, I go to Cairo very early in the day, and even if nothing unusual happens I do not return before the afternoon, when I am almost dying with hunger; but I find the antechambers filled with Jews and Gentiles, with nobles and common people, awaiting my return.

It appears that the Rambam believed treating non-Jews was just as important, in most situations, as treating Jews.

In conclusion, we see the approach of the most rationalistic Rabbi, Rambam (Maimonides). My personal belief (in congruence with the belief of other, more knowledgeable people) is that his approach to the medical profession stems from his philosophical outlook on life. He believes that G-D does not cause most illnesses directly, therefore, he believes that if man has the capabilities to cure those illnesses, he should. This is why, I think, he finds the acts of preventing one's own illness, seeking out a physician, and a physician healing not to just be permissible acts, but obligations. Many Rabbis before and after the Rambam would not even say it is permissible to seek out a physician and they barely even allow a physician to heal. In response to these Rabbis the Rambam would say, "But the Gemara is CLEAR!!! Return it to him, return his lost health. It's a Mitzva (commandment)!" 

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. 

What Should Individuals Focus On: Learning, Teaching, Or Performing The Commandments (Mitzvot)

This Dvar Torah is l'iluy nishmas Ezriel Yehuda ben Eitan Eliezer

This week's Parsha, Bechukosai, discusses G-D's ultimatum with the Jewish people. It says (Vayikra 26:3),

ג אִם-בְּחֻקֹּתַי תֵּלֵכוּ וְאֶת-מִצְוֹתַי תִּשְׁמְרוּ וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם:  (from here)
If you will follow in my statutes and you will guard my commandments and perform them. 

The following verses go on to expound how great it will be for the Jewish people if they follow this statement. However, G-D then says the second half of the ultimatum (ibid 14-15),

יד וְאִם-לֹא תִשְׁמְעוּ לִי וְלֹא תַעֲשׂוּ אֵת כָּל-הַמִּצְוֹת הָאֵלֶּה:
טו וְאִם-בְּחֻקֹּתַי תִּמְאָסוּ וְאִם אֶת-מִשְׁפָּטַי תִּגְעַל נַפְשְׁכֶם לְבִלְתִּי עֲשׂוֹת אֶת-כָּל-מִצְוֹתַי לְהַפְרְכֶם אֶת-בְּרִיתִי:
14. If you do not listen to me and you do not perform all of these commandments.
15. And if you despise my statutes, and if your souls reject my laws and you do not perform all of my commandments to break my covenant.

The verses following this statement go on to expound upon all the the awful things that will occur to the Jewish people if this path is chosen.

However, I think a detailed analysis is warranted of what exactly these statutes and commandments are and what guarding them and performing them entails. These statements seem to be very vague for something that can lead to such great reward or such terrible punishment. Also, what happens if we perform the commandments, but do not follow in the statutes? Is that even possible?

I believe a good starting point for this topic is Rashi (ibid 3, translation from here),

If you follow My statutes: I might think that this refers to the fulfillment of the commandments. However, when Scripture says, “and observe My commandments,” the fulfillment of the commandments is [already] stated. So what is the meaning of “If you follow My statutes”? It means that you must toil in the study of Torah  [Torath Kohanim 26:2]

אם בחקתי תלכו: יכול זה קיום המצות, כשהוא אומר ואת מצותי תשמרו, הרי קיום המצות אמור, הא מה אני מקיים אם בחקתי תלכו, שתהיו עמלים בתורה:

And observe My commandments: You shall toil in the study of Torah in order to observe and fulfill [the commandments (Torath Kohanim 26:2). This is similar to, “[Hear, O Israel, the statutes and ordinances…] and learn them, and keep in mind to do them” (Deut. 5:1)

ואת מצותי תשמרו: הוו עמלים בתורה על מנת לשמור ולקיים, כמו שנאמר (דברים ה א) ולמדתם אותם ושמרתם לעשותם:

Rashi explains that the verse is telling us three things. First, a Jew is responsible to learn the commandments. Second, a Jew is responsible to "keep the commandments in mind." Lastly, a Jew is required to perform the commandments.

Unfortunately, this is still a little unclear. What exactly is keeping them in mind? For this, we can take a look at the Ibn Ezra (ibid),

אם בחקתי...תשמרו ועשיתם: מצוה ללמוד וללמד ולעשות

If [you will follow] in my statutes...you will guard them and you will perform them: It is a commandment to learn, teach and perform.

The Ibn Ezra tells us the missing piece, to "keep the commandments in mind" means to teach them. Now we know all three parts to this ultimatum. G-D wants us to learn, teach and perform the commandments and this will allow us to attain great rewards. However, if we ignore the commandments and do not learn, teach or perform them, then we are doomed, as a nation, to a life full of trouble. 

This leads us to a very interesting question, what about the individual? The Torah is clearly only talking about the nation as a whole learning, teaching and performing the commandments, but how does this relate to the individual? Does the individual need to do all three, or do certain people learn and teach while others perform and thereby the nation, as a whole, does all three? Are all three aspects of learning, teaching and performing equal or is one more important than the others? These are all very important questions because the individual needs to know how to focus his or her energy. As I said, the nation as a whole must perform all three, since G-D is discussing this as a national reward and a national punishment for listening or ignoring, but individuals are not addressed. 

There are two Gemaras that discuss what is greater; learning, teaching or performing the commandments. The first Gemara I will bring is from Babba Kama (17a, translation from Soncino),

Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: I was once following R. Johanan for the purpose of asking him about the [above] matter. He, however, at that moment went into a toilet room. [When he reappeared and] I put the matter before him, he did not answer until he had washed his hands, put on phylacteries and pronounced the benediction. Then he said to us: Even if sometimes we also say. ‘He fulfilled [the law] (performed the commandment-e-man input) . . .’ we never say. ‘He expounded [the law](expounded the commandment because that is so great-e-man input)...’ (Someone asks a question on R. Johanan-e-man input) But did not the Master say: The importance of the study of the law is enhanced by the fact that the study of the law is conducive to [the] practice [of the law] (isn't the study of the commandments important because it leads to performance of the commandments?-e-man)? This, however, offers no difficulty; the latter statement deals with studying [the law] (studying the commandments is not so great and therefore that is why performance is greater), the former with teaching [the law] (teaching the commandments is the greatest thing you can do and that is why it is a real honor-e-man input).

This Gemara has several interpretations. However, this translation of the Gemara is according to Rashi. Just to summarize it; Rav Yochanan says that performing the commandments is not as great as "expounding" on the commandments. A question is asked that the dictum states that study of the commandments is only really important because it leads to the performance of the commandments and Rav Yochanan seems to be saying that the performance of the commandments is not as great as "expounding" upon the commandments (expounding is, originally, assumed to mean just studying). This difficulty is cleared up because Rav Yochanan says that just studying the commandments yourself is not as great as performing the commandments, but teaching the commandments to others is greater than performing them. So, according to Rashi, this Gemara is saying that the most important action is teaching the commandments to others, then comes performing the commandments and the least important action is studying the commandments.     

However, there is a Gemara in Kiddushin (40b) that seems to contradict this. In fact, Rashi himself explains the Gemara in Kiddushin to be contradicting the Gemara in Babba Kama. It says (Kiddushin 40b, translation is Soncino),

R. Tarfon and the Elders were once reclining in the upper storey of Nithza's house, in Lydda, when this question was raised before them: Is study greater, or practice? R. Tarfon answered, saying: Practice is greater. R. Akiba answered, saying: Study is greater, for it leads to practice. Then they all answered and said: Study is greater, for it leads to action.

Rashi says on this Gemara that studying is greater than performing the commandments because if a person studies then he or she will be able to study and perform, both are in his or her hands. Rashi in Babba Kama (17a) says since the point of studying is in order to perform the commandments we see that the performance is more important because the end is more important than the means. So, which argument is correct?

Tosfos comes in Kiddushin (40b) to offer an explanation. He says a novice should learn first before performing the commandments, because if you do not first learn how to properly perform the commandments, then you will not perform them correctly. This is the case in Kiddushin, the Rabbis were talking about a novice and that is why one should learn first. However, if you are an expert and know how to perform the commandments, then performance is better than learning. This is the case in Babba Kama, they are talking about giving someone praise after their death. The greater praise is that he (the dead person) performed the commandments, because if he performed the commandments correctly then he obviously learned how to perform them correctly. This is also what Rabbeinu Tam says on the Gemara in Babba Kama (17a).

Another opinion is quoted in the Tosfos on Babba Kama, that of Rav Achai Gaon. He has a different version of the Gemara that leads him to come to a completely different conclusion. Until this point, everyone has agreed that teaching the commandments to others is the greatest thing a person can do for the simple reason which Rabbeinu Tam states, "That it brings the masses to perform the commandments." However, Rav Achai Gaon's version of the Gemara simply said,   

Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: I was once following R. Johanan for the purpose of asking him about the [above] matter. He, however, at that moment went into a toilet room. [When he reappeared and] I put the matter before him, he did not answer until he had washed his hands, put on phylacteries and pronounced the benediction. How could R. Johanan put on his phylacteries first, did not the Master say: The importance of the study of the law is enhanced by the fact that the study of the law is conducive to [the] practice [of the law]? This, however, offers no difficulty; the latter statement deals with studying [the law] (studying the commandments is more important than performing the commandments because studying brings about the performance), the former action (putting on the phylacteries first) with teaching [the law] (performing the commandments is more important than teaching the commandments).

According to this version of the Gemara, we learn the exact opposite lesson from that of Rashi. Studying the commandments is more important because it brings one to perform the commandments, but performing the commandments is more important than teaching them to others, because that, apparently, does not bring anyone to actually perform the commandments.

In all honesty, Rav Achai Gaon's version of the Gemaraa in Babba Kama fits much better with the Gemara in Kiddushin. In Rav Achai's version both Gemara's are saying that studying is preferred to performance because studying brings about performance. Meaning, because it brings about performance, if you study you will be able to study and perform, both are "in your hands" (as Rashi says in the Gemara in Kiddushin).

A side point, the Soncino brings up a very good practical reason for this discussion about which is better, learning or performing the commandments. He says,

This was a practical problem during the Hadrianic persecution, when both study and practical observance were forbidden, and the question was for which risks should sooner be taken. — Weiss. Dor., II, 125, Graetz, Geschichte, IV,p. 429

At this point we can say that Rashi and Tosfos would hold a novice should first learn and an expert should first perform the commandments. However, it seems like Rav Achai Gaon would hold that in every situation a person should first and foremost learn. Also, Rashi and Tosfos would say that, before anything, a person should risk his life to teach. However, Rav Achai Gaon would say that is the last thing a person should risk his life for.

To conclude this debate I would like to bring in the Rambam (Talmud Torah 3:3-4),

אין לך מצוה בכל המצות כולן שהיא שקולה כנגד תלמוד תורה אלא תלמוד תורה כנגד כל המצות כולן שהתלמוד מביא לידי מעשה. לפיכך התלמוד קודם למעשה בכל מקום:  

You do not have a commandment from all the commandments that is equal to learning Torah, rather learning Torah is equal to all the commandments because learning brings about performance [of all the other commandments.] Therefore, learning takes precedence to performance in every place.

היה לפניו עשיית מצוה ותלמוד תורה אם אפשר למצוה להעשות ע"י אחרים לא יפסיק תלמודו. ואם לאו יעשה המצוה ויחזור לתלמודו:

If [there is a situation] in front of [a Jewish person] that he can perform a commandment and learn Torah, then if it is possible for the commandment to be done by someone else he should not stop his learning. [However, if no one else can perform the commandment] he should perform it and then return to his learning. 

The Rambam makes it very clear to us how he read the Gemara.The goal is for all commandments to be fulfilled. However, it is important for everyone to learn about the commandments as best as they can before fulfilling them. Therefore, if a person is learning, he should continue learning unless there is a commandment that will be left undone due to his learning.

This brings us back to our verse, "If you will follow in my statutes and you will guard my commandments and perform them." The Torah is telling us, as the Ibn Ezra points out, G-D wants us to learn, teach and perform His commandments. In my opinion, all three of these things appear to be equally important, but there is a practical difference. G-D tells us that, as a nation, we must do all three of these actions of learning, teaching and performing. However, in the book of Joshua (1:8, translation from here) G-D gives us some advice,

8. This book of the Torah shall not leave your mouth; you shall meditate therein day and night, in order that you observe to do all that is written in it, for then will you succeed in all your ways and then will you prosper.		ח. לֹא יָמוּשׁ סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה מִפִּיךָ וְהָגִיתָ בּוֹ יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה לְמַעַן תִּשְׁמֹר לַעֲשֹוֹת כְּכָל הַכָּתוּב בּוֹ כִּי אָז תַּצְלִיחַ אֶת דְּרָכֶךָ וְאָז תַּשְׂכִּיל:

In order for us to be successful and to follow in the statutes, guard and perform the commandments, we need to learn as much as we can. The only way to make sure that we know how to properly perform and teach the commandments is to learn everything that we must perform. Therefore, the Rambam tells us learning is paramount, because without learning no other commandments can be fulfilled. However, performance of the commandments must be done, that is why if no other Jews can perform a commandment you must stop learning to fulfill that commandment. As long as some Jews are performing the commandments, that leaves others free to learn and teach the commandments so, when the time arises, they can also perform the commandments correctly in the way G-D desires.

A final thought on this subject. The Gemara in Berachos (35b) talks about this verse from the book of Joshua. I think it is very important to bring it into our discussion.

Our Rabbis taught (Divarim 11:14): "And thou shalt gather in thy corn." What is to be learned from these words? Since it says (Joshua 1:8), "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth," I might think that this injunction is to be taken literally. Therefore it says, ‘And thou shalt gather in thy corn’, which implies that you are to combine the study of them (the words of Torah) with a worldly occupation. This is the view of R.Ishmael. R. Simeon b. Yohai says: Is that possible? If a man ploughs in the ploughing season, and sows in the sowing season, and reaps in the reaping season, and threshes in the threshing season, and winnows in the season of wind, what is to become of the Torah? No; but when Israel perform the will of the Omnipresent, their work is performed by others, as it says (Yeshayahu 61:5). "And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks. etc.," and when Israel do not perform the will of the Omnipresent their work is carried out by themselves, as it says (ibid), "And thou shalt gather in thy corn." Nor is this all, but the work of others also is done by them, as it says (Devarim 28:48), "And thou shalt serve thine enemy etc." Said Abaye: Many have followed the advice of Ishmael, and it has worked well; others have followed R. Simeon b.Yohai and it has not been successful. Raba said to the Rabbis: I would ask you not to appear before me during Nisan and Tishri so that you may not be anxious about your food supply during the rest of the year.

Also, in Pirkei Avos (2:2) it says,

Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabbi Yehuda the Prince said: Good is Torah study together with a worldly occupation, for the exertion in both makes one forget sin. All Torah study without work will cease and it will bring along in its wake sinfulness.

We can see from here that a person needs to focus on learning, teaching and performing the commandments. However, that is not all one can focus on. A person must find a balance that allows them to pursue the path G-D says is best for us. We must realize how to divide our time so we can learn, yet also perform the commandment of supporting our families. This is what Rabbi Yishamel says and it is, apparently, the most successful approach to Judaism.

In conclusion, the verses in this week's Parsha are not necessarily meant for individuals, they are meant to be fulfilled through the entire nation. Some people in the nation are supposed to be the learners and the teachers. Others are supposed to be the ones that perform the commandments. Yet, the majority are supposed to live a life of learning, teaching and performing the commandments as Rabbi Yishmael points out.

Understanding Shemittah (Sabbatical Year For The Land)

This week's Parsha, Behar, discusses Shemittah (Vayikra 25) and it's laws. While introducing this law, the verse makes a reference to Shemittah that is similar to how the verse references Shabbos in the Ten Commandments (Shemos 20:10). It says here (Vayikra 25:2),

ב דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם וְשָׁבְתָה הָאָרֶץ שַׁבָּת לַיהוָֹה:
Speak to the children of Israel and say to them, "When you come to the land that I am giving to you, you shall let rest the land, a rest for G-D."

 And it says over there (Shemos 20:10),

וְיוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבָּת לַיהוָֹה
And the seventh day shall be a rest [day] for G-D.

These similarities can not just be a coincidence, there is some connection here that will help us understand the purpose of Shemittah as it relates to Shabbos.

The Ibn Ezra tells us on our Parsha something very vague (Vayikra 25:2)

וטעם שבת לה' - כיום השבת, וסוד ימי עולם רמוז במקום הזה.
The reason it says Shabbos for G-D is because this is like the Shabbos day. This is a reference, in this place, to the secret of the days of creation. 

The Ibn Ezra helps us out here by telling us that Shemittah is related to the Shabbos day. No surprise there, but when we are looking for reasons for the Mitzvos this is a good starting point. We do not need to come up with some roundabout idea that references obscure ideas about the land and what not. The idea behind Shemittah is simple, it is another way for G-D to drive home a point that we are supposed to learn through observing the day of Shabbos. However, what is this point?

The Ibn Ezra goes on, in his commentary on the Ten Commandments (Shemos 20:8), to say that Shemittah comes to teach the same idea as Shabbos. However, he then goes on to explain the reason behind Shabbos and Shemittah.

 והנה השבת נתנה להבין מעשה השם ולהגות בתורתו. וככה כתוב: כי שמחתני ה' בפעליך.
 Behold, Shabbos was given in order that we should understand the works of G-D and to study His Torah. Like it is written (Tehilim 92:5), For You, G-D, have gladdened me with Your Works.

The point here, as clarified by the Yaheil Ohr (a super-commentary on the Ibn Ezra), is that the point of Shabbos and Shemmitah is so we can take time out of our busy lives and learn Torah. This is brought down in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Shabbos Chapter 15:3) in the name of Rabbi Berechia in the name of Rabbi Chiya bar ba. It says there,

The only reason Shabbos and Holidays were given was so we could deal with the words of Torah.  

Just as a side point, I personally think that this teaches a very valuable lesson. Shabbos and Shemittah show us that during the week and during the six years before Shemittah we are supposed to be dealing with things that pertain to sustaining our lives. It is only during Shabbos and Shemittah that we are not supposed to deal with anything except learning Torah.

I concede that this could also mean something entirely different. It could mean that there are those of us who can not find someone else who will support us and allow us to just learn all the time. If that is the case, we must support ourselves during the six years before Shemittah and during the week. However, even if no one else is supporting us, we must take the Shabbos day and the Shemittah year and spend that year learning the Torah.

I think either of the previous explanations is plausible, but I think the first makes more sense because if you do not work during the six years before Shemittah or during the six days of the week, how are you supposed to appreciate Shabbos or Shemittah? What is the point of Shabbos or Shemittah if you are always learning?

Another explanation for the reason for Shemittah can be found in the Yalkut Peirushim Al HaTorah (Conglomeration of commentaries on the Torah). It says as follows (in the name of the Tzarur Hamor Vayikra 25:2):

Just like we are obligated to honor G-D and to honor other people, so too we are obligated to honor the land of Israel.

 This idea can be understood much better and can be connected to Shabbos if we take the explanation of Shadal (also found here in Vayikra 25:2)

The commandment of Shemittah is similar to Shabbos because, just like the commandment of Shabbos is to reinforce in us that we are a holy (chosen) nation, so too the commandment of Shemiitah is supposed to reinforce the idea that the land (of Israel) is a holy (chosen) land... The holiness of the land is a reason for the nation to distance themselves from impurity and desecration with disgusting acts. 

This second idea seems to be telling us that the holiness of the land and the holiness of Shabbos teach us two similar ideas. Shabbos teaches us the Jewish people should rest on the seventh day because they are a holy nation, therefore, they should not act immorally. Shemittah teaches us that the land of Israel is a holy land, therefore, we should not act immorally. Both ideas come to teach us the holiness of the Jewish people, however, they teach this from different angles. Shabbos teaches the Jewish people's holiness with regards to the individual. However, Shemittah teaches the holiness of the collective nation, because you can not act as an independent nation without a land.

These two ideas, that Shabbos and Shemittah were given so that we should learn Torah vs. Shabbos and Shemittah were given to teach us that we are a holy nation appear to complement each other. The first idea, learned from the Ibn Ezra, tells us what we are supposed to do on the day of Shabbos or during the year of Shemittah. The second idea, that of the Shadal and Tzarur Hamor, tells us what the day and year themselves actually teach us about the Jewish nation. The fact that we are supposed to learn the Torah on these days is because we are a nation of individuals that learn and follow the Torah and THAT makes us a holy nation.

Rambam- Yisodei HaTorah Perek 7 Halacha 7: Who Does A Prophet Prophesize To and Who Should We Accept As A Prophet

הנביא אפשר שתהיה נבואתו לעצמו בלבד להרחיב לבו ולהוסיף דעתו עד שידע מה שלא היה יודע מאותן הדברים הגדולים. ואפשר שישולח לעם מעמי הארץ או לאנשי עיר או ממלכה לכונן אותם ולהודיעם מה יעשו או למונעם ממעשים הרעים שבידיהם. וכשמשלחים אותו נותנין לו אות ומופת כדי שידעו העם שהאל שלחו באמת. ולא כל העושה אות ומופת מאמינים לו שהוא נביא. אלא אדם שהיינו יודעים בו מתחלתו שהוא ראוי לנבואה בחכמתו ובמעשיו שנתעלה בהן על כל בני גילו והיה מהלך בדרכי הנבואה בקדושתה ובפרישותה ואח"כ בא ועשה אות ומופת ואמר שהאל שלחו מצוה לשמוע ממנו שנאמר אליו תשמעון. ואפשר שיעשה אות ומופת ואינו נביא וזה האות יש לו דברים בגו. ואעפ"כ מצוה לשמוע לו הואיל ואדם גדול וחכם וראוי לנבואה [הוא] מעמידים אותו על חזקתו. שבכך נצטוינו כמו שנצטוינו לחתוך את הדין ע"פ שני עדים כשרים ואע"פ שאפשר שהעידו בשקר הואיל וכשרים הם אצלינו מעמידין אותן על כשרותן. ובדברים האלו וכיוצא בהן נאמר הנסתרות לה' אלהינו והנגלות לנו ולבנינו. ונאמר כי האדם יראה לעינים וה' יראה ללבב: 

It is possible that a prophet will have a prophecy specified for him in order to broaden his heart and to add to his knowledge to the point that he will know about great things that which he did not already know. It is possible that [the prophet] will be sent to a nation among the nations or to the people of a city or kingdom to point out to them and to make known to them what they should do or to stop them from intentionally doing bad things. 

When [G-D] sends him, [G-D] gives him a sign and a wonder in order that the nation should know that G-D truly sent him. [However,] not everyone who performs signs and wonders should be believed to be a prophet [of G-D. Only] a man that it is known from the outset that he is fit to receive prophecy [because] his wisdom and his actions are greater than all of the people of his age and he goes in the path of prophecy, holiness, and separateness and after this he comes and does signs and wonders and says G-D sent me, then it is a commandment to listen to him, for it says (Devarim 18:15), "To him you shall listen." It is possible that [this person] does signs and wonders, but is still not a prophet, and there are [other] things behind this sign. Even so, it is a commandment to listen to him. [The reason for this] is since he is a great man who is wise and he is fit for prophecy, we establish him on his established status. This is how we have been commanded, just like we were commanded  to reach a a decision in law according to two legitimate witnesses even though it is possible they are testifying falsely. [However,] since they are legitimate by us we establish [their status] as legitimate. We say about these things and similar ideas [the following (Devarim 29:28),] "The hidden things are for Our G-D and the revealed things are for us and our children." And we also say (Samuel 1 16:7), "Because man sees what is [revealed] to the eyes and G-D sees to the heart."         

In this halacha, the Rambam makes known to us what types of prophecies a prophet receives. It can either be personal, for a group, or for an entire nation. Personal news seems to help a prophet expand their mind and knowledge in order for them to attain more prophecy and a closer connection to G-D. However, when the prophecy is for a group it seems to be in order to guide this group or nation in the proper actions and has nothing to do with attaining knowledge.

This next part of the halacha has to do with who we can accept as a prophet. Basically, it is not just anyone who seems to be righteous, but it must be someone who is known to have attained the level of "Sons of the Prophets"  as the Rambam explains previously (See this post Yisodei HaTorah 7:5 Some May Receive Prophecy and Some May Not). This means that the person must be known to have acquired much knowledge and have great control over his mind. Even if someone receives a prophecy, it can not be given over to others unless the person who received the prophecy meets all of these criteria.

Personally, I think that, because of these requirements, every prophet first receives personal prophecies before he or she receives prophecies that are to be given over. It is only through the original personal prophecies that they are able to reach the level that everyone will accept him or her as a prophet. This further strengthens my idea that, although a person can work really hard to reach the level needed to attain prophecy, he or she can only succeed with G-D's assistance as I point out in Yisodei HaTorah 7:1 Prophecy's Place In Judaism.  

Rambam- Yisdoei HaTorah Perek 7 Halacha 6: Moshe's Uniqueness As a Prophet

כל הדברים שאמרנו הם דרך נבואה לכל הנביאים הראשונים והאחרונים חוץ ממשה רבינו רבן של כל הנביאים. ומה הפרש יש בין נבואת משה לשאר כל הנביאים שכל הנביאים בחלום או במראה ומשה רבינו מתנבא והוא ער ועומד שנאמר ובבוא משה אל אהל מועד לדבר אתו וישמע הקול מדבר אליו. כל הנביאים על ידי מלאך. לפיכך רואים מה שהם רואים במשל וחידה. משה רבינו לא על ידי מלאך שנאמר פה אל פה אדבר בו. ונאמר ודבר ה' אל משה פנים אל פנים. ונאמר ותמונת ה' יביט כלומר שאין שם משל אלא רואה הדבר על בוריו בלא חידה ובלא משל. הוא שהתורה מעידה עליו במראה ולא בחידות שאינו מתנבא בחידה אלא במראה שרואה הדבר על בוריו. כל הנביאים יראים ונבהלים ומתמוגגין ומשה רבינו אינו כן הוא שהכתוב אומר כאשר ידבר איש אל רעהו כלומר כמו שאין אדם נבהל לשמוע דברי חבירו כך היה כח בדעתו של משה רבינו להבין דברי הנבואה והוא עומד על עומדו שלם. כל הנביאים אין מתנבאים בכל עת שירצו משה רבינו אינו כן אלא כל זמן שיחפוץ רוח הקודש לובשתו ונבואה שורה עליו ואינו צריך לכוין דעתו ולהזדמן לה שהרי הוא מכוון ומזומן ועומד כמלאכי השרת. לפיכך מתנבא בכל עת שנאמר עמדו ואשמעה מה יצוה ה' לכם. ובזה הבטיחו האל שנאמר לך אמור להם שובו לכם לאהליכם ואתה פה עמוד עמדי. הא למדת שכל הנביאים כשהנבואה מסתלקת מהם חוזרים לאהלם שהוא צרכי הגוף כלם כשאר העם. לפיכך אין פורשין מנשותיהם. ומשה רבינו לא חזר לאהלו הראשון לפיכך פירש מן האשה לעולם ומן הדומה לו ונקשרה דעתו לצור העולמים ולא נסתלק מעליו ההוד לעולם וקרן עור פניו ונתקדש כמלאכים:

All of these things that we have said is regarding the path of prophecy for all of the early and later prophets except for Moshe (Moses), our teacher, the greatest of all the prophets. What is the difference between Moshe and all the other prophets? All the [other] prophets [prophesized] in a dream or a vision and Moshe, our teacher, prophesized while he was awake and standing, for it says (Bamidbar 7:89), "When Moshe came to the Tent of Meeting to speak with Him and he heard the voice speak to him..." Also, all the other [prophets] prophesized through an angel. Therefore, [since they prophesized through an angel] they saw what they saw as a parable and a riddle. [However,] Moshe, our teacher did not [prophesize] through an angel as it says (Bamidbar 12:8) "Mouth to mouth I speak with him." And it says (Shemos 33:11) "And G-D spoke to Moshe face to face." And it says (Bamidbar 12:8), "He beholds the image of G-D," meaning that there is no parable, rather he saw the subject's [in his prophecies] true meaning. 

All of the prophets were in awe, scared, and fearful [during prophecy], but Moshe, our teacher, was not. For, the verse says (Shemos 33:11), "It was like when a man speaks to his friend." Like a man is not frightened to hear the words of his friend, so it was the strength of the mind of Moshe, our teacher, to understand the words of prophecy and he stood on his feet, whole. 

None of the prophets could prophesize at any time they wanted, but this was not true of Moshe, our teacher. Any time that he desired to have [prophecy] the holy spirit (Ruach Hakodesh) would clothe him and prophecy would rest on him. 

[Moshe] did not have to concentrate his mind and prepare for [prophecy] because he was [always] concentrated and prepared like the ministering angels. Therefore, he could prophesize at anytime, for it says (Bamidbar 9:8), "Wait and I will listen for what G-D commands for you." And this (that Moshe could speak with G-D whenever he wanted) was promised [to Moshe] by G-D, as it says (Devarim 5:27-28), "Go, say to them, you return to your tents and you (Moshe) stand here with me." This teaches you that all the prophets, when prophecy would leave them, they would "return to their tents" in order to fulfill their [sexual] needs like the rest of the nation, therefore, they did not need to separate from their wives. [However,] Moshe, our teacher, did not return to his first tent, therefore, he separated from his wife forever and everything similar to her (anything that had to do with sexuality, but he still had bodily functions). His mind became connected to the Rock of the World and the glory [of G-D] was never removed from being upon him and "his face became radiant" (Shemos 34:35) and he became holy like the angels.     

The Rambam uses this halacha to point out that the previous five laws that he has talked about in this chapter do not apply, in any way, to Moshe. The Rambam goes through every possible aspect of prophecy and expresses why Moshe, as a prophet, was different than all other prophets.

Based on all the sources Rambam brings down, we can paint a picture of Moshe that allows us to understand why he was such a unique prophet. Was it that G-D made him into this type of prophet or was he the type of man that was, inherently, this type of prophet? Did G-D just say, arbitrarily, since I want to give the Torah now I need to make Moshe into a unique prophet, or did G-D see that Moshe was a unique prophet and decide to give the Torah because of him?

I would like to suggest, based on the Rambam, that Moshe was inherently a unique prophet and that is why G-D chose to give the Torah to him. The Rambam points out that Moshe was not afraid of G-D's prophecies, unlike all the other prophets, because of the strength of his mind. Moshe did not need to "return to his tent" to fulfill his sexual desires, because he had such perfect control over his mind that he could inhibit his mind from even thinking about sexuality. This is why the Rambam, in my opinion, believes Moshe is so unique, because his mind and his ability to acquire knowledge was the greatest to ever exist. The Rambam explains in this very chapter, that a person can acquire prophecy based on how well he perfects his mind and Moshe had the highest level of perfection, even reaching the level of the angels. This is why Moshe was so unique, it is not because he received the Torah, but rather he received the Torah because he was unique. 

This can help us understand all of the aspects of Moshe's prophecies. Moshe did not need the medium of a dream or a vision because he did not need to communicate to G-D through an angel, for he was already on the level of an angel with regards to the strength of his mind. This is also why he did not have his prophecies in the form of a riddle, because all of these aspects are only present when you have to communicate to G-D through an angel. Moshe was not frightened by prophecy because he was not confused by the parables and riddles like all other prophets, he immediately understood what was being said to him. An example of this is if a foreigner comes up to you and says something in an unfamiliar language carrying a knife, you are worried. However, once his words are translated and all he said was, "Hello, my name is James," you are no longer frightened. Also, not only could Moshe prophesize while awake, but he could do it whenever he wanted. The reason for this is because, as is stated in this law of the Rambam, his mind was always ready for prophecy because of his ability to block out any thought that could inhibit prophecy. Moshe's mind was unique because it was practically on the level of the angels and not because G-D elevated him, as a person, to the level of the angels, according to the Rambam.