The Eri B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sotah, has been dedicated by our good friends and students, Mr. Haimi and Dina Dana, may Heaven bless them, for the success of their children, and especially for the complete recovery of Moshe ben Dina. May the souls of Yosef ben Sarina, David ben Frida, Nair ben Zohara, Moshe ben Feigarut, Sarah bat Esther, Feigarut bat Esther, and Esther bat Yochevet be bound in the Garden of Eden. Amen. May you be blessed with good news.
Today’s page discusses the story of the “cunning wicked person,” the devious evildoer mentioned in the Mishnah. The Gemara asks: What is an example of such a person?
Rabbi Yohanan says that it is someone who presents his case to the judge before the other litigant arrives. He walks casually with the judge and, as they walk, tells him the entire case in order to place his version of events in the judge’s mind first. This gives him an advantage, because the first impression a person receives often influences his judgment. Once the judge has already formed the impression that this person is innocent, it is very difficult to uproot that impression. He is therefore cunning, and he is also wicked because he is acting improperly. That is why he is called a cunning wicked person.
Rabbi Abbahu gives another example. A poor person has 199 zuz to his name. With 199 zuz, he still qualifies for the various gifts designated for the poor, including gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, and the corners of the field. He may also receive a substantial charitable donation. But once he has 200 zuz, he has crossed the poverty threshold and may no longer receive those gifts.
What does the wicked person do? He sees someone who has 199 zuz and gives him one additional coin. By bringing the man to 200 zuz, he removes him from the category of the poor, so that the man can no longer collect the gifts designated for the poor.
The Mishnah teaches that when someone has 200 zuz, he may not collect gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, or the corners of the field. If he is short of 200 by one dinar, however, even if one person gives him a thousand zuz at one time, he may still collect. The reason is that the person who gives him the single coin and brings him to the threshold of 200 is taking away the poor person’s ability to receive more money. This is another example of the cunning wicked person.
Rabbi Asi, in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, gives another example from the laws of inheritance. Suppose a person leaves behind a large estate. The sons inherit the estate, but they are required to support their sisters from it until the sisters marry. When the assets are few, however, the daughters receive the assets, while the sons go out and collect. The objective is to ensure that the daughters are supported.
Now imagine that the estate consists of only a small amount of property, in which case the daughters are supposed to inherit it. Someone comes along and advises the sons to sell the property. According to one opinion, the sale is valid. The sons therefore cash out and receive money, while the daughters lose the assets from which they were supposed to be supported.
The sons have a legal basis for the sale because, according to Torah law, the sons inherit. Their sale is therefore a valid sale. Nevertheless, the person who advised them to sell is a cunning wicked person. What benefit does he have from giving such advice? The sons gain money, but the daughters are left without support. He is advising them to take away the property that was intended to sustain the girls.
Abaye gives another case. A person gives his assets to one individual and says, “I am giving you these assets, and after you die, they will pass to a second individual.” The first recipient therefore receives the property during his lifetime, with the understanding that the second recipient will receive it afterward.
The first recipient comes and sells the property. He receives the money and benefits from the sale. When the first recipient dies, the second individual comes to the purchaser and attempts to take the property, because he was supposed to receive it second. But he can receive only what the first recipient left behind. Since the first recipient sold all the property, nothing remains for the second recipient.
The person who sells has an understandable motive: he wants to receive money and avoid leaving the property for the second individual. He is greedy, but he is not necessarily the cunning wicked person. The one who advises him, however, saying, “Sell the property before you die. At least you will receive money, and the other person will lose out,” is a cunning wicked person. He has no benefit from giving such advice and is deliberately causing the second recipient to lose what was intended for him.
Rav Yosef explains the next case in the name of Rav Sheshet: This is someone who attracts people to follow his ways. At first, that might sound positive. If his ways are good, why should there be anything wrong with encouraging people to follow him?
Rashi explains that this person says, in effect, “Follow me. Do as I do.” He presents himself as a pious person and wants people to view him as especially religious. He does this as a cover so that people will not examine his actual behavior or see his real character. He is a cunning wicked person because he gives the image of a religious individual while concealing the fact that he is not truly religious.
Rav Huna gives another example: a person who is lenient with himself but strict with others. When it comes to his own conduct, he relies on every leniency. When someone else asks him a question, however, he gives the strictest ruling. People then think, “What a strict and careful person he is,” but he himself is lenient. He is creating a false impression and trying to make people believe that he is someone he is not.
The Gemara then discusses a person who reads Scripture and studies Mishnah but does not study Gemara. The Torah says that such a person did not serve Torah scholars. The expression “serving Torah scholars” is the way the Talmud refers to studying Gemara.
In earlier times, people would study Mishnayot. Mishnayot generally present laws, but they do not always provide the reasoning behind those laws. When a person studies only Mishnah and does not study Gemara, he does not know the rationale. As a result, he may compare one case with another incorrectly and reach mistaken conclusions.
Furthermore, without studying with a Torah scholar, a person may not know that a Mishnah is missing a line or that the names in the Mishnah need to be changed. The Gemara frequently says that a Mishnah is incomplete or that the attribution is not correct. Once the missing material or the correct names are supplied, the law may change entirely.
Therefore, a person who has not served Torah scholars by studying Gemara may be called a cunning wicked person. We now have to understand why.
Rashi explains that this is someone who reads Scripture and studies Mishnah but does not study the reasoning of the Gemara that explains the Mishnah. His Torah is not clear, and one cannot rely on him to reach correct conclusions. Once a person knows the reasons behind the laws, he can distinguish between cases. In monetary law, the difference may determine whether a person is liable or innocent. In laws of ritual purity, as well, the reason for the law is essential.
The Mishnayot do not generally say, “What is the reason?” They state one view and another view, and the Gemara asks what practical difference exists between them. The Gemara then explains that there may be many differences between the opinions. Without that analysis, a person may know the words of the Mishnah but not understand what they mean or how they apply.
Rashi says that such a person is cunning because he hears and repeats all the Mishnayot. People assume that he understands their reasons, and they honor him like a Torah scholar. They stand for him and treat him with respect, but he knows nothing beyond the Mishnayot. He is a trickster because he gives the impression that he is a Torah scholar when he does not understand the depth of what he is quoting.
The Gemara then moves to a related point. A person who studies Scripture but does not study Gemara is called an ignoramus. This designation has practical consequences. If one buys food from such a person, one must suspect that he did not separate the required tithes from the produce. Likewise, if he touches something, one must assume that it may have become ritually impure, because he is not careful about the laws of ritual impurity and purity.
The commentaries explain that this person does not know the laws. He is worse, in one respect, than an ordinary ignoramus who openly admits that he does not know. A person who knows that he does not know may ask questions. This individual reads a little and studies a little, so he thinks he understands. He may therefore issue rulings on his own rather than asking someone who knows.
A little knowledge can be dangerous. He reads and studies enough to think that he has knowledge, but not enough to understand the law. He may declare something pure that is impure, or something permitted that is forbidden. That is why he is considered an ignoramus.
Rabbi Shmuel ben Nahmani says that such a person is even lower than an ignoramus. He is called an uncultivated field. An uncultivated field is a field that has not been properly cultivated. It may have been plowed, but it was never planted, and therefore no crop can grow from it.
Similarly, a person who studies Mishnayot may have begun the process of acquiring knowledge, but he has not completed it by studying the reasoning and achieving clarity. He has plowed the field but has not planted it. He has accumulated information, but he has not brought it to the point where it can produce sound understanding.
Rabbi Yannai says that a person who does not study Gemara has the status of a Samaritan. The Samaritans were treated as people who did not follow rabbinic law. One could not rely on them regarding their wine or their bread, because they did not observe the rabbinic laws governing those matters.
Similarly, if a person does not study Gemara, one must suspect that he will not observe the rabbinic laws. He may know written Torah and Mishnah, but he does not know the rabbinic framework that explains how the laws are applied. Therefore, he has the status of someone whose observance cannot be relied upon in those areas.
Rav Aha bar Yaakov says that such a person is like a sorcerer. A sorcerer creates an optical illusion. He moves his hands quickly, and people think that he possesses supernatural power, when in reality they simply did not see how the trick was performed.
The same is true of someone who knows Mishnayot but does not understand them. He quotes the Mishnayot, and people think, “This person knows a great deal.” In reality, it is an optical illusion. He is merely repeating the words of the Mishnah without understanding the reasons behind them or the depth of the subject. He is therefore like a sorcerer.
The Gemara explains that this comparison is appropriate because of a popular saying: a sorcerer whispers his incantations before performing his trick. He repeats words that the listeners do not understand, and the listeners assume that the words possess power. Likewise, this person repeats the words of the Tannaim. He knows how to quote different opinions, but he does not understand what he is saying. His words are like the words of a sorcerer—sounds without understanding.
The Gemara then asks: Who is considered an ignoramus? One definition is a person who does not recite the morning and evening Shema with its blessings. This is the minimum level of Torah study and observance.
The commentaries explain, in the name of Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, that if a person recites the Shema in the morning and in the evening, he fulfills the minimum meaning of the verse that requires one to engage in Torah day and night. The minimum “day and night” is the morning Shema and the evening Shema.
If a person does not even recite the Shema morning and evening, he is not fulfilling that basic obligation of Torah study. He is therefore classified as an ignoramus.
Another opinion understands the matter differently. According to this view, a person who establishes fixed times for Torah study is not an ignoramus. The minimum degree of establishing fixed times is that a person should at least know how to recite the Shema morning and evening. If he does not even do that, he has no fixed connection to Torah and is considered an ignoramus.
Another view says that a person who does not wear phylacteries is considered an ignoramus. Even if he recites the Shema beautifully, the Shema itself says that one must place phylacteries on the arm and head. If a person reads the Shema but does not fulfill what he is reading, he is like someone giving false testimony.
The same applies to the commandments of ritual fringes. It is not enough to read the passage of the Shema. If a person does not fulfill the commandments mentioned in it, he is considered an ignoramus because he is giving testimony with his mouth that is contradicted by his actions.
Another opinion says that a person who has children but does not raise them in the way of Torah is considered an ignoramus. The Shema says, “You shall teach them diligently to your children.” If a person recites the Shema but does not educate his children in Torah, he is likewise giving false testimony.
Others say that even a person who reads and studies, but does not serve Torah scholars by studying Gemara, is an ignoramus. As explained earlier, he may know Mishnayot, but he does not understand the reasoning or the correct application of the law.
A person who reads Scripture but does not study Mishnah is called an uncultivated field. A person who does neither is called an empty person. He is a human being, but he has the understanding of an animal. We expect an animal not to possess wisdom, but we expect a human being to acquire knowledge. He is therefore worse than an animal in the sense that he has the capacity for wisdom but does not use it.
There is an additional point regarding the person who recites the Shema but does not fulfill what is written in it. If a person recites the passage about ritual fringes but does not wear them, he is considered to be giving false testimony about himself. This is one reason that the law requires a person to wear a prayer shawl and phylacteries when reciting the Shema.
Rabbi made a strong point concerning the first verse of the Shema. If a person recites it mechanically, without pausing for a moment to concentrate on accepting the sovereignty of Heaven and loving God, perhaps he is also giving false testimony. Why should this be different from not wearing phylacteries or ritual fringes? The love of God is also written in the Shema.
Therefore, one must pause at least briefly when reciting the first verse and try to place within his heart the love and admiration of the Holy One, blessed be He. Reading the words without any thought is not enough.
The Gemara then cites the verse, “Fear God, my son, and the king, and do not associate with those who repeat.” The verse teaches that one must fear God and the king, and it warns against associating with people who merely repeat.
What does “those who repeat” mean? It might refer to repeat offenders—people who repeatedly commit sins. One might think that the verse is warning us not to associate with them because their behavior may influence us. After a person commits a sin once, he feels guilty; after committing it a second time, the sin begins to seem permissible to him. The verse might therefore be warning us to stay away from such people.
The Gemara explains, however, that the verse refers to people who merely repeat Mishnayot. Whenever the Talmud uses the word “laws” in this context, it is referring to Mishnayot. The warning is to stay away from those who know only Mishnayot, because they may mislead others. They may present an incorrect understanding as though it were the proper law.
The Gemara then teaches that the Tannaim—the people who know only the words of the Tannaim and do not study Gemara—are destroyers of the world. This sounds difficult. If they do not know very much, why are they called destroyers of the world?
The concern is that they may issue halachic rulings based only on the Mishnayot they have memorized. Since they do not know the reasoning behind the Mishnah, they may not know how to apply the law correctly. Their mistaken rulings can lead other people to make mistakes.
Rashi explains that they are called destroyers of the world because they issue mistaken rulings. They do not know the reasoning of the Mishnah and therefore compare similar cases incorrectly. When a person does not know the underlying rationale, he may apply a ruling to a different case in which it does not belong.
There is another problem. Many Mishnayot do not identify their author. Someone who reads such a Mishnah may assume that the law follows that anonymous position. The Gemara may later explain that the Mishnah follows a particular individual opinion and that the halachah does not follow it. A person who has not studied Gemara will think that the Mishnah itself is the final law.
They also do not know the disputes among the early Tannaim. Many times, the Gemara brings a baraita that disagrees with a Mishnah. Without studying Gemara, a person will not recognize the dispute properly and will not know which opinion is accepted. For all these reasons, he may issue incorrect rulings, and this is why he is called a destroyer of the world.
Rabbi Joshua challenges this teaching. Are people who study Mishnayot really destroyers of the world? We say every day that the world stands on the merit of people who study Mishnayot. How, then, can they be called destroyers of the world?
The answer is that there is no concern with a person who studies Mishnayot. Studying Mishnayot is valuable, and a person who studies them supports the world. The problem is when he issues rulings based only on his Mishnayot. One may not stop with the Mishnah. One must follow the subject through the Gemara and all the way to the final practical ruling.
The Gemara now begins a new subject. The Mishnah taught that certain personalities are also considered destroyers of the world. One of them is a woman who presents herself as excessively abstinent and pious. The Gemara explains what this refers to.
It refers to a woman who is constantly praying—day and night—and who continually visits her neighbors, going from house to house and place to place. The Mishnah also mentions a scholar who did not complete his months, meaning a young scholar who did not reach the proper stage of development. The Gemara will explain both cases.
The Gemara asks: How can it be that a woman who prays all day or an elderly widow who goes around visiting people is considered a destroyer of the world? Rabbi Yohanan taught the opposite lessons from such people. From a young woman, he learned fear of sin, and from a widow, he learned the idea of performing commandments in order to receive reward.
Rabbi Yohanan once heard a young woman praying. She fell on her face and said, “You created the Garden of Eden and You created Gehinnom. You created the righteous and You created the wicked. May it be Your will that people not stumble because of me.” She was evidently attractive, and she did not want men to sin on her account.
The Maharsha asks why this should concern her. She was not doing anything wrong. If other people looked at her and sinned, why should she be held responsible?
The explanation is that a person who causes another person to enter Gehinnom is not brought into the presence of the Holy One, blessed be He. The young woman therefore did not want to lose her standing in the upper world because she had caused someone else to sin. We see from her prayer that she was a righteous woman. How, then, can the Mishnah describe a woman who prays constantly as a destroyer of the world?
The Gemara also tells the story of a widow from whom Rabbi Yohanan learned the value of receiving reward. This widow had a synagogue in her neighborhood, but every day she walked a great distance to pray in the synagogue and study hall of Rabbi Yohanan.
Rabbi Yohanan said to her, “Do you not have a synagogue in your neighborhood? Why do you walk all the way here?” She replied that she received reward for every step she took toward the synagogue. The farther she walked, the more steps she took in order to perform the commandment.
One might ask how it is appropriate to perform a commandment specifically in order to receive reward. The explanation given is that when a person does something beyond what he is obligated to do, he may do it in order to increase his reward. The widow was not obligated to walk to a distant synagogue. She could have gone to the synagogue on her block. Since she chose to do more than the letter of the law required, she could intend to receive additional reward.
We therefore learn from the widow that a person should trouble himself to perform commandments beyond the minimum requirement in order to increase his reward.
What, then, is the Gemara’s answer? The widow in the story was a righteous woman, and the young woman in the story was also righteous. How can the Mishnah say that a woman who goes around the neighborhood and a woman who prays constantly are destroyers of the world?
The Gemara answers that the Mishnah is referring specifically to a woman named Yohani bat Retivi. Not every woman who prays or visits neighbors is included. This particular woman was a trickster who created the impression that she was righteous.
When another woman was about to give birth, Yohani bat Retivi would go to the woman’s house and use magic to prevent the baby from being born. She would then tell the woman, “You are having difficulty giving birth. I will go and pray for you.” She would return to her own house, undo the magic, and the woman would give birth.
Everyone would then say, “What a righteous woman she is! She prays so well and saves the day.” In reality, she was a sorceress who had caused the problem and then removed it. Eventually, she was caught. A worker in her house saw an apparatus with something shaking inside it. The worker then saw Yohani open it, after which the woman gave birth. This revealed what Yohani had been doing.
The Maharsha explains that the Gemara is not criticizing every widow. It is answering the case of a particular widow who was a fraud. Similarly, the question concerning the young woman was not about every woman who prays. The young woman in Rabbi Yohanan’s story prayed once that people should not sin because of her, and that was not a problem.
The case in the Mishnah is a woman who is constantly traveling from place to place and praying for people. That is similar to Yohani bat Retivi, who went from neighbor to neighbor and presented herself as someone who prayed for them, while in reality she was acting for sinister reasons and using magic.
The widow in Rabbi Yohanan’s story, by contrast, was a righteous woman who went to pray. Therefore, one may not conclude that every widow who travels from place to place or every woman who prays is acting improperly. The Mishnah refers specifically to a woman whose conduct is a deceptive display of piety.
The Mishnah next mentions a scholar who did not complete his months. In Babylonia, this was explained as referring to a young Torah scholar who rebels against his teacher. He learns from his rabbi, but eventually rebels against the rabbi’s teachings.
He is called a scholar who did not complete his months because he will die young. Just as a premature infant does not complete the months of gestation, this student who learns from his teacher and then rebels against the teacher’s instruction will not complete his days.
The verse says, “For many are the casualties she has caused, and numerous are those she has slain.” The Gemara explains that this refers to a Torah scholar who has not reached the stage at which he is qualified to issue rulings but nevertheless teaches practical law. He does not know the rulings, yet he gives halachic answers and misleads people. He is both a sinner and one who causes others to sin.
The word describing the casualties is related to the word for a premature infant, one who does not survive beyond thirty days. This scholar is compared to such an infant because he will not complete his days.
The opposite case is a Torah scholar who reaches the stage of qualification but refuses to issue a ruling. Rashi explains that the expression for this person means that he closes his eyes from providing the answer. He knows the answer but withholds it, and this also causes harm.
The question therefore arises: At what age should a person begin accepting responsibility for issuing halachic rulings? When may people rely on him?
The Gemara says that he should be forty years old. As the Mishnah in the Ethics of the Fathers teaches, a person reaches a certain level of understanding at forty. Torah requires time to settle within a person and to become clear.
One can compare this to the forty years that the Jewish people spent in the wilderness. It took forty years for them to understand Moses. The number forty represents the time needed for knowledge to digest and for a person to attain clarity.
This does not necessarily mean the person’s chronological age is forty. It may mean forty years from the time he began studying. A person needs that amount of time for the concepts to settle and for him to understand them clearly.
The Gemara challenges this from Rabbah, who issued halachic rulings before he was forty. We know that he was younger than forty because he died at forty.
The answer is that there is an exception when the young scholar is equal to the greatest scholar in the city, or when he is the oldest scholar in the city. In such a case, he may issue rulings even before forty, provided that he possesses the necessary qualifications.
Rashi understands the answer to mean that even though the scholar is young, if he is equal in wisdom to the greatest rabbi in the city, he may issue rulings. Rabbah was therefore permitted to do so even though he was young.
Tosafot disagrees. Tosafot cites the Gemara in Berachot, which teaches that if there is a Torah scholar in the city who is equal to you in wisdom but older than you in years, you must defer to him. Even if you are equal in wisdom, you may not issue rulings over him merely because you possess the same level of knowledge.
According to Tosafot, the word “equal” in the Gemara does not mean that a young scholar may issue rulings whenever he is equal to the older scholar. Rather, the statement that a person should not issue a ruling before forty applies when he is equal in wisdom to the greatest scholar in the city. If he is younger than forty but greater in wisdom than the other scholar, he may issue rulings.
According to Rashi, a thirty-year-old scholar who is equal in wisdom to an eighty-year-old scholar may issue rulings. According to Tosafot, if the other scholar is older, the younger one must defer to him even if he is forty. Only when the younger scholar is greater in wisdom may he issue rulings before reaching forty.
Thus, according to Tosafot, the qualification concerning equality limits the forty-year rule. A forty-year-old scholar may issue rulings when he is equal to the leading scholar in wisdom. A younger scholar requires a greater level of wisdom than the older scholar in order to do so. This is the dispute between Rashi and Tosafot regarding the meaning of the Gemara’s answer.
The Mishnah then mentions another type of person who is not acting properly: someone who is involved in self-inflicted piety. He walks into walls and makes himself appear extremely humble. He lowers his head and continually bumps it against walls in order to show people that he is a righteous and abstinent person. In reality, he is only acting this way in public.
The Gemara says that there are seven types of people who present themselves as abstinent and pious, and all of them are improper. It now explains each type.
The first is the abstinent person of Shechem. This refers to someone who performs the act of the people of Shechem. The people of Shechem circumcised themselves on the third day, when the physical pain was especially severe, but they did not do so for the sake of Heaven. They wanted to be able to associate with Jacob’s daughters.
Similarly, this person abstains from the pleasures of the world and causes himself hardship, but he does not do so for the sake of Heaven. He does it so that people will admire him and say, “What a righteous person he is. Look how much he abstains and how much difficulty he accepts.” He is like the people of Shechem, who caused themselves pain for an improper purpose.
The second is the abstinent person who walks on the sides of his feet. He places his feet in an unusual position and drags them along the ground in order to appear humble and modest. As a result, he continually strikes his toes against stones. He is a fraud who creates the appearance of piety through an artificial manner of walking.
The third is the abstinent person who bruises himself. He walks with his head lowered and repeatedly strikes it against walls or posts. His head is always bruised and bleeding, and people say, “What a righteous person he is.” In reality, he is acting in public to create an impression. In private, he is wicked; in public, he presents himself as righteous.
The fourth is the abstinent person who walks bent over. Rava bar Shila explains that he is bent like a pestle. Rashi describes him as someone who walks in a permanently stooped posture, keeping his head lowered in order to appear humble.
The fifth is the person who constantly says, “What is my obligation, and I will fulfill it?” That statement might sound admirable. The Gemara responds that it would be admirable if he sincerely meant it. But this person says, “What else can I do? I have already fulfilled every commandment. Is there anything left that I have not done?” He presents himself as though he has completed every possible obligation and has nothing more to accomplish. He is a wise guy pretending to be a perfect righteous person.
The sixth is the person who serves God out of love of reward, and the seventh is the person who serves God out of fear of punishment. Rashi explains that the first performs the commandments because he loves the reward, while the second performs them because he fears punishment.
The Gemara presents these as lower levels of service because the ideal is to serve God simply because He commands us. Nevertheless, Rav taught that a person should always begin by serving God even for an ulterior motive, because eventually the person will come to serve Him for the proper motive.
This is similar to children who are encouraged to attend the synagogue with the promise of ice cream, a raffle, or some other reward. Is that the real reason they should attend? No. The hope is that they will eventually grow beyond the reward, become accustomed to attending, and go because they value the prayer and the synagogue itself.
The same applies to serving God. A person may begin by serving Him because he wants the reward. Eventually, he becomes accustomed to performing the commandments, and the commandments become part of him. He then performs them because he loves God.
We should not fool ourselves, however. These are high levels. Rashi and the Gemara may make it sound as though performing commandments for reward is a low level, but it is difficult to separate oneself from the knowledge of reward. Once a person knows about the reward of the World to Come, it is not simple to say that he is performing the commandments without thinking about it.
There is a famous story about the Vilna Gaon. One year, there was a shortage of lulavim and etrogim. A man came to the Vilna Gaon and said that he had a lulav and etrog, but he would give them to him on one condition. The Vilna Gaon said that he would pay any amount of money. The man replied that he did not want money. He wanted the Vilna Gaon’s reward in the World to Come for shaking the lulav and etrog.
The Vilna Gaon agreed. He took the lulav and etrog and shook them with tremendous happiness. People asked him why he was so happy. He answered, “This is the first time I can say with certainty that I am serving God out of love, because I am not receiving the reward. The reward is going to the other man. I know that I am not doing this for any reward.”
This shows that serving God purely out of love is not simple. It is easy for someone who does not know the reward to say that he is not acting for the reward. But when a person knows the reward and sees it before him, it is much more difficult to claim that he is acting entirely for Heaven.
King David says that the Torah is more precious than gold and more desirable than fine jewels. It is sweeter than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb. He then says, “Moreover, Your servant is careful with them.” This wording is surprising. After describing the Torah as gold, jewels, sweetness, and honey, why does he say, “Moreover,” as though he is merely adding himself to the description?
A thought is quoted in the name of the Maharit Algazi. King David is saying that one might think it is impossible for him to study Torah purely for its own sake. When he studied Torah, he saw gold bullion before him. He saw sweetness and all the reward of Torah. He knew what the reward would be, and that knowledge made it difficult to claim that he was studying purely for the sake of Heaven.
Imagine that someone sends a person to a store and promises him a million dollars to purchase an item. The person says, “I want to see the money.” The other person opens a drawer and shows him the million dollars. He then runs to the store, buys the item, and returns. He cannot say, “I want you to know that I bought the item, but the million dollars never entered my mind. I did it entirely for your sake.” The money was sitting directly before him.
King David was saying that despite knowing the reward of Torah, he was also careful to study it in the proper way. “Moreover, Your servant is careful with them”—I was able to serve God for the sake of Heaven even though I knew the reward, just as another person who does not know the reward might do.
That is why the Gemara says that serving God for reward is not the final level, but it is not necessarily a low level at the beginning. The ideal is to continue growing until one serves God out of love.
Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin points out in the Nefesh HaChaim that one should not deceive himself by thinking that a person who begins for the wrong reason can never reach the proper intention. A person may come to the morning study session because he wants the reward of Torah. He enters the synagogue, sits down, and opens the book with that motivation in mind.
But after the first few minutes, he becomes involved in the subject. He hears a question, considers an answer, and follows the reasoning. At that point, all he wants is to understand what is being said. He may forget entirely about the reward. During that part of the study, he is learning for the sake of Heaven.
Therefore, even a study session that begins with an ulterior motive may contain moments of sincere service. In any event, this is the point of the Gemara: a person should begin even with an imperfect motive, because eventually that motive can be transformed into genuine service.
The Sgerer Rebbe once made an important observation about the wording of the Gemara. The Gemara says that a person should always serve God initially for an ulterior motive. He asked why the Gemara does not simply say that at the beginning a person should serve God for an ulterior motive.
He explained that a person must always feel that he is at the beginning. Today, a person may be very satisfied with his service of God. But if he continues to grow, then tomorrow he will look back at today’s service and say, “Compared with what I understand now, yesterday’s service was still for an ulterior motive.”
As a person grows, yesterday’s level should appear incomplete compared with today’s level. This is similar to a person who prays the Amidah with the basic concentration he knows. He thinks he has prayed with proper concentration. Then he learns the deeper intentions of prayer and the intentions of the Rashash. After learning them, he looks back at all his earlier prayers and says, “What did I do? That was not the same level of prayer.”
At the time, his prayer was meaningful according to his level. But as he continues to grow, he should always see yesterday’s service as an earlier stage. That is what it means to serve God continually with an imperfect motive: every day, a person reaches a new level, and the service of the previous day becomes the starting point for the next level.
The Gemara then says that what is hidden from human beings is hidden, and what is revealed to human beings is revealed. Human beings see only what is visible. They cannot know what is hidden in another person’s heart. But the great court in Heaven will punish those who disguise themselves.
These are people who cover their heads with a prayer shawl and make themselves appear extremely pious, while God knows what they are really like. Human beings may be fooled by them, but nothing is hidden from Heaven. People see the outside; God sees the inner reality.
The Gemara brings a story about King Yannai. During his reign, he killed many Torah scholars because he hated them. The people called the abstinent ones were those who believed in the Oral Torah and followed the rabbis. Yannai destroyed those people.
His wife was Queen Shlomtzion, the sister of Shimon ben Shetach. Shimon ben Shetach was a great sage and Yannai’s brother-in-law. Yannai became ill and was about to die. Shlomtzion was afraid that the abstinent ones would take revenge against her, kill her, and remove her and her children from the kingdom.
Yannai told her not to worry. Even though he hated the abstinent ones, he knew that they were righteous. He said that she did not have to fear them because they followed the Torah and would not take revenge. He also told her not to worry about those who were not among the abstinent ones, because they were his friends. He hated the rabbis, but he liked the people who followed only the Written Torah and agreed with him.
He told her whom she did have to fear: the hypocrites. These are people who are colored on the outside one way but are actually another color within. They resemble the righteous but are not righteous.
They perform the greatest sins, like Zimri, but demand reward like Pinchas. They commit sins and then walk around like great righteous people, expecting to be rewarded as Pinchas was rewarded. This was Yannai’s lesson: be careful of hypocrites.
A righteous person is known for what he is, and a wicked person is also known for what he is. The dangerous person is the one who presents himself as righteous while concealing his true character. That person can deceive others and cause the greatest harm. Therefore, the Gemara warns us to beware of those who merely appear pious.
May the One who is the source of all blessings bless us with genuine Torah understanding, sincere service, and the ability to distinguish between true righteousness and a deceptive appearance. Blessed is the Lord forever. Amen and amen.