Midrash su Ezechiele 14:2

GEMARA: I find our Mishnah in conflict with the following Mishnah: These are the things in wiiich a man enjoys the interest in this world, while the principal remaineth for him in the word to come. They are: Honoring one's father and mother, the practice of loving kindness, hospitality to the stranger, making peace between a man and his neighbor, and above all, the study of the Torah. [Hence we see that only these meritorious deeds are such which yield fruit in this world and none others]? Said R. Juda: "Our Mishnah means thus: "Whoever performs one commandment more, through which addition his merits are counter-balanced, good will be done to him in this world and it is considered as if he has fulfilled the entire Torah." How can you possibly state that the other Mishnah means that even with one good action the performer receives his reward in this world? Thereupon said R. Sh'maya: "Our Mishnah refers to one whose balance of both meritorious and evil deeds was struck even; and if one of the above-mentioned commandments was among his [meritorious] account, it would counterbalance the scale; and another thing, if one performs one [extra] meritorious deed through which he counterbalances the scale, good will be done to him." Another objection was raised from the following: Whose meritorious acts are more than his sins, evil will be done to him; and such a man is considered as if he burnt the entire Torah, of which not even one letter escaped; and whose iniquities are more than his meritorious deeds, good will be done to him and he will be treated like one who fulfilled the entire Torah and did not miss even one letter of it. [Hence we see that counter-balancing the sin is not sufficient?] Said Abaye: "Our Mishnah means that they [cause to] prepare for him [in the future] a good day, and a bad day." Raba said: "The last Mishnah will be in accordance with R. Jacob, who claims that the reward for commandments is not to be obtained in this world; for we are taught in a Baraitha, R. Jacob says: "There is no commandment for which the Torah mentions its reward right next to it, upon which resurrection does not depend. Concerning the honoring of father and mother, it is written (Deut. 5, 16) In order that thy days may be prolonged, and in order that it may go well tilth thee; concerning the sending away of the motlier bird, [if one wants to take the egg or the young from the nest], it is written (Ib. 22, 7) In order that it may he well with thee, and that thou mayest live many days. If a father sent his son to go up a certain building and bring him down the doves, and he did go up the building, sent away the mother, took away the birds, and upon his return fell off the building and died, how can the promise, that it may be well with thee, or that thou mayest live many days, be fulfilled? We must therefore say that the passage it may he well with thee, refers to the world which is entirely good (future world), and that thou mayest live many days refers to the world that may endure for eternity." But how do we know that such a thing as described by R. Jacob does ever happen? R. Jacob spoke from an incident which he himself witnessed. Perhaps the man who was killed after performing this meritorious deed thought of some iniquities and therefore was punished? An evil thought, the Holy One, praised be He, does not consider an act, [as far as punishment is concerned]. Again, perhaps he was thinking about idolatry, concerning which it is written (Ez. 14, 5) In order that I may grasp the house of Israel by their heart. R. Jacob himself, was asking that very question: Should we assume that the rewards for performing commandments is obtained in this world? Then why did it not protect that man from sinning with the thought of idolatry? [We must therefore say that it refers to the future world]. Again how is such an incident possible? Has not R. Elazar said that those who go on a religious mission will not meet with evil neither going to nor coming back from their mission? At the incident of R. Jacob there was a broken ladder which made the danger certain, and where the danger is certain one must not rely upon a miracle, as it is written (I Sam. 16, 2) And Samuel said: How shall I go? If Saul should hear, etc. Said R. Joseph: "Had Elisha (Achar) interpreted this passage as did R. Jacob, his daughter's son, he would have never sinned." What did Achar see? According to some, he saw just such an incident as that witnessed by R. Jacob. And according to others it was because he saw the tongue of R. Chutzphith, the interpreter that was dragged by pigs. He then said: "Oh, that the mouth which gave forth pearls must now lick dust!" He thereupon went forth and sinned.

(Fol. 40) Raba raised the following objection before R. Nachman: "We are taught in a Mishnah, these are the things of which a man enjoys the interest for his reward in this world, while the principal remaineth for him in the world to come. They are: honoring his father and mother, the practice of loving kindness, hospitality, making peace between man and his associates, and above all the study of the Torah. Concerning honoring father and mother, it is written (Deut. 5. 16) In order ihat thy days may be prolonged, and in order that it may go well with thee; concerning loving kindness it is written (Pr. 21, 21) He that pursueth righteousness and kindness will find life, righteousness and honor; and concerning bringing peace, it is written (Ps. 34, 15) Seek peace and pursue it. And R. Abahu explained that we infer this from the similar words R'dipha R'dipha (pursue); it is written here, seek peace and pursue it, (rod-phrhu); and again it is written (Pr. 21, 21) He that pursueth (rodeph) righteousness and kindness will find life, righteousness and honor; [Hence both hare the same merits]. Concerning studying the Torah, it is written (Deut. 30, 20) For it (the Torah) is thy life, and the length of thy days. If so, tlien concerning the sending away of the bird, it is also written (Ib. 22, 7) in order that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live many days. Then why did not the Mishnah count this also? "The Tanna left it out," [was R. Nachman's reply]. Is this then possible, since our Tannah states: "These are the things." How can you say he left something unmentioned?" Therefore said Raba: "R. Idi explained this to me [with the following verse]: (Is. 3, 10) Say it to the righteous, that he has done well; for the fruit of their deeds shall they eat. Is there then a righteous man that is good and a righteous man that is not good? We must therefore say that a righteous man who is good towards heaven and also towards man is a righteous that is good; who is good towards heaven but conducts himself badly towards man is a righteous man that is not good. Similar to this case (Ib., ib. 11) Woe unto the wicked who doth evil; for the recompense of his hands shall be bestowed on him. Are there then wicked who do evil and wicked who do not evil? We must therefore say that the wicked who act wickedly towards heaven and towards man, this is a wicked man who does evil; but a wicked man who acts wickedly towards heaven and not towards man, this is a wicked who doeth not evil." [Hence wherever the passage does not state for the fruit … shall they eat, it yields no fruit in this world]. Meritorious rewards have a capital and also the fruit bearing on the principal, as it is said Say it to the righteous that he hath done well; for the fruit, etc; while iniquities have merely principal but no fruit yielding, as it is said Woe unto the wicked who does evil, etc. If so, then how will the following passage (Pr. 1, 31) Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices, be explained? This means that a crime which bears fruit [if it is carried out] it will also yield fruit [in the punishment], but a crime which bears no fruit [is not carried out] it will yield no fruit in the punishment. The merit of a good intention does the Holy One, praised be He! [in rewarding] add to that of a good deed, as it is said (Mal. 3, 16) Then conversed those that fear the Lord; one with another, and the Lord listened and heard it; and there was written a book of remembrance before Him, over those that feared the Lord and for those who respected His name. Said R. Assi: What does and for those who respected His name, mean? "Even when one intended to observe a commandment, but was incidentally prevented from doing so. Scripture credits him as if he had actually observed it." Bad intentions, the Holy One, praised be He, however, does not add to deeds, as it is said (Ps. 66, 18) If I had looked on wickedness with my heart, the Lord would not have heard. But how will the following passage (Jer. 6, 19) Behold, I will bring evil upon these people, the fruit of their thoughts, be explained? This means that an evil intention which bears fruit (is carried out), the Holy One, praised be He! adds to deeds; but such evil thoughts which bear no fruit, the Holy One, praised be He! does not add to deeds, but is there not a passage (Ez. 14, 5) In order that I may grasp the house of Israel by their heart? Said R. Acha b. Jacob: "The last passage refers to idolatry, for the master said elsewhere: The crime of idolatry is so severe that whoever denies it is as he admits the truthfulness of the entire Torah." Ulla said: "The last passage means as R. Huna explained it, for R. Huna said: 'As soon as a man commits a crime once, and twice, it becomes to him a privileged thing.' How can one think that it is a privilege? We must therefore say that it appears to him like a privileged thing." R. Abahu, in the name of R. Chanina, said: "It is preferable for a man to commit a transgression secretly, but not to profane Heaven's name," etc. [Fully explained in Volume 3, page 29].

1) (Vayikra 22:1-2) ("And the L–rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his sons that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they not profane My holy name, which they make holy to me; I am the L–rd.") "and that they separate themselves ("veyinozru"): "nezirah" connotes separation, as it is written (Ezekiel 14:7) "who separates himself ("veyinazer") from Me and brings up his idols," and (Isaiah 1:4) "They have turned back" ("nazoru acher") (i.e., separated). "from the holy things of the children of Israel": They are liable for piggul [inappropriate intention), nothar (viz. Isaiah 19:6), and uncleanliness in respect to the offerings of the children of Israel, but not in respect to the offerings of gentiles. "the holy things of the children of Israel": This tells me only of the holy things of the children of Israel. Whence do we derive the same for their own holy things? From "which they make holy to Me" — to include all (holy things).