Chazal tell us that even a mitzvah done she’lo lishma has merit. Because Balak offered 42 korbanos, even though done with the wrong intention, he merited to have Rus among his offspring (Nazir 23).
The gemara elsewhere (Brachos 17) seems to present a contrary view, telling us that one who performs a mitzvah shelo lishma should never have been born.
Tosfos reconciles the two statements: even when done without a positive lishma goal in mind, e.g. someone who learns Torah just because he wants to be called Rabbi, the mitzvah still has merit. However, if done for a destructive purpose, e.g. someone learns Torah in order to pick arguments with others, it is better that the mitzvah not be done.
Rav Shach writes that he does not understand how Tosfos’ answer fits the gemara. Balak offered his korbanos in a misguided effort to help Bilam curse the Jewish people. Surely this type of aim should be characterized as a destructive she’lo lishma! Yet, we see that Balak is given credit for his actions.
My son told me that the sefer Chavatzeles haSharon suggests that Tosfos’ distinction applies specifically to the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. The reason Torah study for a destructive purpose counts for nothing is because the subject matter itself, when poisoned with improper intentions, is no longer considered a cheftza shel Torah. Torah studied just to pick fights is not Torah! However, the cheftza of other mitzvos is not defined by intention. A korban offered is a korban offered, regardless of what the person bringing the offering may have in mind.
My problem with this answer is that the language of the gemara speaks of an “osek b’mitzvah" for the wrong reasons not deserving to be born, not just one who learns with destructive intentions. Also, if the Chavatzeles haSharon’s distinction is correct, Tosfos’ should have offered it to resolve the contradiction between gemaras. Tosfos could have explained that Balak gets credit because he performed a mitzvah action, offering a korban, but the gemara which speaks of she’lo lishma having no merit is speaking about Talmud Torah alone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'll propose an answer:
ReplyDeleteIt may be that what Balak's ultimate goal was - cursing B'nei Yisrael - was obviously a destructive intention.
But the act of offering Korbanos to hashem was in and of itself l'shma - that is, it was a recognition that God is in control, and that Balak was subject to his will.
And with respect to that recognition, Balak's destructive hope for what God's will would be has no relevance at all.
My problem with this answer is that the language of the gemara speaks of an “osek b’mitzvah" for the wrong reasons not deserving to be born, not just one who learns with destructive intentions.
ReplyDeleteThe Gemarot that speaks of Oseq beMisvot are those that "tell us that even a mitzvah done she’lo lishma has merit"(Nazir 23b, and also Pesachim 50b), but the one which uses "... should never have been born"(Berakhot 17a) doesn't talk about Oseq beMisvot.
The Gemara in Berakhot 17a says:
מרגלא בפומיה דרבא תכלית חכמה תשובה ומעשים טובים שלא יהא אדם קורא ושונה ובועט באביו ובאמו וברבו ובמי שהוא גדול ממנו בחכמה ובמנין
,in English:
"A favourite saying of Raba was: The goal of wisdom is repentance and good deeds, so that a man should not study Torah and Mishnah and then despise his father and mother and teacher and his superior in wisdom and rank",
meaning that only the Talmud Torah without proper intent( of "repentance and good deeds") is abominable, not other Misvot. So, even when Raba says "If one does them for other motives, it were better that he had not been created"( וכל העושה שלא לשמה נוח לו שלא נברא), the haOseh( "does them") is referring to Qore veShoneh( "study Torah and Mishnah").
Also, if the Chavatzeles haSharon’s distinction is correct, Tosfos’ should have offered it to resolve the contradiction between gemaras ...
As I said above the Gemara in Berakhot 17a is only talking about Oseq baTorah sheLo liShma, so the Tosafot( for that Gemara) only asks about the conflict between them regarding the Oseq baTorah sheLo liShma.
Also, I'd like to say that I don't know where the Tosafot, in Nazir 23b, get from Berakhot 17a the quote:
העוסק במצוה שלא לשמה נוח לו שלא נברא
( maybe that's why they precede it with: Amrinan be'Alma).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAkiva M.: But the act of offering Korbanos to hashem was in and of itself l'shma - that is, it was a recognition that God is in control, and that Balak was subject to his will.
ReplyDeleteBesides what Balaq offered on his own( Bamidbar 22:40), which is not part of the 42, all the times he built altars and made sacrifices( Bamidbar 23:1-2, 23:14 and 23:29-30) were at the behest of Bil'am. Balaq did what he did, including the Qorbanot, leShem the success of Bil'am's mission. I doubt Balaq cared much whether it was haShem or, leHavdil, Kemosh(כמוש) who would grant the success.
If anyone, it was Bil'am whose "act of offering Korbanos to hashem was in and of itself l'shma - that is, it was a recognition that God is in control, and that Balak", and Bil'am himself, were "subject to his will"( see Rashi on Bamidbar 23:4 on "Et Shiv'at haMizbechot"), and according to your line of argument, it is him who should have merited reward for it.
>>>Also, I'd like to say that I don't know where the Tosafot, in Nazir 23b, get from Berakhot 17a the quote:
ReplyDeleteהעוסק במצוה שלא לשמה נוח לו שלא נברא
Obviously my post assumes that girsa. I would be hesitant to turn a machlokes in girsa into a machlokes in halacha.
Akiva M. -- someone who recognizes Torah is G-d's word, but learns with the intention of picking fights with others I think would also fall under the gemara's censure.
Chaim - sure, but is the act of learning Torah inherently an act of recognition of the source of the words? I don't think so; the essence of learning Torah isn't "recognition of source" but "absorption of content/meaning."
ReplyDeleteI would like to exchange links with your site www.blogger.com
ReplyDeleteIs this possible?
I would like to exchange links with your site divreichaim.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteIs this possible?