THE DIFFICULTIES IN UNDERSTANDING RAVA’S STATEMENTS THAT THE TORAH CAN BE A DEADLY POISON BASED ON WHAT we have explained, we can now answer [a seemingly difficult statement in] Tractate Yoma 72b: R. Yehoshua ben Levi said:**“**What is the meaning of the verse: ‘And this is the law which Moshe sam (set) [before the children of Israel]?’¹ If one is meritorious, it, [the Torah], becomes for him a medicine of life, if not, [it becomes] a deadly poison. That is what Rava [meant when he] said: “If he is uman bah, skillful in its use, it is a medicine of life unto him; [but if] he is not uman bah, skillful in its use, it is a deadly poison.”

footnotes: ¹ Deut. 4:44.

We can understand the interpretation of “if one is meritorious” from what Rashi writes (on this same folio of the Talmud) [in explaining the following statement] of R. Yohanan: “The Torah writes zar, “alien,” which may also be read as zer, “crown.” If you are meritorious, the Torah becomes a crown for you; if you are not meritorious, it becomes alien to you.” Rashi explains “meritorious” to mean that he merits to study the Torah and practice the commandments for their own sake. It is therefore clear that “not being meritorious” means that if one does not study the Torah for its own sake, it becomes “foreign to him,” which Rashi explains as meaning “he forgets it.” Such a person is unlike one (as described in Part 2, chapter 13), who studies [the Torah] for its own sake, thereby becoming like a river that never ceases [to flow] – in other words, never forgetting [what he has learned].

This interpretation [of Tractate Yoma] is difficult to understand, since R. Joshua ben Levi would then be stating that if one studies the Torah, not for its own sake, it becomes a deadly poison to him. [This conflicts with] the well-known statement [of our Sages] of blessed memory in Tractate Pesahim 50b: A person should always engage in the study of Torah and the performance of the commandments even [if they are not performed] for their own sake, for [even if at first] they are not performed for their own sake, eventually they will be performed for their own sake.

One cannot argue [that there is no conflict] since the proper interpretation of Yoma is that [the Torah] becomes a poison only for those who during their entire lifetimes do not study the Torah for its own sake. This cannot be because [of an additional statement by Rava]. Pesahim there states, “Sometimes one is zealous and is rewarded, while another is indolent and is rewarded,” etc. The Talmud there [cites a Baraisa] that one who is indolent and is rewarded “is one who does not work the entire week and [also] does not work on the eve of Shabbos.” Rashi explains that such a person is also considered to be one who performs a mitzvah not for its own sake. Rava then adds: “These women of Mehoza, even though they do not work on any day because they were pampered, since they do not work on the eve of Shabbos, they are considered as being lazy and [yet are] rewarded.”

One needs to understand what [novel concept] Rava is adding to what was already stated by the Baraisa. [He is pointing out] it is possible to believe that only if one has the potentialof eventually refraining from doing work on the eve of Shabbos for its own sake, such a person receives a reward [for performing this act, even when it is not performed for its own sake]. However, if one refrains from working on the eve of Shabbos because that is his nature, [i.e., he is lazy], since he will never [perform this act for its own sake], he would not receive a reward for refraining from working on the eve of Shabbos. Rava therefore adds, even though the women of Mehoza did not work on any day because they were pampered during their childhood [and thus because of their upbringing they would never refrain from performing work on Shabbos eve for its own sake], nonetheless, they are considered as being among those who are “indolent and rewarded.” For the phrase “Even if at first they are not performed for their own sake, they will eventually be performed for their sake” means that if another person sees the women from Mehoza refraining from work on the eve of Shabbos without knowing that they doing so because of their upbringing, he will assume that they are refraining from working on the eve of Shabbos for its own sake, [and he will do the same].

(Netziv’s Addendum – [Evidentiary support for this interpretation can be found] in Tractate Sanhedrin 105b, stating: If one performs a mitzvah not for its own sake, he will merit to have a descendant who performs the commandments for their own sake.² – End of Netziv’s Addendum)

footnotes: ² The Talmud there quoted in full is: “R. Yehuda said in the name of Rav, ‘A person should always engage in the study of Torah and the performance of the commandments even [if they are not performed] for their own sake, for when they are not performed for their own sake, eventually they will be performed for their sake.’ As a reward for the forty-two offerings that Balak offered to God [to assist Bilam in cursing Israel], he merited that Ruth should descend from him.’”

Therefore, there is an apparent conflict between the Yoma statements by R. Yehoshua ben Levi, [that “If one is not meritorious,³ it becomes a deadly poison,” followed] by Rava’s [statement agreeing] that “If one does not use it skillfully, it becomes a deadly poison,” and Rava’s own [statement in Pesahim that even those who perform the mitzvos not for their own sake will be rewarded even if they never perform the mitzvah for their own sake during their lifetimes]. One cannot attempt to resolve this problem by arguing that [the statement of R. Yehoshua ben Levi, pertaining to study not for its own sake [refers to a contentious person]. As Rashi explains [the statement in] Tractate Berachos 17a: “One who performs a mitzvah not for its sake – it would be better for him not to have been created,” as referring to a contentious person [who uses his Torah knowledge as a weapon against others]. Tosafos here and in Tractate Pesahim offers this same explanation. See also Tractate Ta’anis 7a, R. Bana’a used to say: “… if one studies the Torah not for its own sake, it becomes a deadly poison to him, as the Torah states, ‘My teachings shall drop as the rain,’ (Deut. 32:2). The term used here for dropping, ya’arof, also denotes killing, as it states, ‘They shall break, ve-arefu, the heifer’s neck.’” (Deut. 21:4)

footnotes: ³ This was explained to mean “not being performed for its own sake.”

However, it is impossible to explain the Tractate Yoma statements in this way. First, as we noted above, the opinion of R. Yehoshua ben Levi is written in the context of R. Yochanan’s statement [in Yoma dealing with studying for, or not for its own sake, and therefore it is unlikely that they are speaking of contentiousness]. In addition, how can we associate one who is contentious [using Torah knowledge to harm others] with the description of “one who does not merit?” Behold, the former is a sinner and transgressor who becomes contentious by exploiting the King’s crown!⁴ 1:13: “He who exploits the crown [of Torah] shall fade away.” Further, Rava states, “If he does not use it skillfully, it becomes a deadly poison.” If this is to be interpreted as “he is contentious,” why would Rava state that he “does not use it skillfully,” which implies that he is not doing anything wrong, but is simply not using it in the best manner? Behold, he is skilled in being contentious and harming others!

footnotes: ⁴ See Avos

Certainly, it must be that the words, “he does not merit,” is referring to one who does not study the Torah for its own sake, and therefore the original questions remain: why is it that [if one does not study the Torah for its own sake], it becomes a deadly poison? Further, it is Rava himself who stated in Tractate Pesahim that one receives a reward even when not studying the Torah or performing a mitzvah for its sake,⁵ 50b states that Rava accords with R. Yehuda, who said, “A man should always occupy himself with Torah and good deeds even if it is not for their own sake, since doing good out of an ulterior motive leads to doing good for its own sake.” and yet he states in Yoma that if one does not merit, i.e., he does not study the Torah for its own sake ─ it becomes a deadly poison to him.

footnotes: ⁵ Pesahim

I have a further question based on what is stated in Tractate Shabbos 88b: R. Hananel ben Papa said: “What is meant by, ‘Hear, for I will speak princely things;’⁶ why are the words of the Torah compared to a prince? [It is] to tell you that just as a prince has the power of life and death, so do the words of the Torah have [the potentialities] of life and death.” Thus Rava said: “To those who go to the right hand [of the Torah], it is a medicine of life; to those who go to the left hand thereof, it is a deadly poison.”⁷

footnotes: ⁶ Prov. 8:6. ⁷ The meaning of “right” and “left” is explained in the next two paragraphs.

Furthermore, see what is stated in the same Tractate [Shabbos] 61a:⁸ Rava ben R. Shila said, while others say R. Yoseph ben Hama said in the name of R. Sheshes: “What is meant by the verse, ‘Length of days is in her right hand, in her left hand are riches and honor’?⁹ Is there in her right hand length of days only, but not riches and honor? Rather [the proper interpretation is] those who go to the right hand there is length of days, and certainly riches and honor, whereas for those who go to the left hand there are riches and honor, but not length of days.” Rashi explains that the left hand, as the weaker one, is descriptive of those who do not study the Torah as deeply as required, or they do not study the Torah for its own sake. One can ask regarding R. Hananel ben Papa: why does he explain that for those who go to the left hand [of the Torah] it is a deadly poison; yet we see that there are riches and honor for those who go to the left hand as well?

footnotes: ⁸ I found it at 63a. ⁹ Prov. 3:16.

One may suggest that in those areas of Torah that one merited to acquire because of one’s natural abilities, such a person fulfills the commandment of studying the Torah, even if he does not study it for its own sake. However, if a person studies areas of the Torah that are beyond his natural abilities, it is good to say that if he merits to study the Torah for its own sake, the Torah assists him to comprehend it, even though it was not originally within his ken. This is the meaning of [Rava in Shabbos 88a that the Torah] becomes a medicine of life for him. Yet if he strives to understand those areas of the Torah that are beyond his natural abilities, and he does not study the Torah for its own sake, it then becomes a deadly poison to him. [Therefore, when Tractate Shabbos 63a states that there are riches and honor for the one who does not study the Torah for its own sake, it is speaking of those areas that are understandable to him with his inborn abilities]. This would appear to be the proper interpretation.

However, this interpretation is not apt, for why would [R. Yehoshua’s and Rava’s statements] be limited to Torah study when any matter of wisdom that a person strives to comprehend beyond his natural ability involves danger?¹⁰ Why would Scripture state, “This is the Torah,”¹¹ meaning that it is unique to the Torah? [Also Proverbs] states: “Hear, for I will speak princely things,” from which the Sages in Tractate Shabbos [inferred that the words of Torah have the potentialities of life and death], which also makes it clear that this statement is limited to the Torah. [Therefore, the statements cannot be speaking of one studying the Torah not for its own sake in a way that exceeds his natural abilities, otherwise these statements should have been expanded to studying the other areas of knowledge not for their own sake as well].

footnotes: ¹⁰ It is cited in chapter 2 of this section. ¹¹ Deut. 4:44.

This matter can be understood by carefully re-examining the wording of the above-mentioned Tractate Yoma, which infers [that the words of Torah can be either an elixir of life or a deadly poison] from the verse, “This is the law which Moshe set [before the children of Israel].” Why is this derived from the words “which Moshe set?” Granted, the Mechilta, on the Torah portion of Be-shalah, infers from these words that the Torah is associated with [Moshe’s] name. Nevertheless, since the inference that the Torah is like an elixir [of life or death] is only alluded to by a verse linking the Torah to Moshe, a reason for this exegesis is necessary. [A further difficulty] is how the prophet Malachi warns [Israel to keep] the Torah: “Be mindful of the teaching of My servant Moshe, whom I charged at Horeb with laws and rules for all Israel.”¹² It is difficult to understand why there is a need for this extra phrase and description “Whom I charged at Horeb,” etc.¹³

footnotes: ¹² Mal. 3:22. ¹³ Malachi should have simply stated, “Be mindful of the teaching of my servant Moshe.”

However, this can be explained by what is stated in Tractate Nedarim 38a: R. Yosi ben R. Hanina said: “The Torah was given only to Moshe and his seed, for it is written, ‘Write for yourself these words’¹⁴ [and] ‘Carve for yourself’:¹⁵ just as the carvings [of the Tablets] are yours, so is the writing yours. But Moshe generously gave it to Israel, and concerning him it is said, ‘He who possesses a bountiful eye shall be blessed, etc.’”¹⁶ R. Hisda objected, “[The Torah states]: ‘God commanded me at that time to teach you hukim [statutes] and mishpatim [judgments]?’”¹⁷ [R. Yosi answered], “[It should be translated as], ‘He commanded me, and I [passed it on] to you.’”¹⁸ “[There is a further objection, as the Torah states]: ‘Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me?’”¹⁹ [R. Yosi answered], “He commanded me, and I then taught you.” “[Another objection is that Scripture states]: ‘Now, therefore, write this song for you!’”²⁰ [R. Yosi answered], “This refers only to the song²¹, Deut. 32:1–43. [whereas the rest of the Torah had been given to Moshe alone].” “[But does not “song” refer to the entire Torah, as Scripture states]: ‘This song shall be a witness against the children of Israel’?”²² “Only pilpul be-alma [the pilpul method] [was given to Moshe alone, and he later taught it to the people].”

footnotes: ¹⁴ Ex. 34:27. ¹⁵ Ex. 34:1. ¹⁶ Prov. 22:9. ¹⁷ Deut. 4:14. This proves that it was not given to Moshe for himself. ¹⁸ This is the answer, which interprets the verse as: “And God commanded me at that time [and I determined] to teach you,” etc. ¹⁹ Deut. 4:5. ²⁰ Deut. 31:19. “For you” implies that it was given to the Israelites in the first place. ²¹ This refers to Ha’azinu ²² Deut. 31:19. If the reference is to the song alone, how can that testify against Israel?

The Rosh explains that pilpul refers to the understanding and sharpness of reasoning. That is what is meant by [the phrase], “The writing is yours,” for all wisdom and reasoning are hinted at in the writing of the Torah by the forms of the letters. (The Netziv’s addendum – One must say that “forms of the letters,” refers to how the letters are combined, [such as] when words are written haser [with missing letters], or malei [with all of the letters], or when an unusual use [of a word or letter is employed]²³ would be translated as “the general pilpul method,” “forms of letters” must refer to how the Thirteen Hermeneutical Principles can be applied by analyzing how letters and words are combined in various forms. The Rosh would be employing similar language as used in Tractate Kiddushin 49a, where “as it is formed” refers to how the words in a verse are written. – end of Netziv’s addendum).

footnotes: ²³ The Netziv appears to be arguing that since pilpul be-alma

The Mefaresh to Nedarim writes, “The ability to infer one matter from another, [was given to Moshe, and he treated it with generosity by giving it to Israel].” We will expand on the significance of this later.²⁴ We learn from this that the pilpul method, i.e., deriving Halachah by meticulous exegesis of Scripture, and by application of the thirteen hermeneutical principles with which the Written Law may be expounded, was given to Moshe alone. All of Israel was limited to the halachic decision process by applying the Halachah that Moshe received at Mount Sinai pertaining to every parasha and mitzvah of the Torah. Where no tradition was received, the Halachah was to be derived by using logic in comparing one matter to another, as it states in Tractate Bava Basra 130b, “In the entire [domain of] the Torah comparisons are made.” This is the main halachic decision method found in Israel. We previously explained in Part 1, chapter 4, how this method is written [in Scripture] pertaining to the “rebellious scholar.” Scripture first states: “You must approach the scholarly priests and the shofet who are alive at that time,”²⁵ and then states [a few verses later], “If any man [who is ordained and sits on the Great Sanhedrin]²⁶ should rebel and refuse to listen to the Kohen who is in charge of serving the Lord your God there, or to the shofet [judge]….”²⁷ These verses are difficult to comprehend, for what does the Kohen “who is in charge of serving God” have to do with addressing uncertainties in Halachah, which can be resolved by [one who possesses] exceptional wisdom, such as the Head of the Sanhedrin, i.e., the shofet?

footnotes: ²⁴ See chapter 8 of this section. ²⁵ Deut. 17:9. ²⁶ Sanhedrin 87a. ²⁷ Deut. 17:12.

However, there are two types of extraordinary [judges]. One type [addresses] doubts pertaining to areas of pilpul [deep analysis], and these types of issues are asked of the shofet, i.e., the Head of the Sanhedrin. The second type [of judge addresses] questions that involve comparative logic, and in this area the [greatest] power of adjudication was given to Aharon, as it states, “[You, Aharon,²⁸ will also be able] to render decisions for the Israelites in all the laws that God has taught you through Moshe.”²⁹ It is impossible to rely on the pilpul method for the more common forms of adjudication, because that requires argumentation and deliberation;³⁰ this method relies instead on sound logic.

footnotes: ²⁸ Or any other High Priest. ²⁹ Lev. 10:11. ³⁰ It would be impossible to set aside the amount of time needed to address the numerous halachic questions.

Translator’s note: For the next several pages, the Netziv will be proving that when the Torah describes the High Priest as having the “crown of anointing oil,” it is stating that the High Priest was foremost in rendering on-the-spot halachic decisions. His analysis pertains to the two ways the High Priest assumed office: • By being anointed with the oil of anointment. • By donning the vestments of his office. This High Priest is called merubeh bi-vegadim, literally translated (as the priest distinguished by) a “larger number of [official] garments.” During the Second Temple era, when no anointing took place, the High Priest assumed office in this manner. Following Aharon, every High Priest was greatest and foremost in deciding Halachah by applying the known traditions he amassed and by using comparative logic. With this [concept] we can understand what is written in the Torah portion of Emor, “The Priest who is greatest among his brethren, upon whose head was poured the anointing oil…. He shall not leave the Sanctuary and he shall not profane his God’s Sanctuary,³¹ for the crown of his God’s anointing oil is upon him,” etc.³² The usage of “crown” in “the crown of his God’s anointing oil,” is unclear. In addition, it is known that the High Priest who assumed office by donning the special vestments performed his duties while being an onen, [a mourner before the burial of a close relative]. This is difficult because the verse explicitly states, “For the crown of his God’s anointing oilis upon him,” which implies that only the High Priest who assumed office with the oil of anointing [was prohibited from leaving the Sanctuary] – not the High Priest who assumed office by donning the special vestments. Rashi in Tractate Horayos 12b, s.v. Talmud Lomar, states: “The High Priest serves while he is an onen regardless if he assumed his office with the oil of anointment or by donning the special vestments… for [these two types of High Priest] are included within the category of a High Priest….”

footnotes: ³¹ The High Priest, who is forbidden to assist in the activities related to the burial of a relative, may not even follow the funeral procession. ³² Lev. 21:10–12.

I find this problematic because of the [source of the] prohibition against the High Priest marrying a widow [demonstrates that the various types of High Priest cannot be inferred from one another]:³³ 12b. “The priest who is highest among his brethren,”³⁴ refers to the High Priest; “Upon whose head the anointing oil is poured”³⁵ refers to the priest who is anointed for war; “Who is consecrated to put on the garments”³⁶ refers to the High Priest who is dedicated by the additional garments alone.

footnotes: ³³ Horayos ³⁴ Lev. 21:10. ³⁵ Id. ³⁶ Id.

We therefore see that if the Torah did not state explicitly the law pertaining to the priest appointed to wear the special vestments, [the prohibition against his marrying a widow] would not be inferred from the priest who had been anointed with the oil of office. Therefore, how is it known that the one appointed to wear the special vestments is included in the requirement for a High Priest to perform his duties while he is an onen?

The source is from the Toras Kohanim³⁷ where it states: We only know that a Priest who is appointed with the oil of anointment [is to serve when he is an onen]; from where is it known that this same rule applies to the one appointed by the special vestments? The Torah therefore states, “For the anointing oil of God is [upon you].”³⁸ Although this [text] is unclear, the holy one, Eliyahu,³⁹. correctly edits [this Toras Kohanim] by [including a different verse], “For the crown of his God’s anointing oil is upon him.”⁴⁰ However, this exegesis remains unclear, [for how can the words pertaining to anointing oil teach us that even the one appointed by the special vestments may perform the service even while he is an onen]?

footnotes: ³⁷ See Parashas Emor, perek 1, Parasha 2. ³⁸ Lev. 10:7. ³⁹ He is referring to the Vilna Gaon’s editions to the Toras Kohanim ⁴⁰ Lev. 21:12.

It appears that this Toras Kohanim can be explained by the previously cited Tractate Yoma: “The Torah writes zar, “alien,” which may also be read as zer, “crown.” If you are meritorious, the Torah becomes for you a crown, if you are not meritorious, it becomes alien to you.” Zer refers to the crown on the Ark that resided in the Holy of Holies, for it was from there that the power of halachic decision-making emanated, enabling one to attain the truth through comparative reasoning.⁴¹ It is pertaining to this that [Yoma] inferred that if one does not merit [to receive the crown of halachic decision-making], the traditions will be forgotten by him. It is for this reason that “crown” was written such that it may be read in two different ways: [zer, “crown” and zar, “foreign”]. However, pertaining to the High Priest, who most certainly merited to [obtain the crown of halachic decision making], Scripture clearly states, “For the zer [crown] of his God’s anointing oil is upon him.” [“Crown”] teaches us that even if he does not have God’s anointing oil upon him, [i.e., he is appointed by the special vestments], nevertheless the crown [of the Ark] is upon him, i.e., [Divine assistance] for halachic decision making.⁴² who was an onen was not allowed to be involved with a close relative’s funeral.

footnotes: ⁴¹ This methodology is unlike the forceful logic of pilpul, requiring deep analysis. It is discussed in Part 1. ⁴² Thus any kohen gadol

The power of halachic decision existed in the Tent of Meeting, for it was from there that the teaching of the law emanated for Israel. It states in the Midrash Rabbah pertaining to the verse in Song of Songs: “‘To the chamber of her – horasi – who conceived me,’⁴³ may be translated as “that instructed me.” [‘chamber’] refers to the Tent of Meeting, from which issues forth the teaching of the law.”⁴⁴

footnotes: ⁴³ Song of Songs 3:4. The word horasi ⁴⁴ See Vayikra Rabbah, parasha 1.

However, to know the pilpul method, enabling one to comprehend deeply how the traditions are all alluded to in the Torah, and how to [use this comprehension] to derive laws that are not addressed by tradition (as we have written in Part 1, chapters 6 and 7) initially – these were provided only to Moshe and his descendants. When our teacher Moshe arrived at the plains of Moab, he taught [this methodology] to all of Israel, and this is why Moshe taught the Torah a third time on the plains of Moab.⁴⁵ and Harhev Davar on Deut. 1:3. See Sotah 37b and Hagigah 6b, where R. Akiva states: “Both general and particular laws were proclaimed at Sinai, repeated in the Tent of Meeting, and for the third time in the plains of Moab.” Moshe did not merely review with them what he had previously taught, for why would the Torah specify only “the plains of Moab?” He [continued] to study and teach as much as possible, throughout the entire forty years that they traveled in the wilderness. Rather, the third time Moshe taught them the Torah, he taught them a new methodology, which is pilpul and inference from Scripture. This [idea] is clearly stated in the Midrash Rabbah on Shemos 40, [Scripture states]: “Then did He see it, and declare it; He established it and hikerah, searched it out.”⁴⁶ [This teaches us], “Then did he see it and declare it” at Sinai, [then] “he established it” in the Tent of Meeting, [and he] “hikerah, searched it out” in the plains of Moab.”

footnotes: ⁴⁵ See how the Netziv expands on this matter in Ha’amek Davar ⁴⁶ Job 28:27.

In the Tent of Meeting he prepared the laws [that Israel would] practice, for from there the teaching of laws for Israel issued forth. Yet in the plains of Moab, [Moshe together with the people] investigated in order to learn the rationale of the laws; [the methodology that] was described in Part 1⁴⁷ pertaining [to our interpretation of the words]⁴⁸ means to investigate the rationale of the law. izen, ponder, and *hiker,*investigate.

footnotes: ⁴⁷ Chapter 7. ⁴⁸ Eccl. 12:9. It was explained that hiker