Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת סוטה דף כ"א. We will start from the seventh line from the top of עמוד א'. And here the גמרא goes back to explain the משנה. It mentioned in the משנה, that ויש זכות תולה ג' שנים וכולי. That sometimes the effect of the water on the סוטה is suspended for three years because of a זכות. If the woman has a זכות, a special merit, it suspends the punishment, and it could even suspend it for three years. So the גמרא asks, זכות דמאי? The merit of what? What kind of זכות are we talking about? אילימא זכות דתורה, if you're going to say the זכות of תורה, that if she studied תורה, so the זכות of her studying תורה would suspend the effect of the water. But the גמרא says that couldn't be because הא אינה מצווה ועושה היא, she is not commanded and she does. We know that the reward for doing a מצוה if you are commanded to do it is greater than the reward you get for doing a מצוה if you're not commanded. And this woman, since she is not commanded to study תורה, as רש"י quotes the פסוק where it says, ולמדתם אותם את בניכם, you should teach them, meaning the תורה, to your sons, and the גמרא דרש'נס ולא את בנותיכם, not to your daughters. So, women are not obligated to learn תורה. So if a woman does learn תורה, she's only doing it as an אינו מצווה ועושה, as one that is not commanded and keeps. The reward for that is not so great. So, therefore, it is hard to say that the זכות of her learning תורה should be that strong that it should have a כח, the power to suspend the effect of the water for a long time, up to three years. אלא, so therefore you must say, זכות דמצוה, the זכות of her doing מצות. That if she does the מצות, that זכות will suspend the effect of the water for three years. But the גמרא asks, זכות דמצוה מי מגנא כולי האי? Does the זכות of the מצוה protect for that long? והתניא, we've learned in a ברייתא, את זו דרש רבי מנחם ברבי יוסי. This is what רבי מנחם ברבי יוסי דרש'נד, what he taught. He

explained the פסוק in משלי ו'. It says, כי נר מצוה ותורה אור. That a מצוה is like a candle and the תורה is like light. So we see that the תורה is תלה הכתוב את המצוה בנר, the תורה connects a מצוה with a candle. ואת התורה באור, and the תורה with light. To teach us that what? את המצוה בנר, the reason a מצוה is compared to a candle, לומר לך, to tell you, מה נר אינו מגינה אלא לפי שעה, just like a candle only protects only temporarily, or the other גירסא is, that מה נר אינו מאירה אלא לפי שעה, just like a candle only shines temporarily. אף מצוה אינה מגינה אלא לפי שעה. A מצוה, too, only protects temporarily. ואת התורה באור, the reason we compare the תורה to light, לומר לך, to tell us tell you, מה אור מגין לעולם, or מאיר לעולם, just like light protects forever, or shines forever, אף תורה מגינה לעולם, so does תורה protect forever in a permanent way. ואומר, there's another פסוק which is also in משלי, just a פסוק before the previous פסוק of כי נר מצוה ותורה אור, and that פסוק also tells us that the תורה protects forever. The פסוק says, בהתהלכך תנחה אותך וגומר. The whole פסוק is, בהתהלכך תנחה אותך, which means, when you will go, it will lead you, בשכבך תשמור עליך, when you will lay down, it'll watch over you, והקיצות היא תשיחך, and when you wake up, that will be your talk, it will talk to you. So he דרש'נס this פסוק, בהתהלכך תנחה אותך, when you will go, it will lead you, זה העולם הזה, that's in this world. That if you learn תורה, it will lead you in this world. בשכבך תשמור עליך, when you will lay down, it'll watch over you, זו מיתה, that's after you die. והקיצות היא תשיחך, and when you wake up this will be your talk, that is לעתיד לבא, that is for the future in the world to come. So, we see here, too, that the תורה doesn't only protect temporarily, but it protects forever in a permanent way. And he says,

משל לאדם, an example, a parable of a person, שהיה מהלך באישון לילה, that he was walking in the darkness of the night, ואפילה, and it was dark. ומתיירא מן הקוצים, and he was afraid from the thorns, ומן הפחתים, and from the pits, ומן הברקנים, and from the thistles, ומן חיה רעה, and from wild animals, ומן הליסטים, and from robbers, and also ואינו יודע באיזה דרך מהלך, and he doesn't know on which road he is going. נזדמנה לו אבוקה של אור, if he got a torch of light, so that causes that ניצל מן הקוצים ומן הפחתים ומן הברקנים, that now he is saved and protected from the thorns, from the pits, and from the thistles. But ועדיין מתיירא מן חיה רעה ומן הליסטים, but he's still afraid of the wild animals and from the robbers, ואינו יודע באיזה דרך מהלך, and he still doesn't know which way he is going, because even though he has a torch, so now he will see not to fall into a pit and not to get hurt by the thorns, but still this will not save him from the robbers and from the wild animals. And this will also not tell him on which road he is going. כיון שעלה עמוד השחר, as soon as the morning star went out, which means it gets light, ניצל מן חיה רעה ומן הליסטים, so now he's also saved from the wild animals and from the robbers. And as רש"י says, because the wild animals and the robbers only go during the night, as there is a פסוק that says, תשת חושך ויהי לילה בו תרמוש כל חיתו יער, that when it's dark, that's when all the wild animals and also the robbers come crawling, could attack you. But when it gets light, then you are saved from the wild animals and from the robbers. But ועדיין אינו יודע באיזה דרך מהלך, but still he does not know on which way he goes. הגיע לפרשת דרכים, when he comes to the fork in the road and you realize which road you're on, then ניצל מכולם, at that point, you are saved from them all. And this is a משל for the מצות and the תורה as we said before. מצות are compared to a candle. So it is also compared to a torch, which is similar to a candle. So when it says in the משל, that when you're going in the street and you're are not protected from anything, when you get the torch you are at least protected from falling into a pit and you're protected from being hurt by thorns, that is a משל to מצות. That when you do מצות, it protects you partially. But still it says you are not protected 100% from the robbers and from the wild animals, which means that even though you have מצות, you're still not sure that you will not sin later on, and you are not sure that you will not be punished later on. And therefore it continues, that when it becomes light, and that means when you have the תורה, because תורה is compared to light as we said before, תורה אור, then you're also protected from the wild animals and from the robbers. Which means that when you learn תורה, then you have a greater זכות, and you're also protected from doing עבירות, and ממילא you are also protected from being punished. But still it says you are not 100% protected, you still don't know on which road you're going, which mean that even though you learn תורה, you're still not sure, maybe the יצר הרע will overcome you, your evil inclination will overcome you. But then when you come to the fork in the road and you realize where you're going, then you are 100% protected. Now what that fork in the road is, the גמרא will explain later on, but one of the פשטים is זה יום המיתה, which means the day of death, that if a person continues to do the מצות and study תורה up to the day that he dies, and he dies while he is still a תלמיד חכם, then he knows that he is protected from all. But in the meantime, we see from here that the זכות of תורה is much greater than the זכות of מצות. So the קשיא is, how could we say before that the זכות of מצות is great enough that it could suspend the effect on the water on the סוטה? And then we continue more, all to show that the זכות of מצות are not that great. דבר אחר, another פשט, another explanation in this פסוק that we said before: כי נר מצוה ותורה אור, that a מצוה is compared to a candle, and the תורה is compared to light, because עבירה מכבה מצוה, an עבירה could extinguish a מצוה, which means an עבירה could extinguish the שכר of a מצוה. If a person did a מצוה and he's supposed to get rewarded for it, if he later on does an עבירה, that could extinguish the שכר he is supposed to get for the מצוה. But ואין עבירה מכבה תורה, but an עבירה cannot extinguish the שכר he's supposed to get for תורה, for learning תורה. And that is the פשט in the פסוק, כי נר מצוה ותורה אור. Just like you could extinguish a candle, you could extinguish the מצוה. And just like you cannot extinguish the light of the day, you cannot extinguish the שכר you're supposed to get for תורה. שנאמר, and he quotes a פסוק, a ראיה that you cannot extinguish the שכר you're supposed to get for תורה, because it says מים רבים לא יוכלו לכבות את האהבה, that many waters cannot extinguish the אהבה, the love. Now this love refers to תורה. As רש"י says, there's a פסוק in שיר השירים that says ודגלו עלי אהבה, and that refers to תורה. So what we're saying here is that nothing could extinguish the love, which means the תורה. And that's why תורה is compared to the light. Just like you can't extinguish the light, you cannot extinguish the שכר of תורה. But in the meantime we see from here that the שכר of תורה is very great, And the גמרא answers אמר רב יוסף, רב יוסף said that even though the זכות of מצוות is not as great as the זכות of תורה, nevertheless it still has the power of suspending the effect of the water because the difference between תורה and מצוות is that מצוה בעידנא דעסיק בה מגנא ומצלא. מצוות, at the time when you're involved in doing the מצוות, it protects you from punishment, as רש״י explains, and it also saves you from the יצר הרע, not to continue doing עבירות. בעידנא דלא עסיק בה, at the time when you are not involved in doing the מצוות, afterwards, so then אגוני מגנא, it still has the power of protecting from the punishment, אבל אצולי לא מצלא, it does not save the person from the יצר הרע. But

תורה, בין בעידנא דעסיק בה בין בעידנא דלא עסיק בה, whether it is the time while he's involved in learning תורה or at the time when he's not involved in learning תורה, he already finished learning his תורה, מגנא ומצלא, it has the power of protecting from the punishment and also saves you from the יצר הרע. So we see that even though מצוות are not as great as תורה, but nevertheless, it does have the power of protecting from יסורים, from punishment, and therefore by the סוטה too, the זכות of מצוות has the כח of suspending the effect of the water. מתקיף לה רבה, or according to the גירסא of רבא, רבא asked a קשיא, אלא מעתה, if so, דואג ואחיתופל מי לא עסקו בתורה? דואג and אחיתופל, did they not learn תורה? אמאי לא הגינה עלייהו? Why didn't it protect them? And really the גמרא here does not mean protect, the גמרא means here to save them from the יצר הרע. That since they learned תורה, and we said before that if you study תורה, so while you study or afterwards while you're not studying תורה, it has the power of protecting from the יסורים, from the punishment, and it also has the power always of saving the person from the יצר הרע. So why didn't the תורה that they learned save them from the יצר הרע? And really what happened to them, they became רשעים. They turned away from doing the מצוות and they started doing עבירות, they became רשעים. So why didn't the תורה that they studied save them from following their יצר הרע? אלא אמר רבא, so therefore רבא said the פשט is different. תורה בעידנא דעסיק בה מגנא ומצלא. תורה, while you're studying the תורה, it protects you from the punishment and saves you from the יצר הרע. בעידנא דלא עסיק בה, at the time when you're not studying it, אגוני מגנא, it protects from the punishment, אצולי לא מצלא, but it doesn't save from the יצר הרע. And מצוה, בין בעידנא דעסיק בה בין בעידנא דלא עסיק בה, whether you're involved in doing the מצוה or while you're not involved in doing the מצוה, but afterwards, אגוני מגנא, it does protect the person from the יסורים, from the punishment, אבל אצולי לא מצלא, but it doesn't save from the יצר הרע. And this is the difference between תורה and מצוות, not as the difference was mentioned before. And according to this difference, we do understand why דואג ואחיתופל, even though they learned תורה, were not saved from the יצר הרע, because we said before that even if you study תורה, not while you are studying תורה, not during that time, it does not have the כח of saving a person from the יצר הרע. And therefore, even though they studied תורה, but since later on it was after they studied the תורה, they were not able to be saved from the יצר הרע and therefore they became רשעים. But concerning the תירוץ that we wanted to give on the קשיא of this גמרא, that how can the זכות of מצוות suspend the effect of the water on the סוטה, the תירוץ still remains that since מצוות also have the power of protecting a person from punishment, so therefore the זכות of the מצוות that this woman did could suspend the effect of the water.

רבינא אמר, רבינא comes to answer the question in a different way. The question we asked before, that what kind of זכות does the משנה refer to when it says that if she has a זכות, it suspends the effect of the water? But he says לעולם זכות תורה, that really it means the זכות of her studying תורה. ודקאמרת, ah, you said אינה מצווה ועושה, that she does it not being commanded, so the reward for that is not that great, so therefore how can that זכות be enough to suspend the effect of the water? So he answers נהי דפקודי לא מיפקידא, true is that she was not commanded to study תורה herself, but still, באגרא, in the reward, דמקרין וממתנן בנייהו, that they make sure that their sons study תורה, they study מקרא, which is the חומש, and they study משנה, which is the משניות, and also ונטרין להו לגבריהו עד דאתו מבי מדרשא, and they also wait for their husbands till they come from the בית מדרש, till they come from the ישיבה, because in those times they would be far away and it would take a long time until they would come back, and they would wait for their husbands to return, so because of that שכר, מי מי לא פלגן בהדייהו? Don't they share the reward that their husband gets? And since the studying תורה of their husbands and of their children is מצוה ועושה, they are commanded to do it, so their reward is great. And since she gets a share in their reward, so she also has a reward of a מצוה ועושה, of somebody who was commanded and does the מצוה. And therefore, the זכות that she has from helping her husband and her children learn תורה, that זכות is strong enough to suspend the effect of the water, because that is a זכות not of somebody who is an אינו מצוה ועושה, of somebody who does something not being commanded, but that is a זכות and a reward of somebody who is commanded, because the husband and the children are commanded, so she gets part of their reward as if she was commanded too. Then the גמרא goes back to explain the ברייתא we brought before. We said before in the משל that when is the person protected 100%? After he reaches the פרשת דרכים, after he reaches the fork in the road. The גמרא asks,

מאי פרשת דרכים? What do we mean in the נמשל, when we use the משל of a פרשת דרכים, of him reaching the fork in the road? אמר רב חסדא, so רב חסדא said, זה תלמיד חכם ויום מיתה, that refers to a תלמיד חכם and the day of his death. Which means that the day of his death comes and he still remains a תלמיד חכם, he still remains a person who studies the תורה. So when you reach that point and you still continue studying תורה, then you are protected 100% that you're free from all problems. רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר, so רב נחמן בר יצחק says, זה תלמיד חכם ויראת חטא, that is a person who is a תלמיד חכם and reaches the level of יראת חטא, of being afraid of doing עבירות, which means a real יראת שמים. So after a person does מצוות, and also studies תורה, and that causes him to become a ירא חטא, that he is afraid of עבירות, he's a real ירא שמים, then he is protected from all. Because since he learned תורה, he knows what is right and what is wrong, what you're allowed to do and what you're not allowed to do, he is also a ירא חטא, and that prevents him from listening to his יצר הרע, so when he reaches that level, then we are sure that he is protected from all. מר זוטרא אמר, מר זוטרא says, זה תלמיד חכם דסלקא ליה שמעתא אליבא דהילכתא, that refers to a תלמיד חכם that is able to say a דין according to the הלכה. And that is a special זכות, because it's possible for a person to learn תורה and פסקן a דין and not happen to פסקן according to the הלכה. And to have this כח to פסקן according to הילכתא, according to the הלכה, that is a special כח. When a person reaches that מדרגה, that level, then he knows he's protected from all. And as רש״י explains exactly how this fits to the משל, in the משל it was that even when the light came out, and he was protected from the animals and from the robbers, he still does not know on which way he is going, so here too, after he learns תורה, he's still not sure he's going on the right track. He's still not sure that what he is going to say will be accepted by his friends, by the other תלמידי חכמים, he is not sure that he will פסקן according to the הלכה. But when he is זוכה that he פסקנ'ס according to the הלכה and his חברים accept his words, then he knows that he is protected from all. Then the גמרא continues, we had mentioned before דבר אחר that there's another פשט in the פסוק: נר מצוה ותורה אור, that עבירה מכבה מצוה, an עבירה could extinguish the שכר of a מצוה, ואין עבירה מכבה תורה, but an עבירה cannot extinguish the שכר that you get for learning תורה. אמר רב יוסף, so רב יוסף said, דרשיה רב נחמן בר יוסף להאי קרא כסיני, רב נחמן בר יוסף דרש'נד, explained this פסוק like it was given from סיני, that's how well he explained it. And this refers to the פסוק: כי נר מצוה ותורה אור. And this refers to the דרש that the גמרא is going to say soon, which is actually the same דרש as we just said before, that עבירה מכבה מצוה ואין עבירה מכבה תורה. ואלמלי דרשוה דואג ואחיתופל הכי, if דואג ואחיתופל would have דרש'נד the פסוק the same way, לא רדפו בתר דוד, they wouldn't have chased after דוד. כתיב, because it says, a פסוק in תהלים, קפיטל ע״א: לאמר אלקים עזבו וגומר, saying: אלקים, God, has forsaken him, etc. And the end of the פסוק is: רדפו ותפשו כי אין מציל. They said: השם has forsaken דוד, so therefore, רדפו, you could chase him, ותפשו, you could catch him, כי אין מציל, there will be nothing that will save him. Because they thought that since דוד המלך did the עבירה with בת שבע, which an עבירה, which was an עבירה of עריות, an עבירה of immorality, so they thought therefore he lost his זכותים and they would be able to catch him. מאי דרוש? What did they דרש'ן? Where did they take it from? Because the תורה says, a פסוק in דברים, it says: ולא יראה בך ערות דבר דבר וגומר, השם said there should be not seen any immoral thing with you, and etcetera. The end of the פסוק is ושב מאחריך, so he should turn away from you. In other words, if השם sees something immoral with a person, he turns away from him. So they said, since דוד המלך did something immoral with בת שבע, therefore השם turned away from him and he lost his זכותים, and they were therefore they were able to chase him. והן אינן יודעים, but they did not know, שעבירה מכבה מצוה, that an עבירה could extinguish the שכר of a מצוה, but ואין עבירה מכבה תורה, but an עבירה cannot extinguish the שכר of תורה. And therefore, since דוד המלך had the שכר of תורה, therefore, they couldn't catch him because he had the שכר of תורה that would be מגין, that would protect him. And this is what רבי יוסף said, that this is the דרש that רב מנחם בר יוסי said, that he דרש'נד this דרש that עבירה מכבה מצוה ואין עבירה מכבה תורה, he דרש'נד it from the פסוק כי נר מצוה ותורה אור, as we said before, that a מצוה is compared to a candle, you could extinguish a candle, but תורה is compared to light that cannot be extinguished. So if they would have דרש'נד the פסוק the same way as רב מנחם בר יוסי, they would not have chased after דוד, because they would have realized that the זכות of תורה was able to protect דוד even though he did the עבירה according to their opinion. Then the גמרא

continues: מאי בוז יבוזו לו? What does the פסוק mean when it says, בוז יבוזו לו? This is the end of the פסוק that was quoted before, the פסוק of מים רבים לא יוכלו לכבות את האהבה, that many waters cannot extinguish the love, and as we said before, it means that nothing can extinguish the תורה, and the end of that פסוק is, אם יתן איש את כל הון ביתו באהבה בוז יבוזו לו. If anybody will give away all his money in trade for that אהבה, for that love, he will be embarrassed. People will embarrass him. People will ridicule him for doing such a thing. But the גמרא asks: What does that mean that a person should not give anything away for that love, which means for the תורה? אמר עולא, so עולא explained it: לא כשמעון אחי עזריה, it shouldn't be like שמעון, the brother of עזריה, ולא כרבי יוחנן דבי נשיאה, and you shouldn't be like רבי יוחנן of the house of the נשיא, of the prince, אלא, but you should be כהלל ושבנא, like הלל and שבנא. The story of שמעון אחי עזריה was that שמעון and עזריה were two brothers. שמעון studied תורה, and he was supported by his brother עזריה who did business. But because of that, עזריה got a share of the שכר that שמעון got for his learning תורה. And the same was with רבי יוחנן and the house of the נשיא. רבי יוחנן studied תורה, and the house of the נשיא, of רבי יהודה הנשיא, supported רבי יוחנן. And therefore the בי נשיאה got a share in the שכר of the תורה of רבי יוחנן. But, so the גמרא says here that you shouldn't be that way, but you should be like הלל ושבנא. What is the case of הלל ושבנא? דכי אתא רב דימי, when רב דימי came from ארץ ישראל, אמר, he said: הלל ושבנא אחי הוו, הלל and שבנא were brothers. הלל עסק בתורה, הלל learned תורה. שבנא עבד עיסקא, שבנא did business. לסוף אמר ליה, at the end, שבנא said to his brother הלל, תא נערוב, come let's make a deal, ונפלוג, and let's divide it, let's split. In other words, let me support you, and I will get a share in your learning תורה. יצתה בת קול ואמרה, came out a בת קול, a voice from Heaven, and said, אם יתן איש את כל הון ביתו וגומר, if a person will give all the money in the world in trade for the אהבה, for the love, for the תורה, the פסוק finishes off, בוז יבוזו לו, he will be ridiculed, he will be insulted, he will be embarrassed. And that's what the פסוק means, that a person should not give away his share in תורה to others who will support him, but should rather recognize the greatness of the שכר of תורה, and learn תורה in poverty if he has to. Then the גמרא continues to explain the משנה. It said in the

משנה, אומר בן עזאי, בן עזאי said, חייב אדם ללמד את וכולו, a person is supposed to teach his daughter תורה. But רבי אליעזר אומר, רבי אליעזר said, כל המלמד את בתו תורה, anybody who teaches his daughter תורה, מלמדה תפלות, teaches her immorality. And the גמרא asks a קשיא: תפלות סלקא דעתך? How could you have a הוה אמינא even to say that by teaching תורה you're teaching her immorality? How could you call תורה, חס ושלום, immorality? The גמרא answers: אלא אימא, therefore say, כאילו לימדה תפלות. It's as if he taught her immorality. אמר רבי אבהו, so רבי אבהו said, מאי טעמא דרבי אלעזר? What is the reason of רבי אלעזר? Why did רבי אלעזר feel that if you teach your daughter תורה, it's as if you teach her immorality? דכתיב, because there's a פסוק that says, and this is in משלי, משלי, קפיטל ח' פסוק י"ב, it says, אני חכמה שכנתי ערמה. I, חכמה, I, wisdom, was laying sly. And wisdom refers to the תורה. So what he's saying here is that this חכמה, the תורה, has to do with being sly. And this means that כי משנכנסה חכמה באדם, as soon as חכמה תורה enters the person, נכנסה עמו ערמומית. So a certain slyness enters into the person. Since when you learn תורה, your mind gets sharpened because there's a lot of wisdom in the תורה, so that brings a characteristic of slyness into the person's mind. And therefore we're afraid that if a woman is going to learn תורה, that will make her sly, and she will use that in the wrong direction, that she will do things hiddenly, and people will not know what she's doing, because she will become sly. And the גמרא asks, ורבנן, and those רבנן who argue against רבי אליעזר, and they do not hold that if you teach your daughter תורה it's as if you're teaching her immorality, האי אני חכמה מאי עבדי ליה, what do they do with this פסוק אני חכמה? Isn't there a clear פסוק that says that חכמה causes a person to become sly? And the גמרא answers, מיבעי ליה לכדדרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא, they need it for the דרש as רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא דרשנ'ט.

דאמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא, because רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא said, אין דברי תורה מתקיימין אלא במי שמעמיד עצמו ערום עליהם. The תורה does not exist only by a person who stands, so to speak, as if unclothed because of them. He דרשנ'ט that the word ערמה here does not come from the word ערום which means sly, but it comes from the word ערום which means naked. And what the פסוק is saying is that if a person wants to have the תורה, which means he wants the תורה to stay with him, he has to learn the תורה similar as if it would be unclothed. And as רש"י explains that means that he should unclothe himself from all other businesses. And even if he has to be poor, he should stay poor and learn תורה that way without any other involvement. שנאמר, as the פסוק says, אני חכמה שכנתי ערמה, that I, חכמה, am laying naked, which means that in order to stay חכמה, to have חכמה, you have to be unclothed of all other matters but of your learning תורה. And the גמרא continues, אמר רבי יוחנן, רבי יוחנן said, אין דברי תורה מתקיימין, the words of תורה cannot stay, אלא במי שמשים עצמו כמי שאינו, only by a person who makes himself as if he doesn't exist. A person who is not arrogant, a person who is not a בעל גאוה, a person who is very humble, and he considers himself as if he is nothing. שנאמר, as the פסוק says, and this is a פסוק in איוב, קפיטל כ"ח, והחכמה מאין תמצא, that חכמה will be found from nothing. And he דרשנ'ט it that when can חכמה be found by a person? Only if he is nothing, if he considers himself as if he is nothing. Then the גמרא goes back to explain the משנה further. But in the

משנה, רבי יהושע אומר, רוצה אשה וכו', in the משנה it said that רבי יהושע said a woman wants a קב and תפלות, which means she wants a small amount and תפלות, and sexual indulgence, מתשעה קבים ופרישות, better than nine קבים and separation. But the גמרא asks, מאי קאמר, what is רבי יהושע saying? What does that mean that she wants a קב and she wants תפלות? The גמרא answers, הכי קאמר, this is what he means to say, רוצה אשה בקב ותפלות עמו, מתשעה קבים ופרישות, that a woman would rather have a small amount of money, her husband should not give her much money, but he will give her תפלות, he will be with her more often, rather than having תשעה קבים, having nine קבים, which means a lot of money, and he would give her a lot of things, but he would have to be separated from her, there would have to be פרישות. And as we explained when we learned in the משנה, as רש"י explains, that it means that since the דין is that when a person's work, a person's job is far away from his house, his עונה, which means the amount of time he has to spend with his wife, is not as often as somebody whose job is close to home. So a woman would rather want that her husband should earn less money, but would be more often with her, rather than him having to earn a lot of money, but he would be far away from her, and the עונה, the time when they would spend together, would not be so often. And this is what רבי יהושע meant to say, that therefore a person should not teach his daughter תורה, because since it is the nature of a woman that she really wants this concept of תפלות, and therefore, if you will teach her תורה, this will help her to utilize the ערמומית, the slyness that she gets from the תורה for the ענין of תפלות, and therefore it is not right to teach your daughter תורה. Then the גמרא continues to explain the משנה. In

the משנה it said, הוא היה אומר, חסיד שוטה וכו'. Said in the משנה that he used to say a חסיד שוטה, a חסיד, a pious person who is a fool, ורשע ערום, a sly רשע, a sly, wicked person, ואשה פרושה, a woman who shows that she is a פרושה, that she is very mean a חסיד שוטה, a fool, a pious person, כגון, for instance, דקא טבעא איתתא בנהרא, a woman is drowning in the river, ואמר, and he says, לאו אורח ארעא, it is not fit, לאיסתכולי בה, that I should look at her, ואצולה, and I should save her. So he will not save her because it's a woman. So here we have a person who seems to be a חסיד, he is trying to show that he is pious, he doesn't want to look at a woman, but really he is a שוטה because because of that he's not saving her life. Or another example given in תוספות from the ירושלמי that if he sees a child that's drowning in the river and he says, "Let me first take off my תפילין, then I will jump in to save the child." By the time he takes off his תפילין, the child could die already. In a case like that, you shouldn't wait to take off your תפילין, you should jump into the water with your תפילין. But if he does that, he seems to be a חסיד, but the truth is he is a חסיד שוטה. Then the גמרא continues, היכי דמי רשע ערום? What is a רשע ערום, a sly, wicked person? אמר רבי יוחנן, and רבי יוחנן said, זה המטעים דבריו לדיין קודם שיבוא בעל דין חבירו, that if a person comes to the judge and tells him his case, his side, before his friend, the בעל דין, the one that he has this דין תורה with, comes and says his part. So he is a רשע because he is going against the דין, you're not allowed to do that, because the פסוק says לא תשא שמע שוא, as רש"י brings, and he is also sly because by doing that, the דיין who hears his side first, automatically his mind works for the benefit of this person, and later it's hard for him to also see the other side equally as he sees this side. So he is a רשע and he is a sly רשע, he's trying to get the דיין to פסקן the דין so that it should be for his benefit. ר' אבהו אומר, ר' אבהו says, זה הנותן דינר לעני, that if a person gives a דינר, a small coin, to a poor man, להשלים לו מאתיים זוז, in order to have that poor man complete his מאתיים זוז, his 200 זוז. The דין is that a person who doesn't own מאתיים זוז is considered an עני, is considered a poor person. But as soon as he has מאתיים זוז, he loses his status of being an עני. And דתנן, we learn in the משנה, מי שיש לו מאתיים זוז, someone who has 200 זוז, לא יטול, is not allowed to take לקט, שכחה, ופאה, ומעשר עני. These are the different things that you're supposed to give to a poor man. לקט is when you cut your field, you cut the wheat, those single wheat that falls down, you're supposed to leave them for the poor man to collect them. שכחה means if you forget a bundle of wheat in the field, you're not allowed to return to take it, you're supposed to leave it for the poor man. פאה is when you cut your field, you're supposed to leave the corner uncut, and that goes for the poor people. מעשר עני is a tenth of your crop that you're supposed to give to the poor people on every third year of שמיטה and every sixth year of שמיטה. Who is considered a poor man that is able to collect לקט, שכחה, or פאה, or מעשר עני? A person who does not have מאתיים זוז, does not own 200 זוז. היו לו מאתיים חסר דינר, if he has with one דינר less than 200, he's still considered an עני, ואפילו אלף נותנין לו כאחת, even if a thousand people would give them all their לקט, שכחה, פאה, מעשר עני all together at the same time, הרי זה יטול, he is allowed to take it. If one person gives him one דינר, and through that one דינר now he owns 200 זוז, he's not allowed to take anymore because now he's not an עני anymore. But if before he has the מאתיים זוז, together at the same time they give him even 1,000 זוז, or whatever it may be, he's allowed to take it all. Because as long as it's given at the same time, we cannot say that he is already an עשיר, he is already rich when he took it. And what this person is doing, when he sees this עני who has with one דינר less than מאתיים זוז, and he's able to collect לקט, שכחה, פאה, מעשר עני, but he wants to spoil it for him, because he has his own relatives who are poor people and they want to collect that לקט, שכחה, פאה, מעשר עני, what he would do is he would go over to this עני, give him one דינר, and that completes him to 200 זוז, and now he's not allowed to take any more לקט, שכחה, פאה, and his relatives will come and take it. That person is considered a רשע ערום. He's doing something slyly because על פי דין he didn't go against the תורה, because he only gave him a דינר of צדקה and he's allowed to do that, but on the other hand, he's considered a רשע because through that he spoiled him from collecting all that money, all that לקט, שכחה, פאה, מעשר עני that he could have collected. רב אסי אמר רבי יוחנן, רב אסי said in the name of רבי יוחנן, and who is considered a רשע ערום? זה המשיא עצה למכור בנכסים מועטים, that if a person advises somebody to sell when he has only a small amount of נכסים. And this refers to a case of a person who passed away, and his his children inherit from him his estate. The דין is that if there's a lot of נכסים, there's a big estate, then we divide the estate. Part of it goes as an inheritance to the sons, and part of it goes for the upkeep, for the support of the daughters, because the דין is that after a person passes away, his daughters are supposed to be supported from his estate. So if there is a lot of money, a lot of property to the estate, then they inherit some, and some goes for the support of the daughters. If there are נכסים מועטים, if there is not a big estate, there is only a small estate, so the first ones that take is the daughters. So whatever is supposed to go for the support of the daughters goes for that. If there is nothing left for the sons to inherit, we say, too bad, let them go and collect money, let them go and beg. So if a person advises somebody who only has נכסים מועטים, only a little bit of נכסים are leftover, and he advises him to sell it, what does he do? He causes the daughters not to have any estate from where to collect their support. And אמר רב אסי אמר רבי יוחנן, because רב אסי said in the name of רבי יוחנן, יתומים שקדמו ומכרו בנכסים מועטים, if the יתומים went along and they sold their נכסים מועטים, if it was a small estate and they sold it, מה שמכרו מכרו, the sale is valid, and therefore, the daughters will not have from where to collect the support. So if a person advises the יתומים, the orphans who inherited the נכסים מועטים, to sell it, since the sale is valid, that means that he is spoiling the daughters from getting their support. A person like that who gives that advice is considered a רשע ערום. Then the גמרא continues, אביי אמר, אביי said, זה המשיא עצה למכור בנכסים כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, that's a person who advises somebody to sell his property in the case as רבן שמעון בן גמליאל had פסק'נד a דין. What was the case of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל? דתניא, we learned, נכסי לך, if someone gives property to somebody and he says to him, my property should be given to you, ואחריך לפלוני, and after you're finished with it, it should go to somebody else. וירד הראשון ומכר, and the first person went along and he sold that property, ואכל, and he ate up, he used up the money that he got for that property, so now the second person has nothing to collect. השני מוציא מיד הלקוחות, so the second person who was supposed to get the property after the first one is able to go to the buyer, the one that bought the property from the first person, and take it away from him, because the original person had said that after the first one is finished with it, it should go to the second. So even though he sold it to somebody else, the second person is able to take it away from the buyer. דברי רבי, that is the opinion of רבי. But רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says, אין לשני אלא מה ששייר ראשון, the second one has nothing but what the first one left. But whatever the first one sold and now doesn't have the money that he received for the sale, the second person cannot collect. In other words, the second person loses, he cannot go to the לקוחות, to the buyer, and take away the field. So according to רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, if a person would advise the first person who received the property and tell him, go ahead and sell your property, that person is considered a רשע ערום. He caused through his advice, the second person who was awaiting to receive the property after the first one would be finished, loses. And this is only according to רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. According to רבי, he doesn't lose anything, because he could go along to the buyer and take it away from the buyer. But according to רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, he loses. So according to רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, the person who advises him to do this is considered a רשע ערום. רב יוסף בר חמא אמר רב ששת, רב יוסף בר חמא said in the name of רב ששת that who is considered a רשע ערום? זה המכריע אחרים בדרכיו, a person who is a hypocrite, but he tries to tell others to follow his ways. And the reason for that is because he wants them to think he's a big צדיק, and really hiddenly, he does many wrong things. רב זריקא אמר רב הונא, רב זריקא said in the name of רב הונא, זה המיקל לעצמו ומחמיר לאחרים, that's a person who is lenient for himself. When it comes to פסק'ן a דין for himself, he is very lenient, but when it comes to פסק'ן for others, there he is very strict. A person like that is considered a רשע ערום. עולא אמר, עולא said, who is a רשע ערום? זה שקרא ושנה, a person who learned מקרא and learned משנה, he learned חומש, תורה, and he learned משנה, אבל ולא שימש תלמידי חכמים, he didn't serve, he didn't attend to תלמידי חכמים. In other words, he didn't go to תלמידי חכמים to learn the reasons behind the דינים that are mentioned in the משניות. And that person is called a רשע, because if he just knows the משניות and doesn't know the reasons behind the משניות, he will פסק'ן a דין falsely, because you have to know the reasons in the דין of the משנה in order to know when you could compare certain cases to that דין, when you cannot compare. So sometimes, if you do not know the reasons, you'll פסקן something which is טמא, you will פסקן it's טהור. Something which is טהור, you'll פסקן טמא. Sometimes a person should be זכאי, should be right, you will פסקן he is חייב, he is wrong. When he has to be חייב, you will פסקן he is זכאי. Or something which is אסור, forbidden, you will פסקן it's מותר. Something that's מותר, you will פסקן that it's אסור. So therefore, a person, even though he is בקי in מקרא and משנה, he knows a lot of פסוקים and he knows a lot of משניות, but since he does not know the reasons for the משניות, he is considered a רשע ערום. Concerning what we learned earlier in the שיעור, that the גמרא brings the פסוק, כי נר מצוה ותורה אור, that a מצוה is compared to a candle and תורה is compared to light. And the גמרא says that just like a candle only lasts temporary, the same way a מצוה is only מגין לפי שעה, only protects temporarily, but תורה is compared to light, and just like a light is forever, so the תורה is forever, too. There is no time limit to the זכות, to the protection of תורה. So the צמח צדק, in his ספר אור התורה, in his פירוש על משלי, he explains the reason why the זכות of מצות are only temporary, in other words, they're limited with time, while the זכות of תורה is not limited to time. And he says that the difference is based on the general difference between תורה and מצות. תורה is not limited to time, while מצות is done with objects which are under the control of time and space. תורה means that we have to study, and in our minds, we have to understand the חכמה of השם, the wisdom of השם. So in order to learn תורה, we do not get involved with physical objects, with objects of the creation. Even though when we study תורה, we're learning about physical objects, but the תורה itself is something that's in a person's mind, and is not something that is done with a physical object. מצות, the only way we could do מצות is if we take actually physical objects, things of the creation, and we do the מצות with

them. For instance, if you put on תפילין, the only way we could fulfill that מצוה is by taking a physical piece of leather that is made according to the הלכות of תפילין, and with that, we fulfill the מצוה. Or when we give צדקה, we have to take a physical coin, and give that coin to an עני, and that's how we fulfill the מצוה of צדקה. And the same applies to most of the מצות, that they're connected to physical objects. The whole creation is divided into two parts of time and space. So any physical object which is part of the creation is limited to time, and also to space, but in our case, what's important is the fact that it's limited to time. So since the way we perform the מצות is through things which are limited to time, therefore the זכות that we get from מצות are also limited to time. But תורה, since the way we learn תורה is not through physical objects, it is that in our minds we understand the wisdom of השם that explains concerning the מצות of physical objects, but the תורה itself is not something physical. The תורה is not something which is under the control of time, and also not of space. So therefore, the זכות that we get from learning תורה is also beyond time. It is something which is לעולם, forever, and is not temporary, not under the limit of time. And the ליובאוויטשער רבי שליט"א, in his ספר לקוטי שיחות, in פרשת ואתחנן, goes further and says that based on this idea, we see that even though the גמרא tries to bring out a מעלה in תורה over מצות, nevertheless, this itself shows a מעלה in מצות over תורה. That even though concerning the זכות of how long the זכות will last, תורה is greater, but nevertheless, there is something special in מצוה that we do not have in תורה. Since תורה is not done with a physical object, therefore תורה does not have that characteristic of changing over a physical object into a spiritual being. Because לכתחילה we're not dealing with physical objects. While when we do a מצוה, we have this כח of changing over the physical object into a spiritual being. When we take a piece of leather, and we make a מצוה out of it, we use it for תפילין, then we take this physical object of תפילין, of leather, and this becomes a spiritual thing, this becomes the מצוה of תפילין. So the concept of changing the physical world to become a spiritual place, which is really the whole reason why השם created the world, he wanted us, יידן, through our actions, to elevate the world to a higher מדרגה. In other words, to take the physical world as it is, and bring spirituality into it. So that is done more through מצות than it is done through תורה. And this is

another reason he says why מצות are compared to a candle, and תורה is compared to light. Just like light does not change anything over into light, it is just light in itself, the same way the תורה is the חכמה of השם, and when we study the תורה, we fulfill the great מצוה of studying תורה, but nevertheless, we do not accomplish this concept of changing over something of the physical world into a spiritual being. But מצות are compared to a candle, because just like a candle, the way we get the fire, the light of the candle, is by burning the candle, in other words, it's changed, the physical part of the candle is transformed into fire and is transformed into light, the same is with a מצוה. The מצוה has the power of changing over a physical object into the spiritual light, into רוחניות, into spirituality. And according to this, מצות have a מעלה over תורה. But it has nothing to do with what the גמרא says here, because the גמרא here is trying to bring out the זכות of תורה. The זכות of תורה lasts longer because תורה is beyond the world. It is beyond time. And therefore the זכות is also beyond time, while מצות is connected to the physical world, therefore it is limited to time. But on the other hand, this itself brings out a מעלה in מצות over תורה. In another place in לקוטי שיחות, the ליובאוויטשער רבי שליט"א continues to explain the next piece of the גמרא here. The

גמרא here brings the דין that when a woman helps her children learn תורה, and she waits for her husband until he comes home from the בית מדרש, and that enables him to learn תורה, she shares in his שכר. And we see from the גמרא here that when she shares in his שכר, her שכר is the שכר of a מצווה ועושה, the שכר of somebody who was commanded and keeps the מצות. Because לכתחילה when the גמרא mentioned that she herself learned תורה, the גמרא says that שכר is not strong enough, because it's a שכר of אינו מצווה ועושה, the reward of somebody who is not commanded and does. And therefore, when the גמרא answers that she gets the שכר for helping her children and waiting for her husband, here she gets the שכר of a מצווה ועושה. And the question is, why should she get the שכר as if she was commanded and learned תורה when really she was not commanded? All she did was help her husband in learning תורה. So why should she share in the שכר? If we would say that she also gets a reward, but not necessarily the reward of learning תורה, we would understand, because she does a good thing helping somebody else to do a good deed, so she gets a reward for doing something good. But with the גמרא here says she gets the reward of תורה, as if she studied תורה, and as if she studied it in the form of being a מצווה ועושה, being commanded to do it. Now the question is, why do we consider her as if she studied תורה in the form of being commanded to do it, when all she did was she helped her husband learn תורה, or she helped the children learn תורה? And he answers it based on the famous ר"ן. In the

beginning of the second פרק of קידושין, there is a famous ר"ן. The גמרא says there that when it says in the משנה that האיש מקדש בו ובשלוחו and והאשה מתקדשת בה ובשלוחה, a man is able to be מקדש a woman or himself or through a שליח. A woman is able to receive קידושין or herself or through a שליח. And the גמרא asked, why did the משנה have to tell us that? If it would say just that a man is able to be מקדש through a שליח, we would know for ourselves, for sure he could do it himself. Why does the משנה have to tell us clearly that he could do it himself? And the גמרא answers to tell us that מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, there's a bigger מצוה if he does it himself than if he sends it through a שליח. And the same thing the גמרא says considering the woman. Why does the משנה have to tell us that she herself could take the קידושין? If her שליח could take it for her, certainly she could take it herself. And the גמרא gives the same answer, that the משנה wants to teach us מצוה בה יותר מבשלוחה, there's a bigger מצוה if she accepts the קידושין herself than if she sent a שליח to accept it. So the ר"ן asks a קושיא, how could the משנה say that she has a greater מצוה if she does it herself, if בכלל a woman has no מצוה in קידושין? The מצוה of marriage, which is really the fulfillment of the מצוה of פרו ורבו, of having children, is only on the man and not the woman, because there is a משנה in יבמות that says האיש מצווה על פריה ורביה, a man is commanded to fulfill the מצוה of multiplying and being fruitful, but אין האשה מצווה על פריה ורביה, a woman is not commanded to fulfill this מצוה of פריה ורביה. So a woman is בכלל not obligated to keep the מצוה of קידושין. So how can the משנה say that a woman has a greater מצוה if she gets the קידושין herself than her שליח, if בכלל she has no מצוה? And the ר"ן answers that because she is מסייע לבעלה, since she helps her husband, so then she also has a מצוה. Which kind of מצוה? The מצוה of פריה ורביה. So we see from this ר"ן the concept that if one person has to do a מצוה, and he does the מצוה by the help of somebody else, so that somebody else gets a share in that מצוה, and that somebody else is considered as if he is a מצווה ועושה, as if he's commanded to do it. That's why we call it מצוה, the ר"ן calls it that she has a מצוה, and the גמרא refers to it as a מצוה, מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, that she has a greater מצוה she does it herself. So we see the גמרא refers to it as a מצוה, and that is because she helps her husband fulfill his מצוה. And therefore, here too, when she helps her husband who is commanded to learn תורה, or she helps her children who are commanded to learn תורה, so she is as if she was commanded to learn תורה, and it's as if she fulfilled the מצוה of learning תורה in a form of being a מצווה ועושה. And he continues by saying that we see that this is generally the, the שיטה of the רמב״ם. Because we

see that the רמב״ם פסקנ'ט in הלכות תלמוד תורה, that when a child was not taught by his father, חייב ללמד את עצמו כשיכיר. He's supposed to learn himself when he recognizes. And the צמח צדק is מדייק, that the רמב״ם here does not say that he is obligated to learn תורה when he becomes a גדול, כשיגדיל, but he says כשיכיר, when he recognizes means while he's still a קטן. And the question is, where do we find such a thing as a child being obligated to do any מצוה? So how could the רמב״ם say that while he's still a child, he's obligated to learn תורה? And he answers, that really the obligation is on the father. The father is obligated to teach his child while he's still a קטן, תורה. But since the way the father is able to fulfill this מצוה is by the child participating in it, because the way he could do the מצוה is by teaching the child, so the child has to do his part in the מצוה of the father, so automatically the child becomes a מצווה ועושה. And therefore, if the father did not teach him, he has to teach himself. So we see the same סברא here in this רמב״ם. And the ליובאוויטשער רבי answers another רמב״ם based on this סברא. We

find a רמב״ם in הלכות קרבן פסח, that the רמב״ם says that a גר שנתגייר, a גוי who converted, or a קטן שהגדיל, or a child who became an adult, who became בר מצוה, between פסח ראשון and פסח שני, is חייב in פסח שני, has to bring the second פסח, because he did not fulfill his מצוה of קרבן פסח. But the רמב״ם says, if while he was a קטן still, his father brought for him, combined him in his קרבן פסח, then he is פטור from bringing פסח שני. And the כסף משנה asks: How can that פטור the child? Since when the father combined, included the child in his קרבן פסח, he was still a קטן, so how can that free him from his חיוב later on as a גדול? And he quotes the, the ר"י קורקוס, etc., there are many מפרשים who speak about it. But the way he answers it is based on this סברא: That since the father had an obligation, or at least was able to include his son into his קרבן פסח, and the father was מצווה ועושה, had a ציווי on קרבן פסח, and also possible had a ציווי of including the children if we hold שה לבית אבות דאורייתא, etc., so then automatically, the child who helped out his father fulfill his חיוב, also was like a מצווה ועושה, was as if he was commanded and he did, and therefore, later on when he becomes a גדול, doesn't have to fulfill it again, because he already fulfilled his חיוב. A ראיה he brings to this שיטה is from שיטת תוספות concerning the דין of אשה בעלה משמחה. Like this, there is a דין at a יום טוב, there is a דין of ושמחת בחגך, you have to be happy, which means you have to bring קרבנות שמחה. And the גמרא says that אשה בעלה משמחה, that a woman, her husband gives her שמחה. And תוספות learns that that means that her husband has to give her part of his קרבן, but she herself is not obligated to bring a קרבן. It's her husband's obligation to give her part of his קרבן. Nevertheless, תוספות says in ראש השנה דף ו׳, that the גמרא in חגיגה says that אמאי מחייבא בשמחה? that a woman is חייב בשמחה. Now the question is: How can we say she is חייב בשמחה, when really she is not, it's only her husband that is חייב to give her? So we, תוספות says the reason she is called חייב בשמחה, because since her husband has to give her, ממילא she is considered חייב. So the explanation is the same as we mentioned before. Since the way the husband can fulfill his חיוב of giving שמחה to his wife is by his wife participating, so it comes out that she helps him to fulfill his חיוב, and therefore she is considered being מחוייב בשמחה. This also answers another question. The גמרא in the beginning of חגיגה, when it speaks about הקהל, it says that the מצוה was that you have to gather in the beginning of the year, on סוכות, the year after שמיטה, you have to gather אנשים, נשים וטף, men, women and children, and they would come to listen to the king reading the תורה. And the גמרא says: אנשים באים ללמוד, men came to learn, נשים באות לשמוע, women came to hear, טף למה באים? why did the children come? ליתן שכר למביאיהם, to give שכר, reward, to those who bring them. In other words, really there is no reason for them to come. It is a חיוב on the parents to bring the children so the parents will get שכר, will get reward. But the children themselves, there is no reason for them to come. In other words, there is really no חיוב on the children to come to הקהל, it's a חיוב on the parents to bring the children. Nevertheless, the גמרא in קידושין דף ל״ד עמוד ב׳ says that טפלים חייבים, that children are obligated in the מצוה of הקהל. But according to the way the גמרא says in חגיגה ג׳ עמוד א׳, that the whole reason the children come is to give שכר to the parents, in other words, there is no obligation on the children. So how could the גמרא in קידושין say that טפלים חייבין? And the answer is, as we mentioned before, that really the חיוב is not on the children, the חיוב on the parents to bring the children. But since the way the parents fulfill their חיוב is by the participation of the children, the children help the parents fulfill this חיוב, so therefore the children also become, so to speak, a מצווה ועושה, and therefore they are also considered as being חייבין in the מצוה of הקהל.