Kiddushin 40a (מ.) — the Talmud in English

He said to them: Two

I carry,

from the shift of

Caesar, and they guarded me all night.

They said to him: Perhaps

a trial involving

a forbidden sexual matter came your way, and you were saved from it?

As we learned: Anyone to whom a forbidden sexual matter comes, and who is saved from it, a miracle is performed for him.

And the Gemara explains: With regard to whom was it said:

“Mighty in strength, those who do His word, to heed the voice of His word”?

For example, Rabbi Tzadok and his colleagues.

As will be explained in the following incident, he overcame his inclination.

Rabbi Tzadok—the noblewoman

a gentile woman, solicited him to commit a transgression.

He said to her: My heart is weak, and I cannot.

I cannot perform the act because my heart is weak from hunger.

And she asked:

Is there something to eat,

do you have any sort of food?

She said to him: There is something

to eat that is

impure.

He said to her: What difference does it make

that the food is impure? After all, one who

does this,

the transgressive act,

eats,

he eats

this,

the impure item, as well.

She heated the oven and placed it there,

the gentile woman heated the oven and placed the impure item inside it to roast it.

He went up,

Rabbi Tzadok went up to the mouth of the oven,

and sat inside it,

entering and sitting down inside it.

She said to him: What is this?

He said to her: One who does this,

the one who performs this transgressive act,

falls into this,

this fire of Gehinnom.

She said to him: Had I known all this,

that this transgression was so severe in your eyes,

I would not have distressed you.

Rav Kahana used to sell baskets,

he was poor and supported himself by selling baskets to women [in which they placed their spindles].

A certain noblewoman

solicited him to commit a transgression.

He said to her: I will go and adorn myself,

I will prepare and adorn myself for this.

He went up,

Rav Kahana went up onto the roof of the building,

and threw himself from the roof,

he threw himself from the roof of the building

to the ground

in the direction of the ground.

Elijah came

and

caught him,

catching him in his arms before he fell to the ground.

He said to him,

Elijah

said to Rav Kahana: You have troubled me,

forcing me to come and save you from a distance of

four hundred parasangs.

He said to him,

Rav Kahana said: And was it not

poverty that caused me

to have to sell baskets to women and to come to this point,

was it not poverty,

the poverty in which I find myself!?

He gave him

Elijah gave Rav Kahana

a pouch [

a vessel ]

of dinars,

filled with gold coins.

Rava challenged

Rav

Nachman: We learned:

at the beginning of tractate Pe’a:

“These are the things that a person performs and enjoys their fruits”

in this world, while the principal remains for him in the World-to-Come.

These are honoring one’s father and mother, acts of kindness, and making peace between one person and another. And Torah study is equivalent to them all. And Rava explains the source in the Torah for all these matters:

With regard to honoring one’s father and mother, it is written [

Deuteronomy 5 ]

“So that your days may be lengthened, and so that it may be good for you.”

And we interpret it: So that your days may be lengthened in the World-to-Come, and so that it may be good for you during your life in this world.

With regard to acts of kindness, it is written [

Proverbs 21 ],

“One who pursues charity and kindness will find life, charity, and honor.”

And we interpret it: Life in the World-to-Come, and charity and honor in this world.

And with regard to making peace, it is written [

Psalms 34 ]

“Seek peace and pursue it.”

And Rabbi Abbahu said: It is derived,

we learn that for making peace as well, a person merits enjoying the fruits of the mitzva in this world while the principal remains for him in the World-to-Come, by means of a gezera shava from the mitzva of acts of kindness,

“pursuit, pursuit.”

Here it is written,

with regard to making peace between one person and another,

“Seek peace and pursue it,” and there it is written,

with regard to acts of kindness,

“One who pursues charity and kindness.”

With regard to Torah study, it is written [

Deuteronomy 30 ]

“For it is your life and the length of your days.”

And we interpret it: Your life in this world, and the length of your life in the World-to-Come.

And Rava asked: But

with regard to sending away the mother bird it is also written, “So that it may be good for you, and you may lengthen your days,”

and if so, we should interpret it as above: So that it may be good for you in this world, and you may lengthen your days in the World-to-Come.

Therefore, Rava asked Rav Nachman:

Let him also teach this,

the mitzva of sending away the mother bird, among the mitzvot whose fruits a person enjoys in this world while the principal remains for him in the World-to-Come.

Rav Nachman answered him: The tanna did not list every matter; rather,

he taught

what he taught in the Mishna

and omitted

additional matters that he did not teach. Therefore, he did not teach sending away the mother bird either.

The Gemara raises an objection to this answer:

The tanna teaches, “These are the things,”

which indicates only these things, and not other things,

and

if

you say, “He taught and omitted”!?

Rava said: Rav Idi explained it to me,

he explained to me why the tanna did not teach sending away the mother bird in the Mishna: It is not included in the verse that teaches that one enjoys the fruits in this world.

For the source for enjoying the fruits of a mitzva in this world is derived from what is written in the Book of Isaiah [chapter 3]:

“Tell the righteous that it is good, for they shall eat the fruit of their deeds.”

This verse apparently requires explanation:

Is there a righteous person who is “good,” and a righteous person who is “not good”?

Rather,

the verse must be saying this: A righteous person who is

good toward Heaven and toward people—this is a good righteous person.

Concerning him the verse says, “For they shall eat the fruit of their deeds,” for he merits eating the fruit of his good deeds in this world.

But a righteous person who is

good toward Heaven but bad toward people—this is a righteous person who is not good,

and concerning him the verse did not say that he would eat the fruit of his good deeds.

And since sending away the mother bird does not involve doing good for other people, there is no reward of enjoying fruits for fulfilling this mitzva. Therefore, the tanna did not teach it in the Mishna.

Similarly, you say

in explaining the verse [

there ]

“Woe to the wicked—it is bad, for the recompense of his hands will be done

to him.” Is there a wicked person who is bad, and one who is not bad?

Rather,

a wicked person who is

bad toward Heaven and bad toward people,

such as a murderer, thief, or robber,

is a bad wicked person.

Bad toward Heaven but not bad toward people,

such as one who commits sexual immorality or eats forbidden foods,

this is a wicked person who is not bad:

And the Gemara cites the beraita [at the beginning of the Tosefta to tractate Pe’a], which adds to the words of the Mishna:

A merit [

the fulfillment of a mitzva ]

has a principal, and it has fruits.

As it is stated: “Tell the righteous that it is good,

for they shall eat the fruit of their deeds.” It is evident from the wording of the verse that one enjoys fruits for performing a mitzva.

But

a transgression has a principal, but it has no fruits. As it is stated: “Woe to the wicked—it is bad,

for the recompense of his hands will be done to him.” The meaning of the verse is that evil will befall him only according to the recompense for his deeds, but he is not punished by eating the bad fruits in this world.

And what do I make of

the continuation of the verse,

“They shall eat of the fruit of their way, and be filled with their own counsels,”

which implies that there is also enjoyment of fruits for a transgression? The verse is referring to this:

A transgression that produces fruits,

such as when an important person commits a transgression and thereby causes a desecration of the Divine Name, influencing many people to act likewise,

has fruits.

And

a transgression that

does not produce fruits has no fruits,

and he is punished only according to his deed.

The Holy One, blessed be He, joins a good thought

to

deed.

As it is stated [

Malachi 3 ]

“Then those who fear the Lord spoke with one another, and the Lord listened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the Lord and who contemplate His Name.”

What is the meaning of “and who contemplate His Name”?

Rav Asi said: Even if a person intended to perform a mitzva, but was prevented and did not perform it, Scripture credits him as though he performed it.

The Holy One, blessed be He, does not join an evil thought to deed. As it is stated

in the Book of Psalms [chapter 66]:

“If I saw iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not hear.”

And what do I make of “Behold, I am bringing evil upon this people, the fruit of their thoughts,”

which indicates that there is punishment even for an evil thought?

A thought that produces fruit,

which was carried out,

the Holy One, blessed be He, joins to deed,

so that he is then punished for the thought as well.

A thought that has no fruit,

which he refrained from carrying out,

the Holy One, blessed be He, does not join to deed.

And

we ask:

But what of that which is written

in the Book of Ezekiel [chapter 14]:

“In order to seize [

the house of ]

Israel by their heart,”

which evidently indicates that they are punished for the thoughts of the heart!?

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said: That verse is written with regard to

the thought of

idol worship.

As the Master said: Idol worship is severe, for anyone who denies it is considered as though he affirms the entire Torah [the Sages phrased it in this euphemistic manner, meaning that one who affirms it is considered as though he denies the entire Torah], and because of its severity one is liable for punishment even for thought alone.

[the Sages used this expression euphemistically, meaning that one who affirms idol worship is like one who denies the entire Torah]. Because of its severity, a person is punished even for the thought alone.

Ulla said

to explain the verse in Jeremiah, “Behold, I am bringing evil upon this people, the fruit of their thoughts,” which apparently indicates that they are punished for an evil thought,

in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna.

For Rav Huna said: Once a person commits a transgression and repeats it, it becomes permitted to him.

“It becomes permitted to him”—could you possibly think so!?

Rather, it becomes

for

him like something permitted.

The verse is speaking of one who committed a transgression twice and intended to commit it once more, but refrained and did not commit it. He is nevertheless punished for the mere thought, because on the third occasion he does not refrain from transgressing for the sake of Heaven; the transgression has already become permitted in his eyes. Rather, he did not commit it because he had no need to carry out his thought.

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Hanina: It is preferable

for a person

to commit a transgression in private rather than desecrate the Divine Name in public.

As it is stated [

Ezekiel 20 ]

“And you, house of Israel, so said the Lord: Go, serve each man his idols [

and afterward ]

, if you will not listen to Me. But you shall not desecrate My holy Name!”

That is: Do not desecrate My Name in public, since one who sees this will come to diminish the honor of the Omnipresent; rather, it is preferable that you transgress in private.

And the Gemara cites a similar statement:

Rabbi Ilai the Elder said: If a person sees that his inclination is overpowering him, he should go to a place where he is not known, wear black garments and cover himself in black, and do whatever his heart desires

and not desecrate the Divine Name in public.

And we challenge this:

I do not understand!

How can you say that it is preferable for him to transgress in private? Surely this is not so, for:

And we learned

in tractate Hagiga [11a]:

Anyone who has no concern for the honor of his Creator would have been better off never having come into the world!

And the Gemara explains there that the amoraim disagree about the meaning of this statement:

What is it?

Rabba said: This is one who gazes at the rainbow,

because it resembles a manifestation of the honor of God, and gazing at a manifestation of God’s honor constitutes contempt for His honor.

Rav Yosef said: This is one who commits a transgression in private.

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This statement applies when he is able to subdue his inclination,

and since he can subdue his inclination yet nevertheless proceeds to transgress in private, he is considered to be trampling the feet of the Divine Presence, as though he says in his heart: Who sees me!?

And that statement applies when he is unable to subdue his inclination,

in which case it is preferable that he transgress in private and not desecrate God by transgressing openly.

We learned there: There is no “deferment” with regard to desecration of the Divine Name, whether one acted unwittingly or intentionally.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the meaning of “there is no deferment”?

Mar Zutra said: They do not act like a shopkeeper

who is prepared to sell on credit from time to time and wait for a period until payment; rather, they exact his punishment immediately.

Mar, son of Ravina, said: It means

that if his debts and merits were equal, and

the

scale of his judgment

was balanced,

and among his transgressions there was a transgression involving desecration of the Divine Name, it

tips

the scale against him.