Kiddushin 39: Mitzvot and the World-to-Come

The rabbis continue to argue about whether or not orla is permitted outside of Eretz Yisrael.  The rabbis are concerned about people gathering orla for each other outside of HaAretz and assuming that the fruit of Israel's trees is not as good as fruit outside of HaAretz, which can be eaten immediately.  They consider whether or not produce concerning orla is certain or uncertain outside of HaAretz, and whether or not un/certain produce is permitted or forbidden.

This is compared with transgressions regarding diverse kinds.  Diverse kinds are more complicated, for they can refer to produce in a vineyard, grafting a tree and a branch, sowing a field with two kinds of seed, and gendering cattle with a diverse kind.  Diverse kinds seems to be the umbrella category for any cross-mingling, but some categories involve actual mixing of DNA while others involve only close proximity.  Further, some of that mixing is prohibited both inside and outside of HaAretz.  Other mixing, like sowing different seeds in the same field, is only prohibited within the land.

Rav Chanan and Rav Anan argue about whether or not a man outside of Eretz Yisrael was permitted to mix seeds together in a number of different  ways.

A new Mishna teaches us that when we perform one mitzvah,  goodness is given to us, our life is lengthened, and we inherit the land, which refers to life in the World-to-Come.  And anyone who does not perform one mitzvah does not have goodness given, has a life that is not lengthened, and does not inherit the land.

The Gemara questions this Mishna.  Don't we learn in Pe'a (1:1) that there are specific things that we enjoy the profits of in this world and the principal reward comes to us in the World-to-Come?  These are honouring one's father and mother, acts of loving kindness, hospitality to ward guests, bringing peace between people, and Torah study is equal to all of them.  Doesn't this suggest that these are the mitzvot that we must perform in order to achieve the 'principal' in the World-to-Come?

Different rabbis share different understandings.  One of those is Abaye, who suggests that we have one good day and one bad day.  We are rewarded for our mitzvot, but our occasional bad days cleanse us of our sins -- those bad days are the ones referred to in our Mishna.  And Rabbi Ya'akov believes that there is no reward at all for mitzvot in this world; all rewards are in Haolam Ba'a, the World-To-Come.   He reminds the rabbis of a baraita that says there is not a single mitzvah written in the Torah whose reward is state beside it, which is not dependent on the resurrection of the dead (there reward is offered after we die, in the World-To-Come).  

An example is offered: honouring one's mother and father is followed by the promise of "your days may be long, and that it may go well with you:" (Deuteronomy 5:16).  However, "may go well with you" means that "in the world where all is well", ie. the World to Come, "your days may be long" -- when all of the world is long.

The rabbis give an example of a man who performs a mitzvah and then dies.  Could this be?  Perhaps he was thinking of a transgression.  But G-d would not punish a person for their thoughts alone!  The rabbis teach this principle: "Blessed be He, does not link a bad thought to an action".  What if his thought was horrible, like idol worship?  Rabbi Ya'akov wonders why the performance of a mitzvah did not protect him from such thoughts.  Rabbi Elazar suggests that one is protected from harm on the way to perform a mitzvah -- but not on the way back from performing a mitzvah?  Some reward!

The rabbis wonder whether witnessing this incident - where a father told his son to perform the mitzvah of removing a bird from her nest and then taking the eggs from the nest, and then falling from the roof to his death - might have caused him to become an apostate.  Others argue that it was seeing the tongue of Chutzpit the disseminator.  Chutzpit was executed and dragged through the streets by a pig (which the rabbis do not name, but call "davar acher," something else.  The justification: "should a mouth that produced pearls lap up dirt?"  This is what caused Acher to sin.

What about a person who just sits and does not transgress?  Is that the performance of one mitzvah and thus the promise of a reward?   Or is this a person who had the opportunity to transgress but resisted and just sat there?  We end our daf with the story of Rabbi Chanina bar Pappi, who was seduced by a noblewoman.  He resisted by reciting an incantation that caused him to break out in boils and scabs.  She performed a magical act that healed him.  He ran to a bathhouse that was known to be inhabited by demons so dangerous that even two people entering together by daylight would be harmed.  He told of two angels who appeared as two soldiers to guard him all night.  Perhaps, he thought, forbidden sexual relations was the sin that he was saved from.  Such an act of protection would be called a miracle.

The Gemara continues, in daf 40 to discuss other cases of seduction by wealthy, 'important' women.  I have to wonder whether these occurrences were fantasies or true experiences.  Perhaps tomorrow's daf will shed light on that question.