7837 —על מצוות קלות וחמורות, וגדולת ריב"ז

Shalom u'Vrachah! [Elul 5708] Whenever there is an auspicious time, I am happy to answer Torah matters, as it appears correct to me. And in the future I will do so as well. Of course, if I am able, I will answer.

Rashi at the beginning of Parshas Eikev, which is based on Midrash Tanchuma here. Yalkut Shimoni at the beginning of Parshas Eikev. Tehillim 49 [hint 958. Midrash] Tehillim 49, ^[6]. And more. There is no contradiction here—rather, it proves a point. The text states: David said, 'Master of the Universe, I am not afraid of the severe mitzvos in the Torah because they are severe; rather, I fear the lighter ones lest I have transgressed them because they are light. And You said: Be as careful with a light mitzvah as with a severe one.' Therefore it says: 'And it shall be eikev tishme'un' (if you listen) [Devarim 7:12]. 'How abundant is Your goodness' (Tehillim 31), this is the reward for light mitzvos.' End quote.

The second question: a) It seems you think that our sages did not properly appreciate the greatness of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai (Ribaz). This is not so. It suffices to quote from two or three places: 1) In Torah knowledge and sciences: (Maseches Sofrim ch.16) 'If all the heavens were parchment and all trees quills and all seas ink, it would not suffice to write down the wisdom he learned from his teachers.' b) In worldly matters and statecraft: (end of Sotah) 'When Ribaz died, the radiance of wisdom ceased' (in worldly wisdom—see Maharsha). 3) As a leader of Israel: (Sifri at end of Parshas Vezos HaBerachah) 'Moshe was in Egypt for forty years, in Midian for forty years, and led Israel for forty years. Ribaz engaged in business for forty years, served sages for forty years, and led Israel (was Nasi) for forty years.'

b) Regarding evaluating events during the destruction—the political situation then, Roman attitudes—how can we who are over 1800 years removed and have almost no reliable documents except for Talmud from that era give an opinion that does not even slightly align with those who lived then or in the following century? This would be so even if what was written in Divrei HaYamim was straightforward; now that this evaluation has entered into Talmud—that is, by Divine providence it became part of Torah Sheba'al Peh whose sanctity equals that of Oral Torah—it is not appropriate to debate its truth but only to strive to understand and explain it so we too may comprehend.

c) A decisive proof that Ribaz did not view the decree of destruction as something irrevocable but strove even then to save the Beis HaMikdash from destruction is that before going to Vespasian he tried with Jerusalem's leaders to make peace with Rome; only when he failed did he go to Vespasian to try Ribaz's words: 'Perhaps there will be some small salvation.'

d) Another point regarding what you wrote—and after asking forgiveness—I must protest against this: You write that if according to your understanding someone wrote something inappropriate you would openly tell him to engage in his business rather than these Torah matters. This I cannot agree with! Consider: For thousands upon thousands of years one's soul—which is primary for every Jew—has been occupied with Torah; after our life in this physical world ends, our soul returns to engage in Torah and delve into its endless wisdom forever; only meanwhile for some decades did G‑d arrange a business occupation. How can one view this as his main occupation while Torah is secondary? Rather each of us must be careful to study Torah truthfully as our sages taught.

With best wishes—and ready also in future to clarify together anything unclear for people like us.

Summary

This letter teaches us about valuing every mitzvah equally and respecting great sages like Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai. It reminds us never to belittle anyone's involvement in Torah study regardless of their profession or background.