Reward For Sale

Growing up, I consumed a healthy dose of chassidic stories. Not that my parents are chassidish, but English literature that was written for Jewish youth was very limited back then. I read whatever I could get my hands on. One story that I read popped into my mind recently while I was learning the daf.

What should be one’s approach to chassidishe stories? I once heard the following quote: “If you believe every chassidishe story you are a fool. If you don’t believe any, you are an apikores.” Of course, if you are chassidish, then you probably have a different point of view. I once heard in the name of Rabbi Twerski that all chassidishe stories are true—some of them just haven’t happened yet.

With that in mind, let me relate a chassidishe story. Some of you reading this article will probably know more specific details, such as which rebbe was involved in the story; I am just relying on my memory. Nevertheless, I am pretty sure that the basic plot of the story is an accurate portrayal of what I read.

There was a poor chassid who needed funds to marry off his daughter. With a heavy heart he approached his rebbe to seek his counsel. “I only have 100 rubles. What should I do?” The rebbe advised him to buy in to the first investment opportunity offered to him and everything would turn out all right.

On his way home he stopped at an inn. One of the Jewish locals there asked him where he was coming from and what brought him there. The chassid related that he was returning from his rebbe. He further informed the local of his sad plight and the rebbe’s advice. The local promptly offered to sell him his share in the World to Come for 100 rubles. The chassid agreed to the deal, as this was the first investment opportunity that was offered to him, and he had implicit faith in his rebbe. A contract was drawn up and the chassid paid the man 100 rubles. The local came home and with a hearty laugh related the night’s episode to his wife. “That was the easiest 100 rubles I ever made.” Whereupon his wife angrily retorted, “I will not remain married to a man without a share in the World to Come. You get back your share, or I’m leaving!” He went back to the inn, found the chassid, and said that he wanted out of the deal. The chassid said, “The deal cannot be undone. It was signed and sealed. Nevertheless, I will gladly sell you back your share in the World to Come for 2,000 rubles!” The local replied, “That’s highway robbery! I sold it to you for 100!” The chassid refused to negotiate. They agreed to go to the rebbe to resolve their dispute. The rebbe said to the local, “When you sold your share in the World to Come is was only worth 100 rubles to you. Now that you need it to keep your marriage together it is much more valuable. The chassid is within his rights to demand a larger sum.” With no alternative, the local paid the chassid the entire sum. The chassid became a little richer. The local became a little wiser; he learned never to do anything without asking his wife for permission first. And everyone lived happily ever after.

There is a question of ona’ah here. Are you indeed allowed to charge someone more just because it is worth more to him? However, I want to focus on a different issue. Is the sale of one’s share in the World to Come a valid sale?

The Gemara says in Sotah (21a): “What is the meaning of ‘boz yavuzu lo–they would surely scorn him’ (Shir HaShirim 8,7)? Ulla said, ‘Not like Shimon the brother of Azariah, and not like R’ Yochanan of the Nasi’s house, but rather like Hillel and Shevna.’ ”

Rashi explains that Shimon and Azariah had a partnership. Shimon learned Torah exclusively while Azariah also engaged in business to support his brother. They both shared the merit of Shimon’s Torah study. Likewise, R’ Yochanan was able to learn Torah because he was supported by the Nasi’s household. Ulla was saying that these two arrangements of sharing in Torah merit are perfectly acceptable; indeed they are noble and praiseworthy.

The circumstances with Shevna and Hillel, though, are different. Hillel was forced to learn Torah in abject poverty. The measures he undertook to learn Torah are indeed well known and serve as a lesson for the ages. When he was already a venerated scholar, his wealthy brother, Shevna, offered him funds in exchange for a share in his Torah scholarship. Whereupon, a Heavenly voice proclaimed, “Were a man to offer all the treasures of his home for love, they would surely scorn him.”

What exactly was wrong with Shevna’s offer? Further, is the Gemara saying that it is improper for Hillel to accept the offer, or is the offer invalid regardless?

The Rema writes (Y.D. 246:1) “And a man is able to stipulate that his fellow should learn Torah and he will support him and they will divide the reward [for the Torah learning.] However, if he already learned Torah, he is not able to sell his portion for the money that will be given to him.” The Vilna Gaon writes that the source for this halachah is our Gemara. It appears that an arrangement to have a share in Torah scholarship must be made before the Torah is studied. An offer to purchase a portion of the merit for Torah that was already learned is indeed invalid. Even if theoretically Hillel had agreed to Shevna’s proposal, the deal would be null and void.

This halachah would seem to indicate that a sale of one’s portion in the World to Come is indeed worthless. How was the chassid able to buy the local’s share in the World to Come? The local had already earned it! A deal cannot me made after the fact. But perhaps one can argue that he was not in fact buying the local’s past reward but his future reward. The wife’s position would be then that she doesn’t want to be married to a husband who won’t be earning any future reward.

This too is questionable. The Mahram Alshkar (response 101) discusses the following incident. A man paid someone a gold coin to learn Torah on the condition that he (the payer) receive the reward for the Torah learning. The Mahram writes that such a sale is “hevel”—worthless. He appears to be arguing with the Rema. The Rema wrote that a sale in advance is valid. Not so, says the Shaarei Sotah. All agree that no sale of merit is ever valid. R’ Shlomo Kluger explains that one’s future reward is not his to sell. Our reward is not a debt that can be sold. Hashem does not in fact actually owe us anything for the mitzvos we have done.

The Midrash Rabba writes regarding reward: “A man puts up a mezuzah; I already gave him a house!” Any mitzvah we are able to do is with the life and tools Hashem gave us. We are eternally indebted to Hashem for the life and all the gifts he presented to us in this world. Doing mitzvos can never pay back even a fraction of that debt. We don’t deserve further reward for doing mitzvos. Yet Hashem lovingly gives us reward in His great munificence.

R’ Shlomo Kluger uses this to explain the above verse. “Were a man to offer all the treasures of his home for love, they would surely scorn him.” How does love represent the idea of reward? Our reward for mitzvos is only out of love!

We do not have a legal right or claim to our reward; hence it cannot be sold. When the Gemara writes that a deal in advance is valid, that is because you are enabling the person to learn more. The scholar can now devote his time exclusively to Torah without worrying about earning a living. Since you facilitated his learning, you get a share in the merit of the Torah that was learned. The Mahram’s scenario is when the person would have learned without the money. It was just a straight-up one time sale of the reward for profit. That sale is not valid. There may be other mitzvos involved. It may fall under the category of tzedakah or supporting talmidiei chachamim, which is a mitzvah. However, the sale of reward itself is not legal, whether made before or after the mitzvah was performed.

The truth is that I have not differentiated in this article between the merit of Torah study and merit for other mitzvos. Perhaps one can still argue that the Gemara was only referring to the sale of the merit for Torah study. The sale of one’s reward for other mitzvos may be valid. However, as I explained above, R’ Shlomo Kluger’s understanding is that no reward for mitzvos may be sold. There is no basis to differentiate between the reward for Torah study and other mitzvos.

In fact, in the city of Satnov a man sold a quarter of his share in the World to Come. He later regretted it and wanted to undo the deal. The purchaser demurred. The rabbanim in the city asked R’ Shlomo Kluger his opinion if the sale was valid. He said no, and offered our Gemara as proof! If the local in the story I began with had come to Rabbi Shlomo Kluger, he would have saved himself a lot of money! Rabbi Kluger would have told him that his initial sale was invalid. Perhaps, though, his wife’s parents were chassidish, and she would not have accepted a Litvishe p’sak!