“If you will follow My
decrees and observe My commandments and perform them, then I will provide your
rains in their time, and the land will give its produce and the tree of the
field will give its fruit.” (VaYikra 26:3-4)
“Rabbi,
my son doesn’t want to go to synagogue.”
“Rabbi, my daughter has no enthusiasm for observing Shabbat.” “Rabbi, my son never opens a sefer outside of school!” As an educator, I often hear concerns
similar to these. The parents of these
young men and women are searching for some way to reach and motivate their children. Often, it is assumed that in developing a
strategy to motivate a student, we have broad freedom. In other words, we are not restricted by halacha in our choice of
motivators. However, a careful study of
some relevant comments from the Talmud and the commentaries indicates that this
may not be the case.[1]
The
passage above introduces a description of the rewards we will receive for
devotion to the Torah and the punishments we will experience if we forsake the
Torah. The clear message of the Torah
is that we are encouraged to observe the Torah in order to secure these rewards
and avoid the punishments. So, it seems
that it is not inappropriate for a person to observe the Torah for personal –
somewhat selfish – reasons. But does
that mean that any motivator can be employed in order to encourage a student or
ourselves to observe mitzvot?
Before
we enter into this analysis we must resolve a fundamental issue. What is the appropriate or ideal motivation
for the observance of a mitzvah? There is a general consensus among the Sages
that the highest motivation is love of Hashem.
Maimonides discusses this issue at some length in his commentary on the
Mishna. He explains that the Torah is
truth. Study of the Torah should be
motivated by a desire to seek the truth.
This same affinity for the truth will motivate a person to perform the mitzvot. Love of Hashem is a consequence of this same devotion to truth
and knowledge – in fact, they are inseparable.
Therefore, ideally a person observes the Torah because his devotion to
truth and his love of Hashem demands this devotion.[2] With this introduction, let us return to
out issue.
In
Tractate Pesachim Rav Yehuda quotes Rav as teaching that a person should study
Torah and perform mitzvot even out of
secondary motivations. This is because
the study and performance of mitzvot
motivated by a secondary motivation, will eventually lead to observance of the
Torah for the appropriate reason.[3] Rav recognizes that only those of us who are
on a very profound spiritual level can be expected to observe the Torah for the
appropriate reason. Most of us will not
find love of Hashem to be an effective motivator. Rav encourages us to find other more mundane secondary
motivators. Hopefully, the observance
of the Torah – even as a result of these secondary motivators – will lead to
observance motivated by love of Hashem.
There
are two basic difficulties with Rav’s comments. First, Rav is attempting to teach us something significant. It is unreasonable to assume that he is
merely affirming the obvious. What is
Rav’s message? Stated differently, what
would a person have concluded without Rav’s message? It seems that Rav is telling us that a person must observe the
Torah even though the person is not motivated by the appropriate devotion to
Hashem. This seems completely
obvious! Would we have imagined that a
person who is not moved by love of Hashem is exempt from performing the
commandments? It is true according to
some authorities, that in order to perform a commandment, one must be aware of
the fact that the performance is a commandment. However, no authority maintains that a mitzvah can only be fulfilled by a person who has the highest
motivation! In short, what is Rav
telling us that is not obvious?
Second,
although Rav’s position is reasonable to the point of being obvious, there are
a number of statements in the Talmud that explicitly contradict Rav. For example, in Tractate Berachot, the Rava
comments regarding a person who performs mitzvot
in response to a secondary motivation that it would be better that for this
person not to have been created.[4] In Tractate Taanit, Rava comments that for a
person who performs the Torah for secondary motives, rather than benefiting the
person, the Torah serves as a fatal poison![5] How can we explain Rava’s comments? Can his comments be reconciled with the
common-sense views of Rav?
Maimonides
provides this simplest solution to these problems. Essentially, Maimonides asserts that Rava’s view is completely
correct. The only proper motivation for
the performance of mitzvot is love of
Hashem. There are numerous comments by
the Sages that confirm Rava’s doctrine.
We are chastised against using mitzvot
for secondary purposes. We are warned
against serving Hashem for the purpose of securing His rewards. We are told that we may not use our Torah
scholarship as a means for securing the respect and adoration of others. However, these admonishments create a
dilemma. Only a person who has achieved
a profound level of spiritual perfection will be motivated by love of
Hashem. Nonetheless, we are all
commanded to observe the mitzvot of
the Torah. How do we motivate ourselves
and others who have not yet achieved the level of spiritual development in
which love of Hashem and of truth becomes an effective motivator? How do we motivate the more common person or
the novice? Maimonides suggests that
this is Rav’s issue. Rav explains that
we are permitted to utilize secondary motivations in order to encourage
ourselves and others to observe the Torah.
However, these secondary motivations are only permitted as an
expedient. We are not permitted to
regard these secondary motives as an end in themselves. We must recognize that ultimately we must
seek to serve Hashem out of love and for no other reason.[6]
Through
this insight, Maimonides resolves both of the problems we have outlined. There is no contradiction between Rav and
Rava. Each refers to a different stage
in spiritual development. Rava tells us
that ultimately a person must serve Hashem out of love. Rav tells us that as an expedient, we are
permitted and even required to use secondary motives until this ultimate level
of motivation is achieved. Rav’s lesson is also not as obvious as we first
assumed. Rav is making two points that
are significant. First, that as a
matter of policy and practice, the teacher and spiritual leader can explicitly
suggest and employ secondary motivators.
Second, these motivators can not become and end in themselves. They are only permitted as an expedient.
Not
all of the commentaries completely agree with Maimonides. Maimonides’ assertion that secondary
motivators should only be used as an expedient seems to be widely acknowledged. However, his contention that we have wide
ranging freedom in selecting these motivators is challenged.
Tosefot
and Rashi suggest that there is a significant limitation on the selection of
motivators. Rashi suggests that it is
not permitted to study Torah in order to better argue with and oppose others. According to Rashi, this is Rava’s
lesson. Rava does not disagree with
Rav. He approves of utilizing secondary
motivators. However, he alerts us that
not every motivator is permitted.[7] Tosefot expand on Rashi’s thesis. They explain that secondary motivators are
permitted and encouraged. However,
there is general principle that must be used in selecting secondary motivators. Motivators that appeal to some personal goal
or objective are appropriate as an expedient.
But motivators that appeal to an evil or corrupt element within the
personality are prohibited. It is not
completely clear where Tosefot draw the line between appropriate and
inappropriate secondary motivators. But
some indication is provided by the example that they provide. They explain that it is not permitted to
study Torah for the purpose of opposing and effectively arguing and debating
with other scholars – in order to promote one’s own erudition or critique
someone else’s.[8] It seems that according to Tosefot and Rashi
the line is drawn in regards to motivators that are antithetical to the mitzvah. Study of the Torah is a search for truth. If a person is primarily interested in
wining an argument, truth becomes an insignificant consideration and the very
essence of Torah study is compromised.
Therefore, this motivation is not acceptable.
Rabbaynu
Yom Tov Ishbili – Ritva – accepts the basic approach of Rashi and Tosefot. However, he argues that Rava’s qualification
is far more restrictive. Ritva
maintains that our parasha is
teaching us a fundamental lesson. It is
outlining the appropriate secondary motivation. We are encouraged to observe the mitzvot out of fear – in order to avoid the terrible punishments
outlined in this week’s parasha or to
secure the rewards promised by the Torah.
However, one may not observe the Torah as a means of self-promotion.[9] Ritva’s intention is not completely
clear. But it seems that he is not
merely asserting that self-promotion is an inappropriate motivator. He is restricting the selection of secondary
motivators to fear of divine punishment and desire for divine reward. If this is the case, Ritva is alluding to a
fundamental issue. According to Ritva,
although secondary motivators are permitted, these motivators must always
direct the person towards a relationship with Hashem. In other words, a person who observes the Torah out of a desire
for self-promotion is not entering into a relationship with Hashem. In contrast, a person who observes the Torah
out of fear a divine retribution or in order to secure His good favor is
essentially entering into a relationship with Hashem. This relationship is fundamental to the performance of mitzvot. Therefore, although we are encouraged to seek expedients to
motivate observance, these expedients must be consistent with the fundamental
nature of observance – relating to Hashem.
One
of the most elaborate and detailed treatments of our issue is provided by
Rabbaynu Menachem Me’eri. Me’eri
suggests that there are various levels of secondary motivators. The best secondary motivator is fear of
divine retribution and desire for divine reward. He argues that this secondary motivator is most likely –
virtually certain – to lead to observance based on love of Hashem. However, other personal secondary motivators
are also encouraged. But they are not
preferable. He asserts that other motivators
are viable routes to service motivated by love of Hashem. However, the effectiveness of such
expedients is not as certain. In other
words, secondary motivators must be assessed based on their likely
effectiveness in leading to service motivated by love of Hashem. From this perspective, observance motivated
by fear of divine retribution or desire for reward is preferable to observance
motivated by some other personal goal.
But Me’eri draws the line at self-promotion. This motivation is inappropriate.[10]
Me’eri’s
comments are noteworthy for two reasons.
First, although he does not come to precisely the same conclusions as
Maimonides, he affirms one of his basic premises and states it quite clearly. All secondary motivations are only of value
insofar as they serve as an expedient.
But the secondary motivator cannot become and end in itself. Second, although Me’eri does not agree with
Ritva, he does accept Ritva’s basic premise. Fear of divine punishment and
desire for reward are unique motivators.
They are predicated upon and support a relationship with Hashem.
So what is the bottom line? According
to Rav it is appropriate to use secondary motivators in order to encourage
observance. However, these motivators
can only serve as an expedient. The
ultimate objective is for a person to observe the Torah out of love of
Hashem. Therefore, we must provide our
children with meaningful Torah scholarship.
It is impossible to progress and develop towards love of Hashem without
Torah study and scholarship. At the
same time we must provide other motivators that are consistent with the age and
maturity level of our children. Me’eri
suggests a basis for selecting secondary motivators. The more likely the secondary motivator will lead to love of
Hashem, the better the motivator. Are
any motivator’s off limits? It seems
that Tosefot and Rashi would not allow a secondary motivator that is
antithetical to the mitzvah being
performed. Ritva and Me’eri clearly
view self-promotion as an inappropriate motivator but this is not agreed to by
all authorities. Maimonides does not
make this distinction and explicitly mentions self-promotion as an effective
secondary motivator.
[1] This issue was brought to my attention by Rabbi Moshe Bleich. For a study of the practical implications of the material discussed in this week’s Thoughts, see his article, “Prizes for Academic Achievement,” Ten Da’at, Winter 2000, pp27-35.
[2] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Commentary on the Mishne, Mesechet Sanhedrin 10:1.
[3] Mesechet Pesachim 50b.
[4] Mesechet Berachot 17a.
[5] Mesechet Taanit 7a.
[6] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Commentary on the Mishne, Mesechet Sanhedrin 10:1.
[7] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on the Talmud, Mesechet Berachot 17b.
[8] Tosefot, Mesechet Pesachim 50b.
[9] Rabbaynu Yom Tov ben Avraham Isbili (Ritva), Commentary on the Talmud, Mesechet Yoma 72b.
[10] Rabbaynu Menachem Me’eri, Bait HaBechirah, Mesechet Pesachim 50b.