In chapter 13, King Solomon continues to explore the question of reward and punishment: why it sometimes appears that the righteous do not receive their reward, while the wicked prosper. The three verses before us - 22, 23, and 24 - address this question and its resolution: the hidden reward, the abundance channeled through those who labor, and the education of children, which is man's true continuation.
ט֗וֹב יַנְחִ֥יל בְּנֵֽי־בָנִ֑ים וְצָפ֥וּן לַ֝צַּדִּ֗יק חֵ֣יל חוֹטֵֽא׃ (כ"ב) - A good person leaves an inheritance to his children's children, and the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous. (22)
The Vilna Gaon explains: in this world, a person can only consume the fruits, not the principal. As the Mishnah states, "A person eats their fruits in this world, while the principal remains intact for the World to Come." The principal is preserved, stored away for him in the World to Come. Not only that, but an additional, fascinating point emerges: even regarding the fruits consumed here in this world, usually the person himself does not eat them, but rather his children do.
And so the Midrash says: "Had the Patriarchs consumed the fruits, we would never have entered the world." In other words, had the fathers themselves consumed the fruits of their good deeds, we would not have had any merit to come into this world. The fathers certainly deserve fruits, and those fruits belong to this world - yet the fathers do not consume them; their children after them do. This was also the answer given to Moshe Rabbeinu when he asked why the righteous suffer: the Holy One, Blessed is He, told him, "If the righteous fathers were to consume the fruits, what would remain for their children?"
The Gemara adds: when does a righteous person eat fruits in this world at all? Only when he is good to his fellow human beings, as it is said, "Say of the righteous that he is good, for they shall eat the fruit of their deeds." If he is good only toward Heaven, he will not eat the fruits here. Only when he attains the status of "a righteous person who is good" - good to others as well - does he merit having fruits in this world.
This is what is written here: "A good person leaves an inheritance to his children's children." "Good" refers to the fruits, and the righteous person bequeaths these fruits even to his grandchildren, and all the more so to his children. To whom does this apply? To a righteous person who is "good," for only he merits having fruits in this world. And even these fruits are not for himself, but for his children and grandchildren.
Regarding the principal stored up for the World to Come, it is obvious that the righteous person will receive it, for his children and grandchildren consume the fruits, while the principal remains intact for him. Rather, the verse comes to add: beyond this, even "the wealth of the sinner" is stored up for him. "Wealth" (cheil) refers to everything a person has gathered, his acquisitions. And everything the sinner has accumulated is stored up for the righteous.
As has often been explained, whenever the term chotei ("sinner") appears, it refers to one who is lacking in positive commandments. Chotei shares the root of missing the mark and falling short, as in the phrase, "I and my son Solomon shall be considered missing [chata'im]." It is taught that every person is allocated a portion in Gan Eden and a portion in Gehinnom; thus, even the wicked person originally has a portion in Gan Eden. When the wicked person comes to claim his share, he is told: "Sir, did you fulfill positive commandments? On what grounds should you receive Gan Eden? You are a chotei - deficient in positive commandments." What is done with these vacant spaces? The righteous person receives them, inheriting his own share and his neighbor's share in Gan Eden. This is the meaning of "and it is stored up for the righteous": not only what is due to him personally, which is the principal, but also the wealth and acquisition of the sinner - the share in Gan Eden that the sinner was meant to receive - is likewise stored up for the righteous.
Yet it still requires explanation: why does it say "stored up" (tzafun) rather than "given to the righteous is the wealth of the sinner"? The Vilna Gaon explains: Scripture states, "The years of the wicked will be shortened." The wicked person dies young, whereas the righteous person lives a long life. It turns out that the wicked person arrives in Heaven first, and the fine share in Gan Eden becomes available right then - but it is not given to him, for he has forfeited his share. For whom does it wait? For the righteous person. And what happens in the meantime? It is stored up, kept safely in a vault, awaiting the righteous person.
The Gaon offers an additional reason: one cannot say that the sinner's portion is "given" to the righteous person right away, for "behold, He puts no trust in His holy ones." He may be righteous today, but what will become of him tomorrow? Yochanan Kohen Gadol served for eighty years and ultimately became a Sadducee. Therefore, it is necessary to wait until he departs from this world, when it is definitively sealed that he will sin no more. For this reason: "and the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous."
The Malbim explains this verse as a continuation of what came before. Having seen that evil pursues the sinner - that his own evil deeds are what pursue him - whereas to the righteous, the Holy One, blessed be He, personally pays a good reward from His hand, a difficult question arises: in reality, we see righteous people suffering and wicked people living in tranquility! How can this be reconciled? In response, the verse states: "A good person leaves an inheritance to his grandchildren." You see that the righteous person did not receive his reward? His good reward, even of this world, is preserved - for his children's children. Hashem pays the reward to his descendants after him. And if you see the wicked person prospering and exalted, do not be shaken: "and the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous." The sinner's wealth is merely kept safe until the righteous person arrives and inherits it, as it is written: "The wicked may prepare it, but the righteous will wear it."
This is what the Gemara expounds, and Rashi cites it, regarding the verse: "And Esther placed Mordechai over the house of Haman" - here you have the reality of "the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous." Someone who saw Haman at the beginning of the Megillah and fell asleep in the middle is left with a question: look at such a wicked man, look how he prospers, the king promoted him and elevated him! We say to him: wake up, my friend. If one reads the Megillah backward, he has not fulfilled his obligation; if he reads it while dozing off, he has not fulfilled his obligation; if he reads it and omits even a single verse, he has not fulfilled his obligation. Why? Because one must wait and see the final act: "And Esther placed Mordechai over the house of Haman."
Do not be dismayed, then, by what you see when a righteous person does not seem to receive good; it is stored up for his children. Avraham Avinu faced trials and hardships all his life; Yaakov faced hardships all his life - and what do we live on today? The merit of the Forefathers, the fruits of the early Patriarchs. Do not judge by what you see right now, which is merely fleeting; in due time, you will see that the tzaddik receives immense reward.
We find a remarkable example of this in Haran. The Midrash relates that Avraham Avinu confronted Nimrod, and Nimrod cast him into the fiery furnace. Haran said to himself: if Avraham wins, I am with him; and if Nimrod wins, I am with him; I side with the winners. Who won? Avraham. Haran declared: "I am with Avraham." Nimrod said: "You are with Avraham?" They cast him, too, into the fiery furnace - and he died.
On the surface, an observer would say: here was a man in a very difficult generation, a generation of intense trials, who was ultimately willing to give his life for the sanctification of Hashem's Name - and he died! Where is his reward? The Holy One, blessed be He, came to Avraham's aid, but Haran was wiped out, leaving nothing behind. And if you suggest his reward is in the World to Come, surely the fruits ought to be enjoyed in this world as well! The answer is profound and awe-inspiring, yet easily overlooked without contemplation: all the holy Matriarchs were Haran's descendants. Sarah was Haran's daughter, and subsequently all the rest were his granddaughters and great-granddaughters. It turns out that the entire House of Israel descends from Haran! Did Haran not receive a reward? Look at what an immense reward it was. Only someone shortsighted would say: look, he performed a mitzvah, what a fool, had he said "I am with Nimrod" he would still be alive today. One who asks this asks out of foolishness; he sees only one step ahead, not generations ahead, for it was Haran who would build the House of Israel.
Another example is Tzelofchad, who was the wood-gatherer (the mekoshesh eitzim). Was he righteous or wicked? Our Sages teach that his intention was for the good - to show others: "Come and see the punishment of one who desecrates Shabbos." For this took place after the commandment to observe Shabbos had been given, but they did not yet know the penalty for someone who violates it. He went and gathered wood so that he would be executed, giving his life for the sanctification of Hashem's Name. The question is: ought one to be such a tzaddik? Certainly not. His intentions were indeed for the sake of Heaven, but one must not be this kind of tzaddik. We have explained previously that immense damage resulted from this: had Israel kept two consecutive Shabbosot, they would have been redeemed immediately; and what prevented the observance of that second Shabbos? The wood-gatherer. "Do not be overly righteous" - look at the damage that was caused!
And yet, his intention was for the sake of Heaven. Could such a good deed be lost? Come and see what daughters he had: daughters explicitly named in the Torah. The Torah does not mention women by name unless strictly necessary, yet here it records their names several times - both in their own parashah and at the end of the book, "And the daughters of Tzelofchad were married..." - enumerating them once according to their wisdom and once according to their age. This teaches that they were exceptionally wise, discerning something that even Moshe Rabbeinu did not know. What greatness, what stature! We are taught: do you think a person performs a deed and simply dies? Know that the reward is stored away for him. "A good person leaves an inheritance to his grandchildren" - wait, do not be shortsighted, and you will see that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not withhold the reward of any creature. He received his punishment, but he also saw his reward, for he was blessed with daughters of extraordinary stature, who perceived things that even Moshe Rabbeinu did not discern.
רׇב־אֹ֭כֶל נִ֣יר רָאשִׁ֑ים וְיֵ֥שׁ נִ֝סְפֶּ֗ה בְּלֹ֣א מִשְׁפָּֽט׃ (כ"ג) - Abundant food is in the tillage of the poor, but there is substance swept away without justice.
Rashi explains: much Torah emerges through the students, whose masters learn from them through their analytical discussion. "Rav" (abundant / great) refers to the prominent figure, who eats from what the "rashim" (poor / small ones) have plowed. (Although it is spelled with an aleph [ראשים], since the aleph is quiescent and not pronounced, it is expounded as if it were absent, derived from the word for the destitute [רשים].) Sometimes you see that the great master "eats" from the sharpness of the junior students, who question him and sharpen his mind - "and from my students more than from all of them." "Yet there are those swept away without judgment" - some of them perish from the world because they do not conduct themselves properly; even though they were of great benefit to their teachers, nevertheless, such a student did not walk on a worthy path, and is swept away without judgment.
And Rashi brings an additional explanation regarding agricultural produce: there is produce that is struck because the owner does not separate terumot and ma'asrot (tithes) properly. "Yet there are those swept away" - there is produce that is destroyed, and why? "Without judgment" - because you do not give the share of the poor in accordance with the law.
Our Sages expound the verse in another way. The Gemara recounts an incident where one of the Sages met the Angel of Death, where it relates that the angel was once sent to take Miriam, the raiser of children (megadla yanukei), and he mistakenly took Miriam, the hairdresser of women (megadla se'ar nashei). The Sage asked him: How can an error occur? He replied: Have you not learned, "Yet there are those swept away without judgment"? There are circumstances in which a person is swept away even though it was not yet due to him according to strict judgment. He asked him: And what do you do with the remaining years of those individuals? He replied: These years are reserved for a talmid chacham who overlooks insults and forgives grievances.
Incidentally, when we studied this in the Gemara, we cited the words of the Ben Ish Chai, who noted that heaven forbid one should think anyone is truly swept away without judgment. Rather, the meaning is that when examining this person's record of judgment, one does not find a verdict that would sentence him to death - yet he has reckonings from previous gilgulim (reincarnations), and reckonings of the Holy One, Blessed is He, that are hidden from human sight, and perhaps even from the eyes of the angels or the Angel of Death himself. The Angel of Death sees no apparent reason to take him, but heaven forbid to suggest that there is no judgment at all. "A king establishes the land through justice," "Blessed are You, Hashem, the King Who loves righteousness and judgment" - there is no such thing as an absence of judgment; rather, it is without judgment discernible to the eye. However, Rashi notes that while this homiletic exposition is true, it does not align neatly with the beginning of the verse - what is the connection between "Abundant food is in the tilled soil of the poor" and "yet there are those swept away without judgment"?
Rabbeinu Yonah explains: sometimes abundant crops are found precisely in the tilled land of the poor, in their plowing and in their fields. ("Nir" means plowed ground, as in "Break up your fallow ground, and do not sow among thorns.") Even though you might ask: they lack the funds to cultivate the land properly, to fertilize and irrigate it as needed - nevertheless, you see that there is abundant food in the tilled land of the poor, "without judgment," contrary to standard practice and beyond the normal laws of nature, for he did not cultivate his land adequately, and yet you find an abundance of food there.
And conversely, the opposite also occurs: there are wealthy individuals who cultivated the ground properly, hired agronomists, tended to it, provided all the supplements, manure, and fertilizers, and eliminated pests - and with all that, says Rabbeinu Yonah, the earth yields nothing and fails to produce its crop by decree of the Omnipresent, Blessed is He. "He turns the wise backward." The harvest was expected to flourish, yet precisely with them it failed - this is "yet there are those swept away without judgment," contrary to what standard rules dictate. And what is this coming to teach us? Do not trust in the sinner's wealth. Even if you see him prospering and succeeding - do not put faith in that riches; the Holy One, Blessed is He, will find a way to dismantle his wealth. And do not wonder at this, for "the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous," continuing the theme of the previous verse. Whatever the sinner possesses is laid up for the righteous, and to Hashem, Blessed is He, all deeds are measured.
The Malbim also explains that this verse continues the preceding one, resolving a perplexing question: why doesn't Hashem bestow the reward upon the tzaddik himself? "A good man leaves an inheritance to his grandchildren" - why grandchildren? I am right here! Is that fair? I work, I exert myself, and they tell me: Do not worry, your grandchildren will receive it. Imagine someone being told: Work here for seventy years, and your salary - your grandchildren will receive it. I would be very happy for them, but what about me? Justice demands that the laborer himself receive his due. It is to address this that Shlomo offers his resolution in this verse.
First, he intensifies the question with an explicit example: "The entire world is sustained for the sake of Chanina, My son, yet Chanina, My son, is content with a kav of carobs from one Erev Shabbat to the next." Master of the Universe, one who has the merit to sustain the entire world - shouldn't he at least have a fraction of it for himself? Why does he have nothing? To this, he says: Do not wonder, for we see this dynamic in physical reality - "Abundant food is in the tilled soil of the poor."
Let us consider: who actually goes out to plow the earth, to sow, and to harvest? Especially in their day, and it remains true today as well. Do the great magnates and wealthy moguls go out to take a plow, hitch it to an ox, and plow furrow after furrow? Working the land is grueling labor that wears a person down. Even today, though there is plenty of machinery, it is grueling work: heading out to the fields, managing laborers, trudging through mud and rain. The one who does this is someone in dire need of money, for whom this is his livelihood.
The verse tells you: most of the food in the world comes about through "the tilled soil of the poor" - through the destitute who plow and toil in backbreaking labor. And yet, look at this striking paradox: "yet there are those swept away without judgment" - some of these very poor people, through whom food is brought to the entire world, have nothing to eat themselves and live in squalor. In this manner, understand the tzaddikim as well: even though all the sustenance comes in their merit - there are thorns, so to speak, that block the abundance, and the tzaddikim clear them away, bringing bounty to the whole world through their spiritual plowing - nevertheless, some of them may perish from hunger, or one of them may subsist on a mere kav of carobs. "Yet there are those swept away without judgment."
But why is reality structured this way? Hashem knows that if this impoverished laborer always had plenty of bread and lived in comfort, no one would be left to plow the field for us. It is just as our Sages said, that poverty was decreed upon scribes; whenever you see a scribe who became wealthy, it is a sign that he became a merchant - but as long as someone remains a practicing scribe, you will not see him grow wealthy solely from writing sacred scrolls. Poverty was decreed upon them because if a scribe were wealthy, would he ever sit and write? It requires tremendous effort and painstaking dedication - letter by letter, word by word, ensuring every detail is written properly, straining one's eyes and hunching one's back. Therefore, the Holy One, Blessed is He, saw to it that they would not become wealthy, so that mezuzot, sifrei Torah, and tefillin remain available to us.
So it is with the tzaddik: if the tzaddik were to enjoy his merits and begin to take a portion of them for himself, he would no longer be fit to channel abundance to the community. His entire ability to bestow abundance upon the public comes from the fact that he takes nothing from it for himself, that everything he does is purely for the sake of Heaven. But if he begins to receive a share, he will immediately say to himself: Look, it pays off - I prayed properly, and the Holy One, blessed be He, sent me a reward. It turns out that he serves not only because of his desire to do the will of Hashem, but also for personal benefits. And when he is not at such a high level of righteousness, what power does he have to channel abundance to others? His entire power to bestow abundance stems from the fact that he takes nothing - just as the poor man's entire power to feed everyone from the yield of the field stems from the fact that he has nothing to eat, and therefore works relentlessly. If he had more than enough, why would he toil in field labor? He would go work in high-tech, no one would engage in this labor, and everyone would have nothing to eat. This serves as a parable explaining why the tzaddik does not consume the abundance for himself in this world.
This aligns with what was previously explained regarding the statement: "The entire world is sustained on account of (bishvil) Chanina My son." What does "bishvil" mean? Commentators explain, among them Rav Chaim of Volozhin: through the pathway (shevil) that he created. Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa created a pathway from here all the way to the Infinite, blessed be He, and through this pathway divine bounty flows down to everyone - provided that nothing clings to the path itself. But if he too takes something from it, he is no longer fit to channel this abundance to the entire world.
The Vilna Gaon, following this exact line of thought, adds another explanation for "yet there is that is swept away without judgment": this provides an additional reason for the obligation to give charity to the poor. For if you do not give the poor what is due to them, you are, Heaven forbid, considered one who robs the poor - "the spoil of the poor is in your houses" - and through this, "He robs the life of those who rob them," and consequently, "there is that is swept away without judgment." Therefore, give the poor man his share and what is rightfully his, so that you do not, God forbid, fall into this measure.
חוֹשֵׂ֣ךְ שִׁ֭בְטוֹ שׂוֹנֵ֣א בְנ֑וֹ וְ֝אֹהֲב֗וֹ שִׁחֲר֥וֹ מוּסָֽר׃ (כ"ד) - He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him early.
The Vilna Gaon explains: One who withholds the rod from his son - a "shevet" being a staff or rod - and spares him the blows he deserves, covering for him and failing to discipline him, will ultimately come to "hate his son," because the son will go astray into corrupt ways.
Let us examine the wording carefully: what is the meaning of "chosech" (withholds or spares)? One only withholds something that is due. Can a person say, "The hundred shekels in my pocket, I withheld from a stranger walking in the street"? He was never entitled to it, so that is not withholding. But if I owe you money and do not pay it, that is withholding. The word "chosech" denotes withholding something from someone to whom it is owed. Here, then, it refers to someone who withholds the rod at a time when the rod is due to the child - when the child has committed an act that warrants the rod, warrants chastisement and discipline - and the father withholds what is due him. It is this failure that will ultimately cause him to hate his son.
Today, we see clear evidence of this in what happens around us. You see people who reach such states where they use harsh language toward their children. When the children grow older and kick their parents to the curb, you hear the bitter words a father speaks about his son and the terrible language he uses - regarding the very child who was once his pampered favorite. And understandably so, because what the child does to him makes his life miserable, and you understand why the parent speaks that way. But who caused this? "He who spares his rod." Had you set boundaries at a young age, had you properly disciplined him when he was young, you would not have arrived at a state where you hate him today. And how did you come to hate him? Because when he was young, you gave him everything. Parents often ask: "I gave him everything, I bought him everything, I showered him with gifts, he had everything he ever wanted - how could he do this to me?" But that is precisely the point: it happened because you gave him everything. Had you withheld from him and guided him on the straight path, you would have come to love him.
This is the meaning of the continuation: "but he who loves him disciplines him early." One who loves his son does not merely discipline him when discipline is obviously needed, but he actively "seeks out discipline" - he investigates and observes whether the child did something improper or unfitting, so that he may discipline him for that as well.
This is like the parable of the author of the Akeidat Yitzchak: when a woman wants to apply makeup, what kind of mirror does she use? Not an ordinary mirror, but a magnifying mirror, one that magnifies every blemish and pimple as if it were a disaster. Why? Take an ordinary mirror; why seek to magnify your flaws? That is precisely the reason: because she wishes to remove that blemish and pluck that tiny stray hair, she uses a magnifying glass that makes every small imperfection appear large, enabling her to seek them out and remove them. (And parenthetically, this shows that women have not changed, mirrors have not changed, the world continues as it always has, and human nature remains the same everywhere.) So too, one who loves his son: out of his deep love, he looks closely to see if there is anything to correct, and disciplines him even over small things.
Therefore, the Gemara in Masechet Makkot states that even if a child studies properly, a father should still discipline him occasionally - so that no trace of bad behavior takes root in him at all. This aligns with the approach of the Vilna Gaon.
These three verses form a single continuous theme. "A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children" teaches that the fruits in this world are generally not consumed by the tzaddik himself, but rather by his children and grandchildren, while the principal is stored away for the World to Come - and even the sinner's wealth, the portion he forfeited in Gan Eden, is stored away and waiting for the righteous, which is why the verse says "laid up" rather than "given." Hence, divine retribution and reward must not be judged with a short-sighted perspective: Haran, the daughters of Tzelafchad, and the downfall of Haman all prove that the reckoning is calculated generations in advance. "Much food is in the tillable ground of the poor" explains why this principle operates as it does: abundance flows through those who labor without personally partaking of it, and through the tzaddik who takes nothing for himself - for the moment anything clings to the conduit, it is no longer fit to channel abundance to the public. And finally, "He who spares his rod hates his son": true love is not indulgence, but education; one who withholds necessary discipline from his son will ultimately come to hate him, whereas one who loves him actively seeks out every small flaw to correct it.