Introduction: The Generation's Claim and Their Parable
Chapter 18 of Yechezkel deals entirely with one major question: Is a son punished for the sin of his father? The generation living close to the destruction of the Land of Israel would quote a proverb, using it to lodge a harsh complaint against Heaven: Our fathers sinned and are no more, and we have borne their iniquities. The entire chapter is the response of the Holy One, Blessed is He, to this claim, delivered through the prophet.
(א) וַיְהִי דְבַר־יְהֹוָה אֵלַי לֵאמֹר׃ (ב) מַה־לָּכֶם אַתֶּם מֹשְׁלִים אֶת־הַמָּשָׁל הַזֶּה עַל־אַדְמַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אָבוֹת יֹאכְלוּ בֹסֶר וְשִׁנֵּי הַבָּנִים תִּקְהֶינָה׃ - (1) And the word of Hashem came to me, saying: (2) What do you mean by quoting this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, 'The fathers eat sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge'?
Radak explains: That generation would quote this proverb regarding the destruction of the Land of Israel. Where did they take this claim from? From the prophets themselves. The prophets rebuked the ten tribes and constantly reminded them of the sins of Yerovam, and they rebuked the tribe of Yehudah for the sins of Menasheh, who placed an idol in the Sanctuary and filled Jerusalem with blood from end to end. The people said to them: You describe to us the sins of earlier generations, and everything we are suffering now is because of them. Does that make any sense? Should the fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth be set on edge?
Moreover, they added, as the Metzudas David explains: The fathers actually lived in serenity, while the troubles only began for the children! The corruption was among the fathers and yet they enjoyed tranquility, whereas we, who are not like Menasheh and Yerovam - should we be stricken for their sin?
Radak says: They failed to understand and grasp this properly. The sins of Yerovam and Menasheh did indeed cause great wrath, but the core of their guilt was that they led those who followed them into sin. Had Israel not continued in the sins of Yerovam, and the people of Judah in the sins of Menasheh, they would not have been punished. The corruption initiated by the fathers is still alive among you, and you are clinging to the deeds of your fathers.
Four Decrees and Four Prophets
The Malbim cites the words of Chazal in Makkos 24a: Moshe issued four decrees upon Israel, and four prophets came and annulled them. Moshe said, "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children," and Yechezkel came and annulled it, saying, "The soul that sins, it shall die."
Malbim asks: Even before you arrive at Yechezkel contradicting Moshe, Moshe Rabbeinu himself stated the exact opposite: "Children shall not be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin." How do these two verses reconcile? To this Chazal answer: It all depends. When children cling to the deeds of their fathers, the Holy One, Blessed is He, visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children. But when children do not cling to the deeds of their fathers, of this it is said, "Children shall not be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin." In plain terms: If you are righteous, you will not be punished simply because your father was wicked. But if your father was wicked and you follow in his ways, the iniquity of your fathers will be held against you as well.
And here we should mention the teaching of the Arizal regarding why it says "to the third and fourth generation" and no further. The holy Ari explains: The third generation is already a reincarnation (gilgul) of the first generation, and therefore comes to receive what it deserves. This is not always the case - sometimes the first generation is still alive - but in many instances, this generation is the very same soul reincarnated, and thereby suffers for what it personally did in the previous generation.
"Visiting the Iniquity of the Fathers" Applies Only to Idolatry
The Malbim explains: What is obscure in one place is clarified in another. In the Ten Commandments, it becomes clear that this entire principle was stated only regarding the sin of idolatry: "You shall not bow down to them nor serve them, for I, Hashem your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, to those who hate Me." This was not said of a father who desecrated Shabbos, nor of a father who ate forbidden foods, but specifically of a father who practiced idolatry.
Indeed, the Rambam already noted that regarding the sin of idolatry, we find expressions not found in any other context. The Rambam writes in The Guide for the Perplexed: you will not find burning anger, fury, jealousy, and hatred mentioned except regarding the sin of idolatry. And with this sin, the Holy One, blessed be He, is zealous and destroys the root along with the branches. Idolatry is the gravest matter in this respect, bringing about complete destruction, which is why it is said of it: "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, to those who hate Me" - hatred is found regarding the sin of idolatry, and there complete destruction occurs.
Now, explains the Malbim, in the time of Yechezkel, the evil inclination for idolatry was nullified, just as Chazal taught that the Men of the Great Assembly nullified the inclination for idolatry, and there was no longer any temptation to worship idols. If so, "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children" was also nullified, for this rule applied specifically to idolatry, whereas with other sins there is no visiting of the fathers' iniquity upon the children. All that remains is one principle: children who cling to the deeds of their fathers - upon them the Holy One, blessed be He, visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children even for other sins. But the unqualified statement, "a zealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, to those who hate Me," even when they do not cling to their fathers' deeds, applied strictly to the sin of idolatry.
With this, the Malbim explains the parable itself: until the time of Yechezkel, the evil inclination for idolatry existed among them, and therefore they recited this proverb. The worship they offered to the host of heaven and the stars was compared to unripe grapes, to fruit that has not matured. Why? Because the stars do possess power, but they have no independent power: the stars receive their power from the Holy One, blessed be He. We are forbidden to pray to the stars and constellations; we must pray directly to Hashem. The constellation is merely the conduit through which divine bounty flows, not the source. "To Hashem alone," "He who sacrifices to gods shall be utterly destroyed" - whoever worships one of these forces, even though it is a real force, forgets that its source is the Holy One, blessed be He, and He alone must be served. Thus, this intermediary force is not the ultimate cause, and is like an unripe fruit that has not yet reached its full power. This, then, was their claim: this involves the sin of idolatry, and in the sin of idolatry, children suffer in any event for the iniquity of their fathers.
(ג) חַי־אָנִי נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה אִם־יִהְיֶה לָכֶם עוֹד מְשֹׁל הַמָּשָׁל הַזֶּה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל׃ - "As I live, says the Lord Hashem, you shall no longer have occasion to use this proverb in Israel."
The Holy One, blessed be He, declares: you will no longer use this proverb. According to the Malbim, this is wonderful: since idolatry no longer exists, "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children" no longer applies, as this rule was stated only concerning idolatry. Consequently, there is no longer any reason to use this proverb in Israel.
(ד) הֵן כׇּל־הַנְּפָשׁוֹת לִי הֵנָּה כְּנֶפֶשׁ הָאָב וּכְנֶפֶשׁ הַבֵּן לִי־הֵנָּה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַחֹטֵאת הִיא תָמוּת׃ - "Behold, all souls are Mine; like the soul of the father, so the soul of the son is Mine; the soul that sins, it shall die."
The Malbim explains: indeed, physically there is a connection between father and son, a biological bond; the father fathered him. Often, fathers pass on physical ailments and flaws of temperament to their children. If someone has a history of diabetes in their family, we know it is hereditary and passed down to the children. The same is true for psychological issues, many of which are hereditary. And not only physical ailments, but character traits as well: sometimes one sees an irritable father, and then sees his son behaving in the exact same way, a carbon copy, acting just like his father. One sees an indifferent person, and sees his son as a mirror image of his father. The same goes for physical build: a powerfully built man, and his son cast in the same mold. Parents pass down many traits to their children.
However, know this, says the Malbim: regarding spiritual ailments - meaning iniquities and transgressions - everything depends on free choice. No one can say: "My father was wicked; do you know what his name was? Terach! What do you expect from someone like that?" Does having a father named Terach mean you must turn out badly? And on the other hand, someone had a righteous father - Chizkiyahu - and from him came Menasheh. What does this show? That mitzvos and sins are not inherited. Every individual will be punished for their own transgressions and rewarded for their own mitzvos.
This is the meaning of "Behold, all souls are Mine." Do you think that your soul is merely an extension of your father's soul, so that if your father sinned, you will be punished? No. Fathers do not generate the soul. Concerning the soul, the Holy One, blessed be He, says: I gave it, "all souls are Mine." Therefore, it makes no sense that the soul of the son should bear the iniquities of the soul of the father, for the father did not give the soul; I did. "Like the soul of the father, so the soul of the son is Mine" - both belong to Me, and just as the father's soul has free choice to act as it wishes and must give an accounting for that, so too the son's soul has free choice and must give an accounting for that. The father's soul has no ownership over the son's soul, nor is it connected to it in such a way that the son must pay the penalty for his father's corrupt deeds.
The Description of the Righteous Person
From here onward, the prophet begins the description of a person who is whole in his deeds, showing that such a person "shall surely live"; he does not pay the price for anyone else, but rather lives in the merit of his own good deeds. Afterward, the prophet will describe what happens if he fathers a wicked son, and what the fate of that wicked son will be.
(ה) וְאִישׁ כִּי־יִהְיֶה צַדִּיק וְעָשָׂה מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה׃ - "And if a man is righteous, and does justice and righteousness."
Here the prophet begins to explain how justice is administered before Hashem, Blessed is He. Radak explains: Do not be misled by what is written, "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children," for there it specifically states, "to those who hate Me." "If a man be righteous" - meaning he refrains from violating negative commandments; "and does justice and righteousness" - meaning he also fulfills the positive commandments. Thus, he possesses both the avoidance of transgressions and positive merits.
The Malbim notes a precision here: seemingly, there is a redundancy. If he is righteous, what is a tzaddik if not someone who does justice and righteousness? By the way, unlike nowadays where people casually say, "You're a tzaddik, my brother" - tzaddik is a title that requires immense toil and effort to earn. Rather, the Malbim explains: "If a man be righteous" refers to his inner character - inherently, he is a decent, upright person with no inclination toward evil and no desires or cravings for corruption. Righteousness has become an acquired trait in his soul. It may be that he reached this through intense personal work, laboring upon himself until he reached the level where he is no longer drawn to any of those corruptions. And beyond this inner acquisition, "and does justice and righteousness" means he also translates this into actual deeds.
And what are "justice" (mishpat) and "righteousness" (tzedakah)? Consistent with his approach, the Malbim explains that mishpat refers to matters between man and his fellow man, as in "Now these are the ordinances (mishpatim) which you shall set before them"; whereas tzedakah is related to the root tzaddik, justifying one's actions before the Omnipresent - not in the colloquial sense of giving charity to another. Thus, this individual practiced both justice between man and his fellow, and righteousness between man and God.
(ו) אֶל־הֶהָרִים לֹא אָכָל וְעֵינָיו לֹא נָשָׂא אֶל־גִּלּוּלֵי בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת־אֵשֶׁת רֵעֵהוּ לֹא טִמֵּא וְאֶל־אִשָּׁה נִדָּה לֹא יִקְרָב׃ - (6) He did not eat upon the mountains, nor did he lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel; he did not defile his neighbor's wife, nor did he come near to a woman in her impurity.
"He did not eat upon the mountains" - what is there to eat upon the mountains, and what kind of sin is this? Rashi cites the Targum: "He did not worship idols upon the mountains." It was their practice to erect idolatrous altars atop mountains, seeking high ground, as it is written, "upon every high hill and under every leafy tree." When they sacrificed an offering to idols, they would eat from its sacrifices. Here, the prophet testifies that this man did not eat from the idolatrous sacrifices that were burned and offered upon the mountains.
"Nor did he lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel" - Rashi explains: these are the other idolatries, the Baal in Samaria and the calves in Beit El and Dan. To these he did not lift up his eyes, even though the house of Israel looked to them. Radak adds that lifting the eyes denotes an additional safeguard: not only did he not worship idols, but he did not even cast his gaze toward them, as it says, "Do not turn to idols" - even looking at them is forbidden; one should not cast even a glance at such a tainted thing.
After mentioning idolatry - an offense between man and God that is equal in weight to all transgressions - the prophet mentions offenses between man and his fellow, specifically the common infractions in commerce and lending that frequently arise among people. Afterward, he mentions prohibited sexual relations (arayot). Radak explains: incestuous relations with close relatives - his mother, daughter, sister - need not be mentioned, since most people keep away from them, and even the wicked refrain from these transgressions. Therefore, he explicitly mentions "he did not defile his neighbor's wife," for a person experiences an evil inclination toward his neighbor's wife, whereas toward close blood relatives one does not have an active inclination for incest, as Chazal either abolished or weakened that urge.
Further on, the text will mention the acts of charity he performed - a great mitzvah among interpersonal duties - and true justice, which is vital for establishing order in society. As noted several times, when true justice prevails, a state functions properly; even if the legal system is not based on Torah law but on sound logic, no more than this is demanded of a gentile, and it establishes order in the civilized world. After stating that the son does not bear the iniquity of the father and the father does not bear the iniquity of the son, we will see later that a person does not even bear his own iniquities once he repents. Here Radak outlines for us the response that Hashem, Blessed is He, provides through the prophet, and we will proceed step by step.
The Malbim outlines the sequence: "He did not eat upon the mountains" and onward represents righteousness between man and God, namely that he did not partake of idolatrous offerings. From here, the verse turns to address interpersonal conduct between man and his fellow.
(ז) וְאִישׁ לֹא יוֹנֶה חֲבֹלָתוֹ חוֹב יָשִׁיב גְּזֵלָה לֹא יִגְזֹל לַחְמוֹ לְרָעֵב יִתֵּן וְעֵירֹם יְכַסֶּה־בָּגֶד׃ - (7) And did not wrong any man, returned the debtor's pledge, committed no robbery, gave his bread to the hungry, and covered the naked with a garment.
"And did not wrong any man" - from the term ona'ah (fraud or exploitation), as in "you shall not wrong one another," meaning he does not deceive. Radak explains that the primary form of ona'ah involves misleading someone in commerce: selling a cheap item as an expensive one, or selling an old item as new.
"Returned the debtor's pledge" - as it is said, "If you take your neighbor's garment as a pledge, you shall restore it to him by the time the sun goes down." If he took a garment from his fellow as collateral, and that garment is nightwear, he must return it to him at night; if it is daywear, during the day. That is, at sunset he must return the nightwear to him. This is the meaning of "returned the debtor's pledge": whatever he took as a pledge for a debt, he returned.
"He did not commit robbery" - this seems astonishing at first glance. If you already said that he returns even a pledge, we are already speaking of a level of exceptional righteousness; after reaching such a high plane, does Scripture need to inform us as a novelty that he does not rob banks? Surely this is a kal vachomer (an a fortiori deduction)! Rather, the Malbim explains: this refers even to an item already stolen by a thief, from whom he also does not steal. For there are those who permit themselves to rob a thief - reasoning that he stole it himself anyway! Yet Chazal teach that one who steals from a thief is exempt from paying the double penalty (kefel), but remains obligated to pay the principal (keren), and he has nevertheless committed a transgression. Not only that, but the Gemara remarks, "Steal after a thief, and you still taste the flavor [of theft]" - a person who performs an act that carries the character of theft is left with the taint of theft. Even if one argues that all the circumstances and justifications were present to permit it, at the very least the taste of theft remains.
Now Scripture recounts the positive deeds he performed: "He gave his bread to the hungry" - he gives of his own bread, and it may even be his last loaf. It is not surplus bread that he has, and yet he gives it to the hungry person. "And covered the naked with a garment" - he covers the naked person with clothing. All of these are matters in which he perfected himself within the civil laws governing interpersonal relations (bein adam lachavero).
(ח) בַּנֶּשֶׁךְ לֹא־יִתֵּן וְתַרְבִּית לֹא יִקָּח מֵעָוֶל יָשִׁיב יָדוֹ מִשְׁפַּט אֱמֶת יַעֲשֶׂה בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִישׁ׃ - (8) He does not lend at interest and does not take increase; he withdraws his hand from iniquity, and executes true justice between man and man.
"He does not lend at interest (neshech)" - he does not give the interest forbidden by the Torah. "And does not take increase (tarbit)". Chazal say: neshech and tarbit are one and the same, and Scripture separated them only so that a violator transgresses two negative commandments. However, as noted in the study of chapter "Eizehu Neshech" in Bava Metzia, the Sages distinguish between them: the term neshech applies to money, and tarbit to food, as it is written: "You shall not give him your money at interest (neshech), nor give him your food for increase (marbit)". Others say that neshech is biblically forbidden, whereas tarbit is rabbinic. In any event, there are several explanations for the distinction between neshech and tarbit.
The Metzudat David explains the repetition: neshech refers to an explicit prior agreement - "I lend you a thousand, you return twelve hundred" - which is direct interest (ribit ketzutza) forbidden by Torah law. "And does not take increase (tarbit)" - where he made no prior agreement with him; rather, when the borrower came to repay the debt, he said: "Look, you did not pressure me or pester me and you were very considerate, so take another hundred shekels." Even this he does not accept. He never demanded it; the borrower offered it voluntarily, yet he refuses to take it.
"He withdraws his hand from iniquity" - he committed no wrong whatsoever, and anything offered to him unjustly he pulled his hand away from, as the Torah forbade: "You shall do no injustice in judgment, in measures of length, weight, or quantity." "And executes true justice between man and man" - if he judges between two people, he will always render only true justice between them, never perverting judgment, but judging strictly according to the Halachah and the law set forth by the Torah.
(ט) בְּחֻקּוֹתַי יְהַלֵּךְ וּמִשְׁפָּטַי שָׁמַר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֱמֶת צַדִּיק הוּא חָיֹה יִחְיֶה נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה׃ - (9) He walks in My statutes and has kept My ordinances to deal faithfully; he is righteous, he shall surely live, says the Lord Hashem.
"He walks in My statutes" - even those commandments categorized as chukim (statutes beyond human reason), about which the nations of the world taunt Israel and distress them, saying: "What is the point of this mitzvah? What is shaatnez (the ban on wool and linen)? What is the red heifer?" - he performed these as well. The mishpatim (rational laws) are easier to observe because they appeal to reason; but the chukim are beyond intellect and human logic, and nonetheless, "he walks in My statutes."
"And has kept My ordinances to deal faithfully (la'asot emet)" - what does it mean to "deal faithfully"? Even when administering justice, he had no intention of seeking revenge. He would not say: "Two litigants came before me; I once had a grievance with this one, an argument with him - let us settle scores now," thereby taking revenge on him. Rather, he kept My ordinances solely to act with truth, without any ulterior motive. "He is righteous, he shall surely live" - a person who acts this way is considered a tzaddik, and he shall surely live in this world and in the World to Come.
The Malbim structures this here as well: "He walks in My statutes" refers to mitzvot between man and God (bein adam laMakom), while "and has kept My ordinances" refers to mitzvot between man and his fellow (bein adam lachavero), as mishpat pertains to interpersonal affairs. It turns out that it is not enough for him to be righteous in his intellect and understanding, nor merely to have refined his nature and character traits; he is also righteous in practical deed. In addition to acquiring righteousness within his soul, he practices righteousness in actual deed, and such a person is worthy to surely live.
The Gemara's Exposition: Righteousness in the Fine Details
Before continuing, let us consider the difficulty in these verses. Scripture comes to describe a righteous person, a tzaddik - and what is his praise? That he did not eat from idolatrous sacrifices and offerings to idols. What a great tzaddik! He did not lift his eyes to the idols, meaning he did not go worship the golden calves. "He did not defile his neighbor's wife" - he never stumbled with a married woman. And also, "he did not approach a woman in her menstrual impurity." Is this truly the measure of a tzaddik?
From here, the Gemara derives that the prophet is speaking allegorically, and that it actually refers to very subtle matters. Rav Acha bar Rabbi Chanina expounded (Sanhedrin 81a): What is the meaning of that which is written, "He has not eaten upon the mountains" - that he did not eat on account of the merits of his ancestors.
The meaning of this is: the righteous want to eat through the strength of their own arm, that is, through their own personal merits. It is told that Rav Elyashiv was once invited to serve as sandak at the bris of a great-grandson (or great-great-grandson), and they told him that it is written in the holy books that whoever is privileged to serve as sandak at the bris of a great-grandson merits entry into Gan Eden. Rav Elyashiv smiled and said: "All my life I have been working to enter Gan Eden through the front door, not through some roundabout entrance. You are trying to arrange a back door for me - 'You were once a sandak for a great-grandson, so let us arrange your entry...' I labor all my life to enter through the main way; do not try to arrange shortcuts around it for me."
It is also told of Rav Elyashiv that he once stayed as a guest at someone's home in a distant place, and the host asked him how many times he had completed Shas. The grandson hinted to the host that this was inappropriate, as many people like to ask the Gedolim intrusive and prying questions, and he knew how humble the Rav was and that he did not wish to speak of his accomplishments. But Rav Elyashiv said: "No, I am a guest in his home and owe him hakaras hatov (gratitude); he may ask me whatever he wishes." When the host heard this, he said: "Let me seize the opportunity." He asked him: "Honored Rav, may one recite over the Rav the blessing 'Who has imparted of His wisdom to those who fear Him'?" An even more probing question! What did he expect the Rav to tell him - to recite a blessing over him using Hashem's Name and Sovereignty? Rav Elyashiv replied: "'Of His wisdom' - perhaps. But 'to those who fear Him' - can I possibly call myself one of those who fear Him? Perhaps regarding the Tchebiner Rav one could say 'those who fear Him,' of him one can say that he truly fears Hashem, but on me you wish to recite 'to those who fear Him'?" From this we learn that the righteous seek to merit reward through their own deeds, rather than entering through the back door. This is the meaning of "He has not eaten upon the mountains" - he did not rely on the merits of his father or seek merits here and there, but came through the strength of his own deeds.
"Nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel" - the Gemara explains that one who walks in pride pushes away the feet of the Shechinah, which is akin to idol worship. Here, the meaning is that he did not walk with an erect, haughty posture. One who walks with an erect posture and looks down upon everyone from above, in a manner of pride and arrogance, is called "the idols of the house of Israel" - this is an abomination.
"Nor defiled his neighbor's wife" - that he did not infringe upon his fellow's livelihood (hasagas gevul). For otherwise, it would be obvious! Rather, the intention is that his fellow is engaged in a certain business, and he does not open a competing business right next to him or attempt to lure away his customers.
"Nor approached a woman in her impurity" - that he did not benefit from the charity fund. As long as he could survive on the bare minimum, even treating his Shabbos like a weekday, so long as he would not become dependent on other people or benefit from charity. Concerning such a person it is said: "He is righteous; he shall surely live."
"Whoever Performs All of Them" - The Weeping of Rabban Gamliel
The Gemara further relates there: Whenever Rabban Gamliel reached this verse, he would weep and say: "Only one who does all of them shall live, but not one who does only one of them!" Why did he weep? Because he understood that the verse listed all these conditions and only then stated, "He is righteous; he shall surely live," implying that one must fulfill every single criterion, and if a person performed only one thing - he would not live.
Rabbi Akiva said to him: If that is so, what about the verse, "Do not defile yourselves in all of these" - does that mean it is forbidden to defile oneself with all of them together, but permissible with some of them? Certainly not! Rather, "in all of these" means in any one of these. So too here, when it says later, "from one of these" - the meaning is that whoever fulfills even one of all these qualities, he is righteous and shall surely live. Even one of them is sufficient for him to surely live.
In summary:
The chapter opens with the generation's claim, "The fathers eat sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge," and the Divine response dismantles it from two angles. First, "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children" was said only regarding idol worship and "to those who hate Me"; once the evil inclination for idolatry was nullified, this proverb was nullified as well. For all other sins, children are punished only when they cling to the deeds of their fathers. Second, "Behold, all souls are Mine" - parents pass down the physical body and hereditary traits, but the soul is given directly by the Holy One, Blessed be He, and the father's soul possesses no ownership over the son's soul: each person has free choice and must give his own personal reckoning. From there, the prophet proceeds to delineate the portrait of the tzaddik - a tzaddik in his soul's character and a tzaddik in actual deed, both between man and God and between man and his fellow - and regarding him it is said: "He is righteous; he shall surely live." In the exposition of Chazal, this description is translated into extraordinary subtlety: not eating by virtue of ancestral merit, not walking with haughty posture, not encroaching upon another's livelihood, and not taking from charity funds. And despite the weeping of Rabban Gamliel, we learn from Rabbi Akiva that even one of these merits is sufficient to attain "he shall surely live."