This lesson explores the teachings of the Zera Shimshon on Shir HaShirim, section 17, centered on the conclusion of the verse in chapter 8: "If a man were to give all the wealth of his house for love, they would utterly scorn him." The author opens specifically with a verse from Tehillim, and from it constructs a wonderful explanation of the greatness of supporting Torah learners - and of one who missed the opportunity.
מַיִם רַבִּים לֹא יוּכְלוּ לְכַבּוֹת אֶת הָאַהֲבָה וּנְהָרוֹת לֹא יִשְׁטְפוּהָ, אִם יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶת כָּל הוֹן בֵּיתוֹ בָּאַהֲבָה בּוֹז יָבוּזוּ לוֹ. (ח, ז) - "Mighty waters cannot extinguish love, nor can rivers wash it away; if a man were to give all the wealth of his house for love, they would utterly scorn him." (8:7)
The Zera Shimshon opens with the verses in Tehillim: "A brother can by no means redeem a man, nor give to God his ransom. Costly is the redemption of their soul, and it ceases forever. That he should live on eternally, and never see the pit. For he sees that wise men die, together the fool and the boor perish, and leave their wealth to others."
He raises two questions. First, what is the meaning of "A brother (ach) can by no means redeem a man (ish)"? If you opened with "a brother," indicating a relationship between siblings, the verse should have concluded "redeem his brother." Just as one would not say "a father can by no means redeem a man," but rather "redeem his son," or "a son can by no means redeem his father." When opening with a relational term, one normally maintains that same relationship - so why does it say "a man"? Second, why the doubled phrasing "padoh yifdeh" (can by no means redeem)? It would have been sufficient to say "a brother will not redeem a man."
To explain this, we turn to the Gemara (Sotah 21a), which relates that Hillel and Shebna were brothers. Shebna was unwilling to share half his assets in this world with Hillel in order to receive half of his reward in the World to Come.
Consider Hillel's situation. Hillel immersed himself in Torah study amidst extreme poverty and hardship. We all remember that overcast day when snow fell, and he lay on the skylight of the Beit Midrash. His poverty was severe: he earned a single tarpe'ik, gave half of it to the guard of the Beit Midrash, and used the other half to support his household. The guard of the Beit Midrash certainly did not earn huge sums - which shows just how meagerly Hillel lived. Yet his brother Shebna lived in comfort, and could have easily supported his brother Hillel without any difficulty.
Here lies a crucial point: the entire concept of a Yissachar-Zevulun partnership, of supporting a Torah scholar, applies only during the phase when he is developing, while he is still an avrech. Once he has already achieved his stature, a Yissachar-Zevulun partnership is no longer applicable, and such an agreement is no longer effective. It is only effective while the scholar is still in the process of his growth.
Ultimately, when Shebna saw that Hillel had become a great sage and the Nasi of Israel, he came and wanted to make a deal: "Now that you are such a millionaire, let us make an exchange - I have millions of one kind, and you have millions of another." Regarding this, a heavenly voice (bat kol) went forth and proclaimed: "If a man were to give all the wealth of his house for love, they would utterly scorn him." Even all the wealth of your house, not merely half, would be utterly scorned. You wish to purchase this through love, through the love of Torah? It can no longer be bought.
From here comes the explanation: Shebna is called an "ish" (man) because he detached himself from brotherhood from the very beginning. We asked: he was his brother, so why does the verse call him an "ish"? The answer is that he conducted himself like a mere stranger, a "man," rather than a "brother." One who acts like a brother would have helped him. Shimon, the brother of Azaryah, is called by his brother's name precisely because Azaryah supported and sustained Shimon so that he could immerse himself in Torah study - there, it was truly fitting to call him a "brother." But here, he is not called a "brother," for he removed himself from brotherhood. This is an expression used regarding the brothers of Yosef, which the author employs figuratively: as one who refuses to recognize his brother as a brother.
There is a story about a wealthy magnate who was approached for charity. He told the collectors: "What are you talking about? Am I going to give to strangers? I have a brother who is in dire straits and needs my help in an extraordinary way, and the poor of one's own family take precedence!" What could they say to him? Sometime later, that very brother arrived - destitute, impoverished, and needy - asking for charity to be supported by the communal charity fund. They said to him: "Don't you have a wealthy brother, a prominent magnate?!" He replied: "He is prominent, but a miser; I haven't seen a penny from him!" They went back to the wealthy brother: "You told us you have a brother, yet you haven't given him a single cent!" He answered: "Did I ever say that I gave him anything? I said that I have a brother and I don't give him anything - so am I going to give to you? That was my point: I have a poor brother, and even he receives nothing." This is what it means to "remove oneself from brotherhood."
Now the repetition of the phrasing is explained. "A brother" - meaning Hillel - will not "surely redeem" with his Torah Shebna, who is "a man." And the doubled phrasing "surely redeem" (padoh yifdeh) means this: because Shebna did not redeem Hillel from his poverty at the outset, Hillel will not redeem him now from the judgment of Gehinom. Had you redeemed him initially, he would redeem you now. But since you did not redeem him, there is no longer any power that can redeem you - as Hillel wished to do had it not been for the heavenly voice (bat kol), to grant him the opportunity to be saved from the judgment of Gehinom.
This is also the meaning of "Nor give to God his ransom": that half of his wealth which he now wished to give to Hillel, he cannot give as a ransom to God, saying, "Here, I give this, and let it serve as a ransom for my soul" - it will not be accepted.
The Rav continues to explain: one who considered the majority of his possessions too precious and was unwilling to share them at the outset for the redemption of his soul - "and it ceases forever," he can do no more. That is, the assets and money were more precious in his eyes than the redemption of his soul, so he was unwilling to give from them to redeem his soul. "And it ceases forever" - he is told: once the sage has already become wise and grown great in Torah, it is over; from that point on, you can no longer give your wealth to acquire a share in the Torah.
And the Rav explains: one who wants to wait and see first whether his brother will become wise, as Shebna did - since people sometimes abandon their learning due to poverty - his end is that "the fool and the boor perish together," and afterwards, "and leave their wealth to others." That is, why did Shebna not give? Because he made a calculation: "How do I know what will become of him? True, my brother is learning and diligent, good for him, but there are many poor people whom poverty overwhelmed and they left."
And so we find in the Gemara regarding Ilfa and Rabbi Yochanan, who reached great poverty and said: "Let us go and fulfill in ourselves, 'Save that there shall be no needy among you' - let us go earn a livelihood." They sat beside a wall, and Rabbi Yochanan overheard the conversation of angels who said: "Let us bring the wall down upon them, for they are abandoning eternal life and engaging in temporal life!" The other angel replied: "Leave them be, for there is one here who is destined to become a great man." Rabbi Yochanan asked Ilfa: "Did you hear anything?" He replied: "No." Rabbi Yochanan understood that he himself was the one destined to become a great man, and said: "I am returning to the Beit Midrash, and I will fulfill in myself, 'For the needy will never cease out of the land' - there will always be needy people, and I accept this upon myself; I will go and grow great in Torah." Ilfa continued in his business. He returned years later, and the Gemara relates that he still possessed vast Torah knowledge, declaring that for any Baraitha brought to him, he could provide a proof from a Mishnah - and that is all well and good. But who grew truly great in Torah? Rabbi Yochanan said to him: "Had you stayed here, would they not have appointed you Rosh Yeshivah?" We see, then, that financial hardship sometimes causes a sage to leave the study of Torah.
And this was Shebna's calculation: "Invest in Hillel? That is an uncertain investment, like trading in options - there is an option that he will turn out to be righteous, and an option that he won't, and I only deal in sure things." But see how foolish such a calculation is, to the point that it is almost incomprehensible! You say that poverty might overwhelm him - but the problem of poverty is one you yourself can solve! Give him a little, and he will not be in poverty, and he will grow in Torah. You say: "I will wait until he is great in Torah, and then I will give to him" - my friend, you can make him great in Torah by supporting him right now!
And since you did not do so - "the fool and the boor perish together." It may be that out of poverty he will indeed abandon the Torah, leaving him a fool and leaving you a boor, and both of you remain empty-handed. But had you helped and given, you too would have been a partner in all of his growth in Torah, and both of you would have had the World to Come. And afterwards, "and leave their wealth to others" - they bequeath the money to others without having benefited from it at all. Yet you could have stored it away for yourself, as our Sages said: "I stored up treasures in a world that is entirely good, unlike my ancestors who stored up treasures in this world."
He adds two further questions: First, what is the meaning of the double phrasing "they will utterly scorn him" (buz yabuzu lo)? And second, from where do we know that Shebna would indeed have received half of Hillel's portion in the World to Come had he provided support from the start?
To this he explains: It was specifically in the case of Shimon, the brother of Azaryah, that Shimon's Torah benefited Azaryah, because had he not provided for all his needs, perhaps Shimon would not have studied at all, and thus it was his brother Azaryah who brought him to Torah study. But with Shebna and Hillel, it is possible that even from the beginning it would have availed nothing, because Hillel's intention was to learn in any case, as he actually did - and the proof is that he learned Torah out of great poverty. Providing sustenance would not have caused him to learn any more than he would have done without it.
For this reason Scripture says "they will utterly scorn him" - a doubled expression of scorn: regarding your brother Hillel, it was not certain that you would have deserved reward in the first place, since he intended to learn Torah under all circumstances; all the more so since you waited until Hillel became wise, and for that you certainly deserve scorn for the very act itself.
Parenthetically, it is not clear that this is the accepted halachic conclusion - that if a person would have learned Torah on his own anyway, his supporter receives no reward. The Gemara seemingly implies otherwise: the Gemara states that Shebna's entire fault was that he did not give from the beginning, implying that had he given from the start, he would indeed have merited a share. Whereas according to this interpretation, even had he given from the start he would not have merited it, since Hillel would have learned in any case. Furthermore, simply put - how could anyone know this? Would someone argue: "Why should I support him and make an Yissachar-Zebulun agreement? Perhaps he will learn without me and achieve greatness without me, and consequently I will not receive half the reward"?
This is especially true according to the opinions that there is a complete reward for both partners. As mentioned previously, there is a discussion whether in the World to Come the supporter receives half the reward, or whether both receive a full reward. Rav Ovadia Yosef elaborates on this at great length and concludes, based on the principle "a candle for one is a candle for a hundred," that a person receives a complete reward in the World to Come, and both receive it. According to this, it is certain that one who supports a person who intended to study Torah anyway will receive a full reward, for he eased his burden and became a full partner in his Torah study.
"If a man would give all the wealth of his house for love, they will utterly scorn him" - this was the Heavenly voice (bat kol) that went out to Shebna when he sought to buy a share in the Torah of his brother Hillel after he had already become a great sage. "A brother cannot redeem a man": Shebna is called "a man" rather than "a brother," because he removed himself from brotherhood and did not support his brother in his hour of hardship; and since he did not redeem him from his poverty from the start, Hillel can no longer redeem him from the judgment of Gehinnom, nor is his money accepted as a ransom. His entire calculation - to wait and see first whether he would emerge as a sage - proved to be a losing one, for the obstacle of poverty was something he himself could have removed, and ultimately "the fool and the senseless person perish together and leave their wealth to others." From here is the lesson: the time to support a Torah scholar is specifically during his formative growth, and one who misses that opportunity forfeits his partnership in Torah and in the World to Come.