We are now at Mishnah 14 in Chapter 5 of Pirkei Avos: "Arba middos b'holchei l'veis hamidrash" - there are four types among those who go to the beis midrash. The Mishnah lists four attitudes found among people who go to the beis midrash. According to most commentators, we are speaking here about working people, who have other occupations during the day besides learning - not a young man sitting in kollel - and who are expected to go to the beis midrash in the morning, before heading out to work.
Taken simply, the Mishnah is describing four people who go to the beis midrash, and so the same question arises that came up in the previous Mishnah: two of the four do not go at all. One answer is the one given by the Alshich, quoted earlier, that every Jew wants to learn in the depths of his heart; alternatively, one can simply say that the Mishnah is discussing attitudes toward going to the beis midrash.
The four types in the Mishnah:
"Holech v'eino oseh" - one who goes to the beis midrash but does not do, meaning he does not understand, does not remember and does not absorb what is taught, and he walks out exactly as he walked in. Of him the Mishnah says "s'char halichah b'yado" - the reward for going is his, based on the principle "l'fum tza'ara agra" - the reward a person receives in his heavenly portion is a function of the effort he invests in this world in serving Hashem. This person did what he was capable of doing: he went to the beis midrash and put in his effort, and therefore his reward is his. The reward for the learning itself he does not receive, since he did not learn anything, but that is a separate point.
"Oseh v'eino holech" - some people claim: "Why should I go to the beis midrash? I can learn perfectly well at home." He stays home and learns, but he does not go to the beis midrash. Of him it says "s'char ma'aseh b'yado" - he receives the reward for the learning itself, since he did indeed learn, but the separate reward given for going to the beis midrash he does not receive.
"Holech v'oseh - chassid" - this is the one who goes to the beis midrash and also learns, and comes out wiser than he was when he walked in. "Chassid" means not merely a righteous person who does the right thing, but one who goes above and beyond what is required. Why is this considered a measure of chassidus? There are two explanations:
In truth he could have learned excellently at home, but he goes to the beis midrash so as not to give any hint that he is better than everyone else. That is chassidus, because he is exceptionally humble.
Others explain that he is doing kindness with others: even though he himself does not need the beis midrash and manages on his own, his very presence sparks discussion, he answers other people's questions, and there is give and take, the sharpening of friends and the precision that comes from learning with friends - all of which adds for everyone. And even if, hypothetically, he would gain nothing at all from it - an assumption that is not true in the least, since the Gemara in Taanis says "much have I learned from my teachers, and from my friends more than from my teachers" - he is enabling others to receive more than they would have received from their teachers alone, and therefore he is a chassid.
"Lo holech v'lo oseh - rasha" - this is the one who neither goes nor learns, and has no morning seder at all. At first glance this is puzzling: "wicked" sounds like a rather severe accusation, for he simply does not learn - is he wicked because of that? The answer is that indeed he is, in the same way we explained in the previous Mishnah regarding attitudes toward giving tzedakah: the basic obligation of a Jew is to give tzedakah, and a person must not treat his giving as a bonus. The world needs fixing, people need money and help, and one who is not prepared to share with them and support them - this is not merely a basic shortcoming but genuine lowliness. So too here: a Jew who knows that Hashem gave the Torah, and nevertheless it does not touch his heart, who makes no effort to learn and does not even set aside a few fixed times - at home, at a shiur or on the way - is guilty of "ki d'var Hashem bazah." He is degrading the word of Hashem, it does not interest him, and that undermines the very purpose of his existence, and therefore he is wicked.
Further points regarding the reward for going:
The Gemara at the beginning of Maseches Berachos (daf 6b) says: "agra d'pirka rahata" - the main reward a person receives for going to a shiur on Shabbos is the running to it. This is the reward for going, since most people go without actually remembering what they learned. Rashi makes a rather frightening comment there: if a person cannot review what he learned, it is not called learning at all.
One must ask: is there something special about the going itself, about actually traveling on foot? In other words, someone who drives to the beis midrash instead of walking there - is the reward for going his? It would seem that it is, since the main thing is the effort. And even on a lower level than that: someone who joins a shiur on Zoom, watches it online or listens to a recording of the Daf Yomi and gets nothing out of it - the very fact that he is investing his time and making an effort, all according to "l'fum tza'ara agra," earns him reward. And that, it would seem, is called going.
However, there is room to think otherwise. Rabbeinu Bachya cites the verse in Shemos (chapter 12, verse 28): "Vayelchu vaya'asu Bnei Yisrael, ka'asher tzivah Hashem es Moshe v'es Aharon kein asu" - and the Children of Israel went and did, as Hashem commanded Moshe and Aharon so they did. From the wording of the verse, "they went and they did," it emerges that these are two separate things: the going, meaning walking, and the doing. This indicates that the source is speaking about actual walking. In any case, given the doubt, it is proper to go to the beis midrash itself, and then one will certainly earn the reward for going.
This point appears in halachah as well: the Rema rules in Orach Chaim siman 155 that even if a person cannot learn at all, he should make a point of sitting in the beis midrash, since simply being present in the beis midrash is a mitzvah. Therefore a person should make an effort to be present in the beis midrash, whether or not he will actually learn there.
A different approach: Rabbeinu Yonah and the Tiferes Yisrael:
After all this, there is another approach to this Mishnah, that of Rabbeinu Yonah and the Tiferes Yisrael, which resolves a certain difficulty in the Mishnah's wording. The Mishnah uses the term "holech v'eino oseh" and speaks of "s'char ma'aseh" - and one should note: why the language of "doing"? We have plenty of words to describe learning, so why does it not say learns, remembers or understands? Why does the Mishnah use language of doing and action?
Therefore Rabbeinu Yonah and the Tiferes Yisrael understood that we are not speaking here about a working man who goes to the beis midrash before leaving for his job, but about the ben kollel, the person who learns all day. The distinction is between those who learn and do nothing further in the realm of chessed and mitzvos. This does not refer to mitzvos that no one else can fulfill in his place - those of course require him to stop learning, and he puts on tefillin - but to mitzvos beyond that: being invested in the community, doing chessed and caring for people. The Mishnah is therefore asking: does he go and learn, and does he also find, as an added merit, time in the evenings and on weekends to fulfill other mitzvos, to help and invest in his community and to care for the poor?
And so we will read the Mishnah according to the version of Rabbeinu Yonah - "Arba middos b'holech l'veis hamidrash" - there are four types among those who go to the beis midrash, four approaches found among those learning in kollel:
"Holech v'eino oseh" - He goes but does not do: the young man who goes and learns, sits there all day, and all credit to him, but he does not do. He does not find any additional time for acts of kindness or for mitzvos beyond what he is obligated in, whether toward others or in general. "Sechar halichah b'yado" - at the very least he certainly receives the reward for being a kollel man, since after all he is learning. "Sechar halichah" here means the going in order to learn, that is, the learning component.
"Oseh v'eino holech" - He does but does not go: the type of person who does not go to the beis midrash at all, but is a community activist who works all day on behalf of the community. Regarding him, "sechar ma'aseh b'yado" - the reward for the deeds he performs is certainly his. Not the reward of Torah learning, since he did not go to kollel, but for his work on behalf of the community, all credit to him, and his reward is in his hand.
"Holech v'oseh - chassid" - One who does both. This is like the well-known contrast between Rabbah and Abaye regarding acts of kindness: Abaye lived a long life, until the age of sixty, despite the very same decree that stood before him, because he did not only learn but also did. This young man takes on additional work at night and on weekends, finds time to care for his community, to invest in people and to fulfill mitzvos that are not strictly obligatory. Because he goes beyond what is required of him, he is a chassid.
"Lo holech v'lo oseh - rasha" - This is the one who does not go to kollel and does not learn, and also does not do: he does not invest in the community and does not fulfill the additional mitzvos that were within his ability to fulfill. Such a person is a rasha, for what kind of life is this? He is not doing what is incumbent upon him, he is not developing a relationship with the Holy One, blessed is He, he is not performing mitzvos and he is not engaged in Torah study, so he has missed the train entirely.
In summary: In this Mishnah we learned four types among those who go to the beis midrash. According to the first explanation, the Mishnah is speaking about a working man: one who goes but does not absorb has the reward of the going, based on "l'fum tzaara agra" - the reward is in proportion to the effort; one who learns at home but does not go has the reward of the deed; one who goes and learns is a chassid, both because of his humility and because of the kindness he does with his fellows in the beis midrash; and one who neither goes nor learns is a rasha, since he despises the word of Hashem. We examined the reward of the going from the Gemara in Berachos, "agra d'firka rahata" - the reward of the lecture is the running, the question of whether one must specifically go by foot, and the ruling of the Rema that simply being present in the beis midrash is itself a mitzvah. Finally we learned the approach of Rabbeinu Yonah and the Tiferes Yisrael, that the Mishnah is speaking about the kollel man, and the distinction is between his learning and his doing in the realm of kindness and mitzvos beyond what he is obligated in.