Sefer Yechezkel, chapter 18. "And the word of Hashem came to me, saying: What do you mean, that you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?" What do you mean, that you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying. The Radak explains, regarding the destruction of the land of Israel: the generation that lived then would recite this proverb: The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge. They were really making a claim, and the claim was that our fathers sinned and are gone, and we have borne their iniquities. Our fathers committed sins, our fathers acted corruptly, and how do we know that this is the cause? Because the prophets, this is what they used to rebuke the people about. The prophets rebuked Israel, the ten tribes, constantly reminding them of the sins of Yeravam. The prophets rebuked the tribe of Yehudah, that they were continually being punished for the sins of Menashe, who set up an idol in the Sanctuary and filled Yerushalayim with blood from end to end and so on. In other words, you describe to us earlier iniquities, and now what we suffer is because of them. So they would say, the fathers ate sour grapes, are the fathers the ones who eat the sour grapes that cause the teeth to be set on edge, while the children's teeth are set on edge? Does this thing really make sense? Is this thing reasonable?
The Radak explains that it is very possible that the meaning of what is written, the fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge, their claim, is that the fathers, as the Metzudat David explains, were always at peace, while for the children the troubles are now beginning. So specifically the fathers, in whom there was corruption, they were at peace, while the children, who did not act corruptly like their fathers, we are not like Menashe and not like Yeravam, we have to suffer after them, to suffer for their iniquity? The Radak says, and they did not understand nor perceive in this, because it was on account of the sins of Yeravam and Menashe that there was great wrath, and they caused those who came after them to sin. The Radak says, and had Israel not held on to the sins of Yeravam, and had the children of Yehudah not held on to the sins of Menashe, they would not have been punished for their iniquities. This was their lack of understanding. They caused sin, they created corruption, and this corruption still exists. This corruption is still found among you, you hold on to the deeds of your fathers in your hands. And this is really the entire subject of our passage: our whole chapter will deal with this claim of theirs and how Hashem answers them.
The Malbim brings what Chazal say in Makkot page 24: four decrees Moshe decreed upon Israel, and four prophets came and nullified them. Moshe Rabbeinu said four things which the prophets afterward came and said the opposite of. Moshe said, "He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children," and Yechezkel came and nullified it; Yechezkel said, "The soul that sins, it shall die." You say, He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and Yechezkel here in our chapter says, The soul that sins, it shall die. What is the meaning of this? The Malbim says, they already raised a difficulty from what is written, He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, for there is another verse in the Torah itself: before you even get to Yechezkel who contradicts the words of Moshe, look, Moshe Rabbeinu himself said an opposite verse: "The children shall not be put to death for the fathers, every man shall be put to death for his own sin." So how do I reconcile these two contradicting verses? Chazal come and say, it very much depends. Chazal say, when the children hold on to the deeds of their fathers in their hands, Hashem visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children. And when the children do not hold on to the deeds of their fathers in their hands, of this it is said, The children shall not be put to death for the fathers, every man shall be put to death for his own sin. In simple words: if you are righteous, you will not receive punishment just because your father was wicked. But if your father was wicked and you continue his path, you too will receive, and your fathers' iniquity will also be charged against you.
In fact, perhaps we will already mention, the Arizal explains why it is written "the third generation," why we see this matter that it really continues for a few generations and then ends. The holy Ari says, because then the third generation is already a reincarnation of the first generation. And then, therefore, many times it comes in order to receive what it deserves. It is not always so, sometimes he is still alive, but sometimes he is really the reincarnation, and then through this that generation suffers what he himself did in an earlier generation.
Let us return to our subject. The Malbim says, this matter is closed in its place and explained in another place. It is written in the Ten Commandments that this whole matter is only said regarding the sin of idolatry. Only regarding idolatry does the Holy One, blessed be He, visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children. How do you see this? "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 of those who hate Me." You see from here that this matter is unique to idolatry; it is not said about a father who desecrated Shabbat, it is not said about a father who ate forbidden foods, it is said about a father who worshipped idols. And in fact, the Malbim says, the Rambam already paid attention to this matter, that in the sin of idolatry we find expressions that are not found in other matters. The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim writes: You will not find fury and wrath and jealousy and hatred except concerning the sin of idolatry. Whoever searches for these expressions in the Torah will find them only in connection with idolatry. And regarding the sin of idolatry, the Holy One, blessed be He, is jealous and will destroy the root along with the branches. So says the Rambam. In other words, the sin of idolatry is the most severe thing in this respect, that it brings total destruction. And therefore Hashem visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children of those who hate Me. What is "those who hate Me"? The Rambam said, hatred you will find in the sin of idolatry, and there is total destruction.
The Malbim says, in the time of Yechezkel the evil inclination for idolatry had already been nullified. It is written that the Men of the Great Assembly nullified the evil inclination for idolatry. There was no longer temptation to worship idols. So it follows that "He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children" is no longer relevant. For when did we say He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children? Only in the sin of idolatry. If the inclination for idolatry has been nullified, then the matter of visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children does not apply at all. For what would you say, in other sins? In other sins we already said there is no visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children. All that is explicit is only regarding the Ten Commandments, where it is stated that this is only regarding idolatry. So he says, if so, it follows that what is written, He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, has been nullified. In other sins Hashem does not visit. Rather what? Only regarding children who hold on to the deeds of their fathers in their hands. When the children hold on to the deeds of their fathers in their hands, the Holy One, blessed be He, visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children even if it is not idolatry. What is written in the Torah in an unqualified way, a jealous God visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children of those who hate Me, even without their holding on to the deeds of their fathers, that is regarding the sin of idolatry. But when they do hold on to the deeds of their fathers in their hands, then even regarding other sins the Holy One, blessed be He, visits the iniquity of the fathers upon their children.
The Malbim says, until the time of Yechezkel there was among them the evil inclination for idolatry, so they would recite this proverb. What do you mean that you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers eat sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge? This is really a parable that comes and says: behold, look, this worship that they worshipped to the host of heaven, to the stars, idolatry, it is like sour grapes, it is a fruit that is not yet complete. And why? Because there are powers in the worship of stars, in the stars. Only they do not possess independent power. The stars receive their powers from the Holy One, blessed be He. We were forbidden to pray to the stars and constellations; we must pray directly to Hashem, blessed be He. The constellation, we have explained several times, is that through which the flow descends and pours, but it is not the source. We must turn to Hashem alone, "He who sacrifices to gods shall be destroyed." Anyone who worships one of the powers, even though it is a real power, but where does this power come from? From the Holy One, blessed be He, so you must worship only the Holy One, blessed be He. It follows, then, that this power is a power that is still not the one who completes and finishes. Who does everything? Hashem. So it is like an unripe fruit, like a fruit that is not finished. A fruit that has not yet ripened has no power. So he says, if so, the children's teeth are set on edge. As we said, they would then recite this proverb, that to this day what is happening, why do we suffer? Because there is here a sin of idolatry, and in the sin of idolatry, in any case the children suffer because of the iniquity of the fathers.
"As I live, says the Lord Hashem, you shall no longer have occasion to use this proverb in Israel." Hashem says, you shall not recite this proverb. And why shall you not recite this proverb? According to the Malbim this is wonderful. Because there is no longer idol worship. And if there is no longer idol worship, there is no longer visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children. For we said, when does He visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children of those who hate Me? In idolatry. And if so, now there is no longer a reason to recite this proverb in Israel. "Behold, all souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine; the soul that sins, it shall die." Behold, all souls, he says, even though on the side of the son, on the side of the body, there is a closeness of the son to the father. There is a biological closeness, the father begot him. And many times the fathers also pass on to the children the diseases of the body and the badness of their traits. May Hashem protect us, sometimes a person has some particular illness, and he passes it on to his children. A person, for example, in a certain family, they have, say, a problem with sugar, so we know it is hereditary, many times it passes down to the children after them. Or mental problems, that many of the mental problems, as is known, are a hereditary matter. So if so, the Rav says, the Malbim says, many times we know that illnesses, illnesses of the body, come as an inheritance from the parents to the children. Not only that, but also many times the traits, the character traits. Sometimes you see a very hot-tempered father, and afterward you see his son, also, the same, he is a copy-paste, the same thing. Just like his father, so he behaves. Sometimes you see a person who is indifferent, indifferent, indifferent, and you see his son too, an exact copy of his father, falling asleep on his feet. And so on, in this manner. You see things that a person passes on to his children. Or the strength of the body: sometimes you see a strong, powerful man and so on, and his son too, you see him in the same system, you see him in the same mold. Many of the traits parents pass on to their children. He says, true, correct, many times parents pass on to their children the physical traits and also the traits of the soul. But know that regarding the ailments of the soul, it depends on choice. "Ailments of the soul" does not mean mental problems; ailments of the soul means iniquities. Transgressions depend on choice. A person cannot say, my father was wicked, do you know what his name was? His name was Terach. What do you expect to come out of someone like that? So what? Because your father's name was Terach, does that mean you will turn out a bad son? And that one had a righteous father, do you know what my father's name was? His name was Tzidkiyahu, Chizkiyahu. Chizkiyahu, and you turn out Menashe. What does that mean? The fact that you have a righteous father or a wicked father, mitzvot and transgressions do not come as an inheritance. Every person will be punished for his own transgressions and will receive reward for his own mitzvot. Of this he says, for all souls are Mine. Do you think your soul is what? A continuation of your father? So if your father sinned, you will receive punishment? No. Rather, the fathers did not beget the soul. The portion of the soul, Hashem says, that I gave. All souls are Mine. So it is not logical that the soul of the son should bear the iniquities of the soul of the father. The father did not give the soul, I am the one who gave the soul. And as the soul of the father, so the soul of the son is Mine. Both belong to Me. So just as the soul of the father has free choice to do what it wishes, and for this it will give a reckoning, so too the soul of the son has free choice, and for this it will give a reckoning. The soul of the father has no ownership, the Malbim says, over the soul of the son. And the soul of the father is like the soul of the son; it is not considered connected to the soul of the son in this respect, that the son would have to pay a punishment for the corrupt deeds of the father.
"But if a man is righteous, and does what is lawful and right; and has not eaten upon the mountains, nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, nor defiled his neighbor's wife, nor come near a menstruant woman; and has not wronged any man, but has restored to the debtor his pledge, has robbed none by violence, has given his bread to the hungry, and has covered the naked with a garment; he that has not lent on interest, nor taken any increase, that has withdrawn his hand from iniquity, has executed true justice between man and man; has walked in My statutes, and has kept My ordinances, to deal truly; he is righteous, he shall surely live, says the Lord Hashem." Afterward he describes what happens if this man begot a wicked son, and what then will be with the wicked son. My intent, I read several verses so that we would see that here he opens with a description of a man who was complete in terms of his deeds, and you will see that this man shall surely live. He does not pay a price on anyone's account, but on the contrary, he shall surely live because of his good deeds. And now let us begin to explain.
"But if a man is righteous, and does what is lawful and right." Now he begins to explain how justice works before Hashem, blessed be He. He tells them, do not err in what is written, He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, because as we explained, the Radak says, that there it is written "those who hate Me." But if a man is righteous, who refrains from the negative commandments, and moreover also does what is lawful and right, which means he also fulfilled positive commandments, so he has both abstention from transgressions and merits. The Malbim explains that what is written, But if a man is righteous, and does what is lawful and right, seemingly this is a repetition of the same matter. If he is righteous, what is righteous? One who does what is lawful and right. This is not like today, where everyone "comes out" righteous, "my brother, you are righteous." What is righteous? Righteous is a title that in order to merit it requires much toil and much effort. So how does one acquire the title of righteous? By doing what is lawful and right. So why does it need to say, But if a man is righteous, and does what is lawful and right? It is the same thing, is it not? Rather, the Malbim explains, But if a man is righteous, the meaning is by his nature. In other words, he is by nature, already in himself, a decent and upright person, he has no attraction to bad things, he has no desires and cravings for corruption. Being righteous is an acquisition in his soul. Now, it may very well be that this is spoken of after he worked on it, yes? After he worked on it, then he reached such a level that he is no longer drawn to all those corrupt things. Now, beyond it being an acquisition of his soul, the first "righteous" is an acquisition of his soul, the continuation is "and does what is lawful and right." He also does what is lawful and right in practice. What is "lawful" (mishpat)? The Malbim always explains that mishpat means matters between man and his fellow, and tzedakah means being righteous in matters between man and God. Not in the sense we always understand tzedakah, doing charity with another, giving him charity, no. The Malbim always explains, mishpat is between man and his fellow, "and these are the ordinances (mishpatim) which you shall set before them," that is matters between man and his fellow, and tzedakah is from the word tzaddik, to make his deeds righteous with God. So this man both did justice between man and his fellow and righteousness between man and God.
"And has not eaten upon the mountains, nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, nor defiled his neighbor's wife, nor come near a menstruant woman." And has not eaten upon the mountains, what, what is there to eat on the mountains? What is "has not eaten upon the mountains," and what iniquity is this? So Rashi explains, as the Targum says, on the mountains he did not worship idols. They would place their altars upon the mountains. They always sought a high place to place their altars. And therefore it is written, "upon every high hill and under every leafy tree," and upon the mountains and so on, their gods. He tells you, when they would offer a sacrifice to idols, they would eat from the sacrifices of idols. And here he testifies, has not eaten upon the mountains, he did not eat from the sacrifices of idols that were burned and offered on the mountains. Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel. What are the idols of the house of Israel? Rashi says, this is the rest of the star worship. They made the Baal in Shomron and the calves in Beit El and in Dan. He did not lift up his eyes to those idols to which the house of Israel did lift up their eyes; to this he did not go, and he did not lift up his eyes there. The Radak explains that "nor lifted up his eyes" is an addition. Not only did he not worship idols, but he also did not lift up his eyes to them. As it is written, "Do not turn to the idols." "Do not turn to the idols" means not even to look, not even to cast a glance at the flawed thing that is idolatry. And after he mentioned to us here idolatry, which is a transgression between man and God, which is weighed against all the transgressions, he now mentions to us the transgressions between man and his fellow. And the usual transgressions are in business dealings and lending, and then a man sins against his fellow, and therefore afterward he mentions these matters which are the things common among people. And afterward he also mentions some of the forbidden relations. For the forbidden relations, the Radak says, the things close to a person, which are his own flesh, his mother, his daughter, his sister, these things need not be mentioned, because from these, he says, most people keep away. Even the wicked keep away from these transgressions. So which transgressions does he mention? "He has not defiled his neighbor's wife." For a person does have an evil inclination toward his neighbor's wife, but he does not have the evil inclination of forbidden relations toward his relatives, since Chazal nullified or weakened this evil inclination. In any case, he mentions to us the matter of tzedakah, that he did tzedakah, which we will see further on, that this is a great mitzvah and matters between man and his fellow. True justice, which is part of establishing order in the country, this is true justice. As we have spoken several times, that when there is true justice, through this the country runs in order, even if the judgment is not according to the laws of the Torah, but in any case it is according to the laws of reason; more than this is not required from a non-Jew. This thing imposes order in the settlement. And after he says that the son does not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father does not bear the iniquity of the son, further on we will see that he will say that even his own iniquities he does not bear when he repents. Not only will you not bear the iniquity of your father, and your father will not bear your iniquity, but you too will not bear your own iniquities when you repent. Here the Radak sketches for us the answer that Hashem, blessed be He, gives them through the prophet, and we will go step by step.
The Malbim says, upon the mountains, now he explains to us righteousness between man and God, that he did not eat from what was offered to idols. The first part deals with matters between man and God. And has not wronged any man, now in the verse he moves to speak about matters between man and his fellow. And has not wronged any man, but has restored to the debtor his pledge, has robbed none by violence, has given his bread to the hungry, and has covered the naked with a garment. And has not wronged any man, this is from the word wronging (ona'ah), not to defraud one another. The meaning is he will not deceive. The Radak explains that the main matter of ona'ah speaks of a person who defrauds his fellow, who defrauds him in commerce. The meaning is he sells him a cheap item as an expensive one, or sells an old item, selling it as new. This is mainly the matter of ona'ah. So he tells you, and has not wronged any man. Has restored to the debtor his pledge. What is the meaning of this? He has restored the pledge for a debt, the meaning is he did not take a pledge, or if he took a pledge, "if you take your neighbor's garment in pledge, you shall restore it to him by the time the sun sets." The meaning is that if a person took a garment from his fellow, and this garment, for the sake of argument, is a night covering, he must return it to him at night. And if it is a day covering, he must return it to him by day. This is what is called, "if you take your neighbor's garment in pledge," you take it as collateral, then by the time the sun sets you shall restore it to him. You must, at sunset, give it to him when it is a night covering. Of this he says, has restored to the debtor his pledge. When he took a garment in pledge and must return it for a debt, he took a garment, then he will return it. Has robbed none by violence. And all the more so that he did not rob by violence. Seemingly this is not understood. Because if you say, has restored to the debtor his pledge, we are already speaking of acts of righteousness. He returns what he took as collateral. So you might say, you know, he does not even rob banks. What is "even"? This is all the more so. So how do you write this afterward, has robbed none by violence? What, actually robbing? You say that he even returns the collateral. So robbing, certainly he will not rob. So the Malbim explains, that here we are speaking even of something that a robber robbed; he will not rob it from him. Therefore it is "has robbed none by violence." A person from whom someone robbed, then another person might rule permissively to come and rob from him. What, he robbed, he himself robbed this. For Chazal say, one who steals from a thief is exempt from the double payment, but is obligated in the principal. And even so, he has a transgression. And not only that, the Gemara says, one who steals after a thief has a taste of it. When a person performs some action that is a process of theft, a taste of theft remains with him. Even if he tells you that there were all the circumstances and all the reasons to permit it, in any case, there is a taste of theft here. So if so, what is written here, has robbed none by violence, does not mean that he does not go to rob people, but rather that even what people robbed, from them he afterward does not rob. Has robbed none by violence. Now he will tell us about the good things he does. Has given his bread to the hungry, and has covered the naked with a garment. He gives his bread to the hungry, when his bread remains, and it may very well be that this is even his last bread, this is his bread, he does not have extra bread, and even so he gives it to the hungry. And the naked he covers with a garment. All these are things in which you see that he perfected himself in the matters of justice between man and his fellow.
"He that has not lent on interest, nor taken any increase, that has withdrawn his hand from iniquity, has executed true justice between man and man." He that has not lent on interest, the interest that the Torah forbade, he does not give. Nor taken any increase. Chazal say, what is neshech (interest), what is tarbit (increase)? They are the same. Scripture separated them only so as to transgress two negative commandments upon it. That is, the difference between neshech and tarbit, according to the plain text, there is no difference, it is the same, but one transgresses both neshech and tarbit. In fact, we already spoke about this when we learned the chapter "Eizehu Neshech" in Masechet Bava Metzia; we need to know that from the rabbis we see that there is a difference between them. That the term neshech is said regarding money and tarbit is said regarding food. As it is written, "Do not give him your money on neshech, and do not give your food on marbit." There are those who say that from the rabbinic view, neshech is from the Torah, and tarbit is rabbinic. Whatever the case, there are several explanations regarding the difference between neshech and tarbit. He that has not lent on interest, nor taken any increase, the meaning is he does not give something on interest and increase, and he would not take the interest. What is "nor taken"? The Metzudat David says the duplication comes to say that neshech is from the outset, I agreed with you in advance on an amount, I give you a thousand, you return to me twelve hundred. This is called fixed interest, and this is interest from the Torah. Nor taken any increase, what is the meaning? I did not agree with you in advance, but you, when you came to return the debt, said, look, you did not pressure me, you did not nag, and you were very decent, take another hundred shekels. So even this he does not take. What is "nor taken"? He did not demand it, you came to give, but he will not take. He gives it to him, he is not willing to take. Even if he gives of his own accord, he is not willing to take. That has withdrawn his hand from iniquity. He did no iniquity; anything that they wanted to give him through iniquity, he withdraws his hand. As the Torah forbade, "you shall do no iniquity in judgment, in weight, or in measure." And has executed true justice between man and man. If he is a judge between two people, he will always execute only true justice between them. He will not distort the law and the judgment, but will judge them according to the halachah and according to the law that the Torah stated.
"Has walked in My statutes, and has kept My ordinances, to deal truly; he is righteous, he shall surely live, says the Lord Hashem." Has walked in My statutes, even the mitzvot that are like a decree (chok), those about which the Satan taunts Israel and says to them, the nations mock Israel, "mock" is from the word ona'ah, they distress Israel, they say to them, what have you to do with this mitzvah? What is shaatnez? What is the red heifer? And other mitzvot as well. He says, these too, these too he did. Has walked in My statutes. The ordinances are easier to keep, since the ordinances are logical. But the statutes, these are things beyond reason, beyond logic. Even so, has walked in My statutes, the statutes too he did. And has kept My ordinances, to deal truly. What is the meaning of "to deal truly"? Even when he executed judgment, he had no intention to take revenge on someone. In other words, two come to judgment, ah, I once had a problem with that one, I had some argument with him, good, come now let us settle the matters. And then he takes revenge on him. He says here, look, he has kept My ordinances to deal truly. Not with an intention of revenge, he kept the judgment solely to deal truly, without any other intention. He is righteous, he shall surely live. A person who does so is considered righteous; he shall surely live in this world and in the world to come. The Malbim explains that "has walked in My statutes" refers to mitzvot between man and God, and "has kept My ordinances" refers to mitzvot between man and his fellow, as we spoke that mishpat is between man and his fellow. So if so, it follows that it is not only, as we said, that in his perceptions he is righteous, that in terms of his natures and character traits he changed them; not only that, but he is righteous in practice. In addition to the acquisition in his soul of righteousness, he also performs righteousness in practice. So such a person deserves to surely live.
The Gemara expounds, now I will go back a bit and see what the Radak said to God. The Gemara expounds, Rav Acha bar Rabbi Chanina expounded, Gemara Masechet Sanhedrin page 81a. What is the meaning of what is written, has not eaten upon the mountains? That he did not eat by the merit of his fathers. Perhaps before I read the Gemara, I will just explain the difficulty a bit. They come here to describe a righteous person. You come to describe a righteous person, do you know what he did not do? He did not eat from the sacrifices of idols. He did not eat from the offerings of idols. Do you know what kind of righteous person he is? He did not lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel. What, that he did not go to worship the calves? He did not defile his neighbor's wife. You know, he never stumbled with a married woman. Do you know what kind of righteous person he is? He never stumbled with a married woman. And also he did not come near a menstruant woman. How can this be understood? The Gemara comes and expounds all this, that in truth the prophet here expresses himself in a figurative expression regarding the matter itself. But really we are speaking here of things of refinement. Has not eaten upon the mountains, the Gemara expounds that he did not eat by the merit of his fathers. The meaning of this is: the righteous come, they eat by the strength of their arm. Eating by the strength of the arm means by his own merits. Once they tell that they invited Rav Elyashiv to a brit of a great-grandchild, I believe a great-grandson. Either a great-grandchild or a great-grandson, I do not remember. And they told him that it is written in the sefarim that whoever merits to serve as sandak at the brit of a great-grandchild or great-grandson, merits to enter Gan Eden, something, something like this. So they told Rav Elyashiv. So Rav Elyashiv smiled and said, he said, my whole life I work in order to enter Gan Eden through the main door. Not through some side door. You are arranging for me, you know, there is some door around the back, come, come let us bring you in through the fact that you were once a sandak for a great-grandson, come let us arrange for you some entrance. He says, my whole life I work in order to enter Gan Eden through the main way, no, do not try to arrange for me around the back. Yes, they once tell that he was, that Rav Elyashiv was abroad, if I am not mistaken it was, and for medical reasons or he was a guest at someone's place in some distant location, I am not sure it was abroad. And someone there asked him, his host asked something, so someone hinted to him, he asked Rav Elyashiv how many times he had finished the Shas. So someone hinted to him that this is not, not appropriate, not appropriate. No, many people love to ask the great ones all sorts of, what are called probing questions, do you understand? Bothersome questions. Yes, and you know that he is humble, and you know that he does not want to tell of his deeds, so no. Well, in short, so someone, so his grandson silenced him, said, come on, hinted to him no. So Rav Elyashiv said to him, no, now I owe him gratitude, I am a guest at his place, I owe him gratitude, he can ask me whatever he wants. Ah, that one heard such a thing, said let us seize the opportunity. What did he ask him? He said to him, honored Rav, is it possible to recite the blessing over the Rav, "who has shared of His wisdom with those who fear Him"? What a question. Even more probing. If the previous one was probing, this is already probing to the depths. Do you understand, what, what do you want him to say to you? Yes, yes, recite it over this one, with Hashem's name and kingship, and in truth I am the genius and the worthy one. Well, what do you want him to say to you? So they tell that Rav Elyashiv said to him as follows. He said to him, "of His wisdom" perhaps, "to those who fear Him," how does that apply? Of His wisdom, well, but to those who fear Him, can I call myself among those who fear Him? Perhaps regarding the Tchebiner Rav, so he said. Perhaps regarding the Tchebiner Rav. Perhaps regarding the Rav of Tchebin it is fitting to call "those who fear Him." Perhaps regarding him you can say this, this is one who fears Hashem. But over me you want to recite "to those who fear Him"? Yes, in any case, what do we understand? That the righteous want to eat by merit, do not bring me in through the back door, he wants to merit by merit, they come by the strength of their deeds. So has not eaten upon the mountains, that he did not eat by the merit of his fathers. He did not seek the father's merits and seek merits from there and all sorts, but rather he himself, his own merits. And nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, what is "nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel"? The Gemara says that one who walks in the way of arrogance, the Gemara says that he pushes away the feet of the Shechinah. This is idols, this is like idolatry. That he did not walk with an upright posture. Walking with an upright posture, lifting his eyes thus from above over everyone, this is the way of arrogance and haughtiness, this is called the idols of the house of Israel, this is an abomination. And nor defiled his neighbor's wife, that he did not encroach on his fellow's trade. What is "nor defiled his neighbor's wife"? Well, that is obvious. He says, no, we are speaking that he did not encroach on his fellow's trade. The meaning is, his fellow deals in some particular business, he does not go and open some such business right next to him. He does not try to take his clients. He did not encroach on his fellow's trade. And nor come near a menstruant woman, that he did not benefit from the charity fund. What is "nor come near a menstruant woman"? He did not benefit from charity. As long as he could sustain himself with the minimum, and even made his Shabbat like a weekday, provided that he not need to rely on others and not benefit from charity. Of him it is said, he is righteous, he shall surely live. The Gemara brings there further on, when Rabban Gamliel would reach this passage, he would weep and say: one who does all of these shall live, but by one of them, no. Rabban Gamliel would reach this and weep. Why? Because he understood from it that the verse listed all the things, and then said he is righteous, he shall surely live, implying that one must meet all the criteria. Implying that if a person did only one thing, no. Rabbi Akiva said to him, but if so, "Do not defile yourselves in all these," what is "in all these"? In all, do not defile yourselves, but in part, yes? No. "In all these" means in any one of these. So here too, what is written in our passage, in any one of all these. The meaning is: from any one of all these, whoever did one of all these, he is righteous, he shall surely live. One of them is enough for him to surely live.