Shabbat Parashat Chukat 5785

Ask the Rabbi: Yissachar and Zevulun for Mitzvot

Question: Does the Yissachar and Zevulun (=Y&Z) relationship (a “working” Jew (=Zevulun) and a “learning” Jew (=Yissachar) sharing their material and spiritual attainments for each’s advantage) work when Yissachar is involved in mitzvot other than talmud Torah?

Answer: We must first examine what makes Y&Z special. The historical background comes from two tribes of Israel described (Devarim 33:18, see Rashi ad loc.) as Zevulun going out and Yissachar staying in tents (which often represents Torah study – see Bereishit 25:27). Rashi (ibid.) describes their partnership as follows: Zevulun’s commerce was shared with Yissachar, enabling them to engage in Torah. The midrash (Bereishit Rabba 72:5) gives Zevulun primary reward for Yissachar’s Torah learning. The Rama (Yoreh Deah 246:1) rules based on this concept that two people can make a deal whereby Zevulun supports Yissachar and they divide the spiritual reward.

Is this concept unique or does it follow established rules? Generally, one cannot be credited when another does a mitzva that calls for personal involvement, on his behalf. Reuven cannot ask Shimon to put on tefillin and have it count for Reuven (see Tosafot Rid, Kiddushin 42a). Likewise, it should be impossible to have Yissachar learn on Zevulun’s behalf and have it count for him. On the other hand, there is a concept of being rewarded, not as a performer of a mitzva but as a facilitator (Makkot 5b) “like those who perform the mitzva.” This should not be surprising, as just as facilitating another’s aveira is forbidden (Vayikra 19:14), so too facilitating a mitzva deserves reward. Even making efforts to fulfill a mitzva and not succeeding supplies credit (Kiddushin 40a). Indeed, reward for dedication to a mitzva can come from many directions. From this perspective, there is no major difference whether you facilitate talmud Torah, including with your money, or a different mitzva.

Could there be something unique about Y&Z, perhaps specifically for talmud Torah? Three possible elements could make Y&Z special: 1. Yissachar and Zevulun make an agreement whereby Yissachar shares his merit with Zevulun (see Avkat Rochel 2). 2. It is not just a sizable donation but an equal partnership in Zevulun’s earnings (see Igrot Moshe, YD IV 37). 3. It refers to enabling someone to learn (fulltime/significantly more) in a way he could not have without the support (see Meishiv Davar III:14).

One could argue that Y&Z is discussed regarding Torah study because it is uncommon for another mitzva enterprise to preclude earning a living and thus requiring sponsorship. If so, if two friends agreed that Zevulun will work “for both” while Yissachar spends his days building mikvaot “for both,” this could indeed “check all the Y&Z boxes,” and they could share that great mitzva’s reward.

However, Y&Z regarding Torah may have intrinsic advantages: 1. Many sources (including Shabbat 127a, Avot 1:15) give intensive talmud Torah greater centrality than any other mitzva. 2. Becoming a talmid chacham who can contribute at a high level is difficult without serious financial support, of which Y&Z is one mode. 3. Because not everyone can be a serious learner, and close connection to Torah’s virtue is critical for every Jew, Chazal identified special ways of connecting to Torah through a talmid chacham (wife or mother – Berachot 17a; father-in-law – Sanhedrin 99a; doing business with – ibid.). Y&Z fits well with those close connections.

In summation, many donations bring great reward and spiritual gain, and there is no expectation that many people will choose the special and, according to some, demanding system (50% of earnings) of Y&Z. There are too many “moving parts” to calculate expected reward for supporting various causes, and man does not “control” his reward to transfer it to others at will (see Rama and Meishiv Davar ibid.). So, while some sources say Y&Z’s unique value applies only to talmud Torah (see opinions in Minchat Asher, Bereishit 73; Yissachar U'Zevulun (Cohen) pp. 187-189), this need not dictate how one spends on good causes.

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend