R. NATHAN1Aboth 4:11 (Sonc. ed., IV, 9, pp. 48f) where the dictum is given in reverse order in the name of R. Jonathan. GRA emends to R. Jonathan b. Joseph, a disciple of R. ‘Aḳiba. B. JOSEPH SAID: WHOEVER NEGLECTS THE STUDY OF THE TORAH IN THE MIDST OF WEALTH SHALL IN THE END NEGLECT IT IN POVERTY; AND WHOEVER FULFILS THE WORDS OF THE TORAH IN POVERTY SHALL IN THE END FULFIL THEM IN THE MIDST OF WEALTH. [29a]He used to say: Comforting mourners, visiting the sick, and the practice of lovingkindness bring welfare into the world.

R. Meir said: Whoever is in doubt whether he has transgressed or not is regarded by Scripture [more gravely than]2So according to B.Y. and required by the context. if he transgressed of a certainty. How is this? If a man sinned [in error] and then became aware of his sin, he must bring a sin-offering of the value of one sela,3The usual price of a sin-offering; cf. Ker. 10b (Sonc. ed., p. 81). or a tenth of an ephah [as a meal-offering]4If the sinner is poor and unable to afford an animal offering. of the value of one pondion;5Cf., however, Ker. loc. cit., where a tenth of an ephah of fine flour is priced at one peruṭah (i.e. a sixteenth of a pondion). whereas if he was in doubt whether he had sinned or not, he must bring a trespass-offering with the ‘added fifth’,6If his doubt referred to an inadvertent misappropriation of Temple property (cf. Lev. 5, 15f). or a guilt-offering of the value of two selas.7This is the minimum price of a ram for a guilt-offering (Lev. ibid.) Consequently the cost of the sacrifice in the case where a man sinned in error is less than that of the sacrifice where a man was in doubt whether he had sinned in error; in the former the cost is one sela, in the latter two selas. Now which Divine attribute is the greater, that of reward8lit. ‘goodness’. or that of punishment? You must agree that the attribute of reward is the greater;9For God’s lovingkindness extends to thousands of generations, while punishment for sin reaches only to the third and fourth generation (Ex. 20, 5f). so is there not here an argument from the lesser to the greater? For if with regard to the attribute of punishment, which is the lesser, he who is in doubt whether he has transgressed or not is regarded by Scripture [more gravely10Since he has to bring a more costly sacrifice. than] if he had transgressed of a certainty, how much more is it so with the attribute of reward, which is the greater!11Thus a man who is not sure whether he has performed a meritorious deed will receive a reward as if he had done it of a certainty.R. Nathan b. Joseph said: Whoever transgressed in error is regarded by Scripture as if he had acted wantonly. How is this? If a man killed a person unintentionally and fled to a city of refuge,12In accordance with Num. 35, 11f. and the avenger of blood found him13Outside the city of refuge. and killed him, the avenger of blood is not culpable;14Num. ibid. 27. whereas if a man killed wantonly and the avenger of blood found him and killed him, he is put to death.15So MS. E. and GRA. V. reads, ‘he must escape into exile because of him’; but this is not established law. It is, however, evident that the avenger of blood may in certain circumstances exercise his right of vengeance against the unintentional killer but not against the wanton killer, so proving the thesis that the transgressor in error is in a graver position than the deliberate transgressor. Now which of the Divine attributes is the greater, that of reward or that of punishment? Surely that of reward. And if with regard to the attribute of punishment, which is the lesser, it is held that he who transgressed in error is regarded by Scripture as if he had acted wantonly, how much more so is it with the attribute of reward, which is the greater!

R. ‘Aḳiba said: 16Cf. Mak. I, 7 (Sonc. ed., p. 29).Whoever joins himself to those that commit a transgression, even though he does not act like them, is punished as they are; and whoever joins himself to those that fulfil a commandment, even though he does not act like them, is rewarded as they are. How is this? If two testify of another saying, ‘That man killed a person’, and they are found to be false witnesses17lit. ‘plotters’; i.e. they were proved by the evidence of two subsequent witnesses to have been absent at the time of the alleged crime. Their punishment is on the principle of retaliation (cf. Deut. 19, 19). so that sentence of death is passed upon them, and as they are being led to the place of execution18lit. ‘house of stoning’. a third man comes running after them calling out, ‘I know something concerning this testimony’, they say to him, ‘Come and offer your testimony’. This man also is found to be a false witness, so that sentence of death is passed upon him. As he is led to the place of execution, he exclaims, ‘Woe is me! had I not come, I would not have been sentenced to death; but now that I came and joined them I am sentenced to death’.19Though his evidence alone would be worthless since two witnesses at least are required. They say to him, ‘Fool that you are, even if one hundred men were to come after you and found to be false witnesses, they would all be put to death!’ Now which Divine attribute is the greater, that of reward or that of punishment? Surely that of reward. And if with regard to the attribute of punishment, which is the lesser, it is held that he who joins himself to those who commit a transgression, even though he does not act like them, is punished [as they are], how much more is it so with the attribute of reward which is the greater!

R. Simeon said: Such is the penalty of a liar, that even when he speaks the truth he is not believed;20Cf. Sanh. 89b (Sonc. ed., p. 596). This passage follows naturally on the preceding which deals with perjured witnesses. for we find it so with the sons of Jacob. When they first lied to their father he believed them, as it is stated, And they took Joseph’s coat, and killed a he-goat;21Gen. 37, 31. and it is written, And he knew it, and said: It is my son’s coat.22ibid. 33. Jacob believed their story. [Cf., however, Soferim XXI, below p. 332.] But finally, although they spoke the truth to him, he did not believe them, as it is stated, And they told him, saying: Joseph is yet alive … And his heart fainted, for he believed them not.23ibid. XLV, 26. Some say that the Holy Spirit, which had departed from our father Jacob [during his grieving for Joseph], now settled upon him, as it is stated, The spirit of Jacob their father revived.24ibid. 27. It was only the return of the Divine Spirit to him that convinced him of the fact that Joseph was alive, but he did not accept the word of his sons on this occasion when they spoke the truth.