יום כיפור - שורש כוח התשובה

זט

(ח) אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, לֹא הָיוּ יָמִים טוֹבִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בְּאָב וּכְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים... וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר, צְאֶינָה וּרְאֶינָה בְּנוֹת צִיּוֹן בַּמֶּלֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹה בָּעֲטָרָה שֶׁעִטְּרָה לּוֹ אִמּוֹ בְּיוֹם חֲתֻנָּתוֹ וּבְיוֹם שִׂמְחַת לִבּוֹ (שיר השירים ג). בְּיוֹם חֲתֻנָּתוֹ, זֶה מַתַּן תּוֹרָה. וּבְיוֹם שִׂמְחַת לִבּוֹ, זֶה בִּנְיַן בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁיִּבָּנֶה בִמְהֵרָה בְיָמֵינוּ. אָמֵן:

Mishnah Ta'anit 4:8

(8) Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: There were no days as joyous for the Jewish people as the fifteenth of Av and as Yom Kippur, as on them the daughters of Jerusalem would go out in white clothes, which each woman borrowed from another. Why were they borrowed? They did this so as not to embarrass one who did not have her own white garments. All the garments that the women borrowed require immersion, as those who previously wore them might have been ritually impure. And the daughters of Jerusalem would go out and dance in the vineyards. And what would they say? Young man, please lift up your eyes and see what you choose for yourself for a wife. Do not set your eyes toward beauty, but set your eyes toward a good family, as the verse states: “Grace is deceitful and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised” (Proverbs 31:30), and it further says: “Give her the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates” (Proverbs 31:31). And similarly, it says in another verse: “Go forth, daughters of Zion, and gaze upon King Solomon, upon the crown with which his mother crowned him on the day of his wedding, and on the day of the gladness of his heart” (Song of Songs 3:11). This verse is explained as an allusion to special days: “On the day of his wedding”; this is the giving of the Torah through the second set of tablets on Yom Kippur. The name King Solomon in this context, which also means king of peace, is interpreted as a reference to God. “And on the day of the gladness of his heart”; this is the building of the Temple, may it be rebuilt speedily in our days.

תענית ל׳ ב:ח׳

אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: לֹא הָיוּ יָמִים טוֹבִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בְּאָב וּכְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. בִּשְׁלָמָא יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים — מִשּׁוּם דְּאִית בֵּיהּ סְלִיחָה וּמְחִילָה, יוֹם שֶׁנִּיתְּנוּ בּוֹ לוּחוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנוֹת...

Taanit 30b:8

§ The mishna taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: There were no days as happy for the Jewish people as the fifteenth of Av and as Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: Granted, Yom Kippur is a day of joy because it has the elements of pardon and forgiveness, and moreover, it is the day on which the last pair of tablets were given.

רש"י על תענית ל׳ ב:ח׳:א׳

שניתנו בו לוחות אחרונות – ...ובוקר יום כפור ירד שהוא עשרה בתשרי ואותו היום נקבע ליום כפור להודיע שמחל וניחם על הרעה אשר דבר לעשות לעמו ועל כן נקבע צום כפור בעשרה בתשרי כך שמעתי:

Rashi on Taanit 30b:8:1

...

שבועות י״ג א:א׳-ט׳

רבי אומר על כל עבירות שבתורה בין עשה תשובה בין לא עשה תשובה יום הכפורים מכפר ... ורבנן ... יוה"כ אין מכפר אלא על השבים

Shevuot 13a:1-9

The mishna is referring to a case where the person did not repent and persists in his rebellion, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that even for such a case Yom Kippur and the scapegoat will atone. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: For all transgressions that are stated in the Torah, whether one repented, or whether one did not repent, Yom Kippur atones, except for one who divests himself of the yoke of Heaven, by denying God’s existence, and one who reveals facets of the Torah that differ from its true meaning, and one who nullifies the covenant of circumcision of the flesh. For these, if one repented, Yom Kippur atones, and if not, Yom Kippur does not atone. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It is as it is taught in a baraita in interpretation of the verse: “For he scorned the word of the Lord and nullified His commandment; that person will be cut off [hikkaret tikkaret], his sin is upon him” (Numbers 15:31): “For he scorned the word of the Lord”; this is referring to one who divests himself of the yoke of Heaven and one who reveals facets of the Torah that differ from its true meaning. “And nullified His commandment”; this is referring to one who nullified the covenant of circumcision of the flesh. The use of the double verb form hikkaret tikkaret teaches that he will be cut off, i.e., he is liable to receive karet, before Yom Kippur, and he will still be cut off after Yom Kippur, as Yom Kippur does not atone for him. One might have thought that this applies even if he repented. To counter this, the verse states: “His sin is upon him,” by which God indicates: I said that Yom Kippur does not atone for these sins only when his sin is still upon him, as he did not repent. It is apparent from this baraita that it is only for the three sins mentioned that Yom Kippur does not atone without repentance, but Yom Kippur atones for other sins even if one did not repent. And with regard to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, how do they interpret the verse? If someone commits one of the three sins mentioned, then he is cut off [hikkaret] from life in this world, and he will be cut off [tikkaret] in the World-to-Come. The phrase “His sin is upon him” teaches that if he repented and died, his death cleanses him of his sin. The Gemara asks: And can you interpret the mishna to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? But from the fact that the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, by inference, the first clause is also in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but not of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as the latter clause of the mishna teaches: Israelites and priests and the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, all equally achieve atonement from the scapegoat. And who accepts this reasoning? Rabbi Yehuda, as the Gemara will demonstrate. By inference, the first clause is also in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, not of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rav Yosef said: It is possible that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the latter clause does not pose a difficulty, because with regard to whether priests achieve atonement through the scapegoat, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Abaye said to him: Does the Master mean specifically what he is saying, i.e., that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to whether the scapegoat atones for both Israelites and priest, but Rabbi Yehuda does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with regard to atonement for one who did not repent? Or perhaps from the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it follows that Rabbi Yehuda also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, but the reason that Rav Yosef did not make this clear is that he teaches the matter in the manner in which it typically occurs, which is to say that a disciple, in this case, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds in accordance with the opinion of his teacher, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Yosef said to him: Yes, I mean specifically what I was saying: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but Rabbi Yehuda does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it is taught in a baraita recorded in the Sifra: One might have thought that Yom Kippur would atone for those who repent and for those who do not repent, and this assertion is supported by the following logical inference: Although it would appear that since a sin-offering and a guilt-offering atone and Yom Kippur atones, it should follow that just as a sin-offering and a guilt-offering atone only for those who repent, so too, Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent, this comparison is flawed. One can claim: What is notable about a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? They are notable in that they do not atone for intentional sins like they do for unwitting sins. Can you say the same about Yom Kippur, which does atone for intentional sins as it does for unwitting sins?

משנה תורה, הלכות תשובה א׳:ג׳

בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה שֶׁאֵין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּם וְאֵין לָנוּ מִזְבַּח כַּפָּרָה אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא תְּשׁוּבָה. הַתְּשׁוּבָה מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל כָּל הָעֲבֵרוֹת... וְעַצְמוֹ שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר לַשָּׁבִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טז ל) "כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם":

Mishneh Torah, Repentance 1:3

At present, when the Temple does not exist and there is no altar of atonement, there remains nothing else aside from Teshuvah.
Teshuvah atones for all sins. Even a person who was wicked his whole life and repented in his final moments will not be reminded of any aspect of his wickedness as [Ezekiel 33:12] states "the wickedness of the evil one will not cause him to stumble on the day he repents his wickedness."
The essence of Yom Kippur atones for those who repent as [Leviticus 16:30] states: "This day will atone for you."

ילקוט שמעוני על נ"ך שנ״ח:א׳

הנפש החוטאת היא תמות, שאלו לחכמה חוטא מהו ענשו א"ל חטאים תרדף רעה, שאלו לנבואה חוטא מהו ענשו, א"ל הנפש החוטאת היא תמות, שאלו לתורה חוטא מהו ענשו א"ל יביא אשם ויתכפר לו. שאלו להקב"ה חוטא מהו ענשו מהו ענשו א"ל יביא אשם ויתכפר לו. שאלו להקב"ה חוטא מהו ענשו א"ל יעשה תשובה ויתכפר לו הה"ד טוב וישר ה' על כן יורה חטאים בדרך.

Yalkut Shimoni on Nach 358:1

...

משלי ו׳:כ״ג

(כג) כִּ֤י נֵ֣ר מִ֭צְוָה וְת֣וֹרָה א֑וֹר וְדֶ֥רֶךְ חַ֝יִּ֗ים תּוֹכְח֥וֹת מוּסָֽר׃

Proverbs 6:23

(23) For the commandment is a lamp,
The teaching is a light,
And the way to life is the rebuke that disciplines.

ש"פ האזינו, שבת תשובה ה'תשכ"ג
ויש לומר, דזה שגם מענה הקב"ה שלמעלה מהתורה נתגלה ע"י התורה הוא, כי זה שהתורה היא בקו האמצעי הוא לפי ששרשה הוא בעצמות אוא"ס שלמעלה מקוין, אלא שאח"כ נמשכה בקו האמצעי. ולכן, נוסף על שיש בה האור שלמעלה מהשתלשלות כמו שנמשך בקו האמצעי (שלכן גם מצד מענה התורה מועלת תשובה שזדונות יהיו כשגגות), מתגלה על ידה גם עצמות אוא"ס שלמעלה מקוין, מענה הקב"ה יעשה תשובה ויתכפר לו. היינו, דזה שאמרה תורה יביא אשם ויתכפר לו (שע"י תשובה נעשים זדונות רק כשגגות) הוא בדרגת התורה כמו שנמשכה בקו האמצעי, וזה שגם מענה הקב"ה יעשה תשובה ויתכפר לו הוא חלק בתורה (שבעל פה) הוא מצד שרש התורה בעצמות אוא"ס שלמעלה מקוין.

בראשית רבה מ״ד:א׳

(א) אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה הָיָה דְבַר ה' אֶל אַבְרָם בַּמַּחֲזֶה לֵאמֹר וגו' (בראשית טו, א), (תהלים יח, לא): הָאֵל תָּמִים דַּרְכּוֹ אִמְרַת ה' צְרוּפָה מָגֵן הוּא לְכֹל הַחוֹסִים בּוֹ, אִם דְּרָכָיו תְּמִימִים, הוּא עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה, רַב אָמַר לֹא נִתְּנוּ הַמִּצְווֹת אֶלָּא לְצָרֵף בָּהֶן אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת, וְכִי מָה אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמִי שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הַצַּוָּאר אוֹ מִי שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הָעֹרֶף, הֱוֵי לֹא נִתְּנוּ הַמִּצְווֹת אֶלָּא לְצָרֵף בָּהֶם אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת.

Bereshit Rabbah 44:1

(1) After these things the word of Hashem came to Abram in a vision, saying, etc. (Psalms 18:31) "As for God — His ways are perfect; the Word of Hashem is tried; a shield is He for all who take refuge in Him." If His way is perfect, how much more is He Himself! Rav said: Were not the mitzvot given so that man might be refined by them? . Do you really think that The Holy One of Blessing cares if an animal is slaughtered by front or by the back of the neck? Therefore, mitzvot were only given to make humans better.

מגיד מישרים כ״ג:א׳

פרשת ויקרא מהדורא קמא: אור ליום שבת ה' לניסן, היה חופת בתי תמ"ה ונתעכבנו הרבה בתחילת הלילה כמנהג ומפני כך ישנתי עד שעה אחד מהיום והייתי מצטער על שלא נתעוררתי בעוד לילה לבא אלי הדיבור כמנהג, והתחלתי לגרוס משניות, והנה קול דודי דופק ואומר ה' עמך וכו' אל תירא ואל תחת פן אנטשך אעזבך... כי אני הוא המשנה המדברת בפיך...

Maggid Meisharim 23:1

...

סנהדרין ע״א א:י״ד-כ׳

...בן סורר ומורה לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר... עיר הנדחת לא היתה ולא עתידה להיות ולמה נכתבה דרוש וקבל שכר... בית המנוגע לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר...

Sanhedrin 71a:14-20

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be one in the future, as it is impossible to fulfill all the requirements that must be met in order to apply this halakha. And why, then, was the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning, this being an aspect of the Torah that has only theoretical value. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who requires that the parents have certain identical characteristics, making it virtually impossible to apply the halakha. If you wish, say instead that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: And is it simply due to the fact that the boy ate a tarteimar of meat and drank a half-log of Italian wine that his father and his mother shall take him out to stone him? Rather, there has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be one in the future. And why, then, was the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning. Rabbi Yonatan says: This is not so, as I saw one. I was once in a place where a stubborn and rebellious son was condemned to death, and I even sat on his grave after he was executed. The Gemara raises a similar question: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There has never been an idolatrous city and there will never be one in the future, as it is virtually impossible to fulfill all the requirements that must be met in order to apply this halakha. And why, then, was the passage relating to an idolatrous city written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Any city that has even one mezuza or any other sacred scroll cannot become an idolatrous city. It is difficult to imagine an entire city without even one mezuza. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that a city that has even one mezuza cannot become an idolatrous city? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “And you shall gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the open space of the city, and shall burn with fire both the city and the entire plunder taken in it” (Deuteronomy 13:17). And since if there is a mezuza there it is impossible to burn all the contents of the city, as it is written: “And you shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their asherim with fire…This you shall not do so to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:3–4). It is derived from this verse that it is prohibited to destroy a sacred item such as a mezuza. Therefore, in a city that has even one mezuza, it is impossible to fulfill the halakhot of an idolatrous city, as not all of its contents may be burned. Rabbi Yonatan says: This is not so, as I once saw an idolatrous city that was condemned to destruction, and I even sat on its ruins. The Gemara asks another similar question: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There has never been a house afflicted with leprosy of the house and there will never be one in the future. And why, then, was the passage relating to leprosy of the house written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna (Nega’im 12:3) that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: A house never becomes impure with leprosy until a mark about the size of two split beans is seen on two stones in two walls that form a corner between them, the mark being about two split beans in length and about one split bean in width. It is difficult to imagine that such a precise situation will ever occur. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, that a house does not become impure unless it has a mark precisely in the corner? The verse states: “And he shall look at the leprous mark, and, behold, if the leprous mark be in the walls of the house, in greenish or reddish depressions, which in sight are lower than the wall” (Leviticus 14:37). In one part of the verse it is written “wall,” and in another part of the verse it is written “walls.” Which wall is like two walls? You must say this is a corner. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: There was a place in the area of Gaza, and it was called the leprous ruin; that is to say, it was the ruin of a house that had been afflicted with leprosy. Apparently, then, leprosy of the house has existed. Rabbi Shimon of the village of Akko said: I once went to the Galilee and I saw a place that was being marked off as an impure place, and they said that stones afflicted with leprosy were cast there. This too indicates that a house afflicted with leprosy has existed.

משלי ח׳:ל׳

(ל) וָאֶהְיֶ֥ה אֶצְל֗וֹ אָ֫מ֥וֹן וָאֶהְיֶ֣ה שַׁ֭עֲשׁוּעִים י֤וֹם ׀ י֑וֹם מְשַׂחֶ֖קֶת לְפָנָ֣יו בְּכׇל־עֵֽת׃

Proverbs 8:30

(30) I was with Him as a confidant,
A source of delight every day,
Rejoicing before Him at all times,

עבודה זרה י״ט א:ה׳

כי אם בתורת ה' חפצו א"ר אין אדם לומד תורה אלא ממקום שלבו חפץ שנאמר (תהלים א, ב) כי אם בתורת ה' חפצו

Avodah Zarah 19a:5

§ The Gemara returns to its interpretation of the verse that was discussed previously: “But his delight is in the Torah of the Lord” (Psalms 1:2). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: A person can learn Torah only from a place in the Torah that his heart desires, as it is stated: But his delight is in the Torah of the Lord, i.e., his delight is in the part of the Torah that he wishes to study.

אגלי טל הקדמה סעיף ג'
ומדי דברי בו, זכור אזכור מה ששמעתי קצת בני אדם טועין מדרך השכל בעניין לימוד תורתנו הקדושה, ואמרו כי הלומד ומחדש חידושים ושמח ומתענג בלימודו, אין זה לימוד התורה כל-כך לשמה כמו אם היה לומד בפשיטות שאין לו מהלימוד שום תענוג והוא רק לשם מצוה, אבל הלומד ומתענג בלימודו הרי מתערב בלימודו גם הנאת עצמו.
ובאמת זה טעות מפורסם. ואדרבא, כי זה היא עיקר מצוות לימוד התורה, להיות שש ושמח ומתענג בלימודו, ואז דברי תורה נבלעין בדמו. ומאחר שנהנה מדברי תורה, הוא נעשה דבוק לתורה.
ובזוה"ק, ד"בין יצר הטוב ובין יצר הרע אינן מתגדלין אלא מתוך שמחה: יצר הטוב מתגדל מתוך שמחה של תורה, יצר הרע...". ואם אמרת שע"י השמחה שיש לו מהלימוד נקרא שלא לשמה, או על-כל-פנים לשמה ושלא לשמה, הרי שמחה זו עוד מגרע כוח המצוה ומכהה אורה, ואיך יגדל מזה יצר הטוב? וכיוון שיצר הטוב מתגדל מזה, בוודאי זהו עיקר המצוה.
ומודינא, שהלומד לא לשם מצוות הלימוד, רק מחמת שיש לו תענוג בלימודו, הרי זה נקרא לימוד שלא לשמה, כהא דאוכל מצה שלא לשם מצוה רק לשם תענוג אכילה; ובהא אמרו "לעולם יעסוק... שלא לשמה, שמתוך...". אבל לומד לשם מצוה ומתענג בלימודו, הרי זה לימוד לשמה, וכולו קודש, כי גם התענוג - מצוה.

יומא ל״ה ב:ו׳-י״ג

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עָנִי וְעָשִׁיר וְרָשָׁע בָּאִין לַדִּין, לֶעָנִי אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא עָסַקְתָּ בַּתּוֹרָה? אִם אוֹמֵר: עָנִי הָיִיתִי, וְטָרוּד בִּמְזוֹנוֹתַי, אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: כְּלוּם עָנִי הָיִיתָ יוֹתֵר מֵהִלֵּל? אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל הִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁבְּכׇל יוֹם וָיוֹם הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה וּמִשְׂתַּכֵּר בִּטְרַפָּעִיק, חֶצְיוֹ הָיָה נוֹתֵן לְשׁוֹמֵר בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, וְחֶצְיוֹ לְפַרְנָסָתוֹ וּלְפַרְנָסַת אַנְשֵׁי בֵיתוֹ. פַּעַם אַחַת לֹא מָצָא לְהִשְׂתַּכֵּר, וְלֹא הִנִּיחוֹ שׁוֹמֵר בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ לְהִכָּנֵס. עָלָה וְנִתְלָה וְיָשַׁב עַל פִּי אֲרוּבָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁמַע דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים מִפִּי שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן. אָמְרוּ: אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת הָיָה, וּתְקוּפַת טֵבֵת הָיְתָה, וְיָרַד עָלָיו שֶׁלֶג מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם. כְּשֶׁעָלָה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר אָמַר לוֹ שְׁמַעְיָה לְאַבְטַלְיוֹן: אַבְטַלְיוֹן אָחִי, בְּכׇל יוֹם הַבַּיִת מֵאִיר וְהַיּוֹם אָפֵל, שֶׁמָּא יוֹם הַמְעוּנָּן הוּא? הֵצִיצוּ עֵינֵיהֶן וְרָאוּ דְּמוּת אָדָם בַּאֲרוּבָּה. עָלוּ וּמָצְאוּ עָלָיו רוּם שָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת שֶׁלֶג. פֵּרְקוּהוּ, וְהִרְחִיצוּהוּ וְסָכוּהוּ, וְהוֹשִׁיבוּהוּ כְּנֶגֶד הַמְּדוּרָה. אָמְרוּ: רָאוּי זֶה לְחַלֵּל עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. עָשִׁיר, אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא עָסַקְתָּ בַּתּוֹרָה? אִם אוֹמֵר: עָשִׁיר הָיִיתִי וְטָרוּד הָיִיתִי בִּנְכָסַי. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: כְּלוּם עָשִׁיר הָיִיתָ יוֹתֵר מֵרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר? אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן חַרְסוֹם שֶׁהִנִּיחַ לוֹ אָבִיו אֶלֶף עֲיָירוֹת בַּיַּבָּשָׁה, וּכְנֶגְדָּן אֶלֶף סְפִינוֹת בַּיָּם. וּבְכׇל יוֹם וָיוֹם נוֹטֵל נֹאד שֶׁל קֶמַח עַל כְּתֵיפוֹ וּמְהַלֵּךְ מֵעִיר לְעִיר וּמִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה. פַּעַם אַחַת מְצָאוּהוּ עֲבָדָיו, וְעָשׂוּ בּוֹ אַנְגַּרְיָא. אָמַר לָהֶן: בְּבַקָּשָׁה מִכֶּם, הַנִּיחוּנִי וְאֵלֵךְ לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: חַיֵּי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן חַרְסוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַנִּיחִין אוֹתְךָ. וּמִיָּמָיו לֹא הָלַךְ וְרָאָה אוֹתָן, אֶלָּא יוֹשֵׁב וְעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה כׇּל הַיּוֹם וְכׇל הַלַּיְלָה... נִמְצָא: הִלֵּל מְחַיֵּיב אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן חַרְסוֹם מְחַיֵּיב אֶת הָעֲשִׁירִים...

Yoma 35b:6-13

§ Apropos the great wealth of Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥarsum, the Gemara cites that which the Sages taught: A poor person, and a wealthy person, and a wicked person come to face judgment before the Heavenly court for their conduct in this world. To the poor person, the members of the court say: Why did you not engage in Torah? If he rationalizes his conduct and says: I was poor and preoccupied with earning enough to pay for my sustenance and that is why I did not engage in Torah study, they say to him: Were you any poorer than Hillel, who was wretchedly poor and nevertheless attempted to study Torah? They said about Hillel the Elder that each and every day he would work and earn a half-dinar, half of which he would give to the guard of the study hall and half of which he spent for his sustenance and the sustenance of the members of his family. One time he did not find employment to earn a wage, and the guard of the study hall did not allow him to enter. He ascended to the roof, suspended himself, and sat at the edge of the skylight in order to hear the words of the Torah of the living God from the mouths of Shemaya and Avtalyon, the spiritual leaders of that generation. The Sages continued and said: That day was Shabbat eve and it was the winter season of Tevet, and snow fell upon him from the sky. When it was dawn, Shemaya said to Avtalyon: Avtalyon, my brother, every day at this hour the study hall is already bright from the sunlight streaming through the skylight, and today it is dark; is it perhaps a cloudy day? They focused their eyes and saw the image of a man in the skylight. They ascended and found him covered with snow three cubits high. They extricated him from the snow, and they washed him and smeared oil on him, and they sat him opposite the bonfire to warm him. They said: This man is worthy for us to desecrate Shabbat for him. Saving a life overrides Shabbat in any case; however, this great man is especially deserving. Clearly, poverty is no excuse for the failure to attempt to study Torah. And if a wealthy man comes before the heavenly court, the members of the court say to him: Why did you not engage in Torah? If he says: I was wealthy and preoccupied with managing my possessions, they say to him: Were you any wealthier than Rabbi Elazar, who was exceedingly wealthy and nevertheless studied Torah? They said about Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥarsum that his father left him an inheritance of one thousand villages on land, and corresponding to them, one thousand ships at sea. And each and every day he takes a leather jug of flour on his shoulder and walks from city to city and from state to state to study Torah from the Torah scholars in each of those places. One time as he passed through the villages in his estate and his servants found him, did not recognize him, and, thinking he was a resident of the town, they pressed him into service [angarya] for the master of the estate. He said to them: I beseech you; let me be and I will go study Torah. They said: We swear by the life of Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥarsum that we will not let you be. The Gemara comments: And in all his days, he never went and saw all his possessions and his property; rather, he would sit and engage in the study of Torah all day and all night. And if a wicked man comes to judgment, the members of the court say to him: Why did you not engage in Torah? If he said: I was handsome and preoccupied with my evil inclination, as I had many temptations, they say to him: Were you any more handsome than Joseph, who did not neglect Torah despite his beauty? They said about Joseph the righteous: Each and every day, the wife of Potiphar seduced him with words. In addition, the clothes that she wore to entice him in the morning, she did not wear to entice him in the evening. The clothes that she wore to entice him in the evening, she did not wear to entice him in the morning of the next day. One day she said to him: Submit to me and have relations with me.
He said to her: No.
She said to him: I will incarcerate you in the prison. He said to her: I do not fear you, as it is stated: “God releases prisoners” (Psalms 146:7).
She said to him: I will cause you to be bent over with suffering.
He said: “God straightens those who are bent over” (Psalms 146:8).
She said I will blind your eyes.
He said to her “God opens the eyes of the blind” (Psalms 146:8).
She gave him a thousand talents of silver to submit to her, “to lie with her and be with her” (Genesis 39:10), and he refused. The Gemara elaborates: Had he submitted to her to lie with her in this world, it would have been decreed in Heaven that he would be with her in the World-to-Come. Therefore, he refused. Consequently, Hillel obligates the poor to study Torah, Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥarsum obligates the wealthy, and Joseph obligates the wicked. For each category of people, there is a role model who overcame his preoccupations and temptations to study Torah.

משנה תורה, הלכות תלמוד תורה ג׳:ו׳

מִי שֶׁנְּשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ לְקַיֵּם מִצְוָה זוֹ כָּרָאוּי וְלִהְיוֹת מֻכְתָּר בְּכֶתֶר תּוֹרָה. לֹא יַסִּיחַ דַּעְתּוֹ לִדְבָרִים אֲחֵרִים. וְלֹא יָשִׂים עַל לִבּוֹ שֶׁיִּקְנֶה תּוֹרָה עִם הָעשֶׁר וְהַכָּבוֹד כְּאַחַת. (משנה אבות ו ד) "כָּךְ הִיא דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה. פַּת בַּמֶּלַח תֹּאכַל וּמַיִם בַּמְּשׂוּרָה תִּשְׁתֶּה וְעַל הָאָרֶץ תִּישַׁן וְחַיֵּי צַעַר תִּחְיֶה וּבַתּוֹרָה אַתָּה עָמֵל". וְלֹא עָלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר לִגְמֹר וְלֹא אַתָּה בֶּן חוֹרִין לִבָּטֵל מִמֶּנָּה. וְאִם הִרְבֵּיתָ תּוֹרָה הִרְבֵּיתָ שָׂכָר. וְהַשָּׂכָר לְפִי הַצַּעַר:

Mishneh Torah, Torah Study 3:6

A person whose heart inspires him to fulfill this mitzvah in a fitting manner and to become crowned with the crown of Torah should not divert his attention to other matters. He should not set his intent on acquiring Torah together with wealth and honor simultaneously.
[Rather,] this is the path of Torah: Eat bread with salt, drink water in small measure, sleep on the ground, live a life of difficulty, and toil in Torah.
The task is not incumbent upon you to complete, nor are you free to desist from it. If you have acquired much Torah, you have acquired much reward, and that reward is commensurate with the difficulty [invested].

שולחן ערוך הרב הלכות תלמוד תורה קונטרס אחרון פרק ג
...ומ"ש הרמב"ם חיי צער תחיה כו', לאו חיובא דאורייתא הוא, אלא שזו דרכה של תורה דייקא, ומי שרוצה להיות מוכתר בכתרה אי אפשר בענין אחר, אבל מי שאינו רוצה להיות מוכתר, רק לקיים מצות עשה דאורייתא ודרבנן שהן חובה, דלא אשכחן שחייבה תורה לסבול חיי צער...

הלכות תלמוד תורה ג׳:ח׳

אסור (ברכות כ"ד) לתלמיד חכם לעמוד במקום הטנפת, לפי שאי אפשר לו בלא הרהורי תורה. ומכל מקום (תרומת הדשן) מתר לו לכנס לבית הכסא או לבית המרחץ אף מתוך פלפול והלכה שאינה פסוקה, ואין חוששין שיהרהר שם בה כמו שחוששין לכך בתפלה, וגם אם יבוא לו הרהור בעל כרחו שלא ברצונו (קידושין לג) - אנוס הוא. ואפלו אם מדבר (זבחים קב) בה לאנסו מפני רב רגילותו לדבר בה, כמעשה דרבי אליעזר ברבי שמעון:

Hilchos Talmud Torah 3:8

...

זבחים ק״ב ב:ט׳

אמר רבא האי דינא מרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון גמירנא דאמר בבית הכסא דנתה בא טבול יום ואמר תן לי ממנחה ואוכל...

Zevachim 102b:9

§ The mishna teaches that an impure priest who immersed that day, such that he will not be pure until sunset, and likewise an acute mourner and one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, do not receive a share of sacrificial meat in order to partake of it in the evening. Rava says: I learned this halakha from Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who said in the bathroom: You can contend by way of a story: A priest who immersed that day came and said to a pure priest of the same patrilineal priestly family serving in the Temple that day, who was apportioning the sacrificial food: Give me a share of a meal offering, and I will partake of it in the evening.