Loading...
 

Vol 7.22 -Behar 2                                                                  Spanish French Audio  Video

Hebrew Text:

Page175   Page176   Page177   Page178   Page179   Page180   Page181   Page182   Page183   Page184   Page185   Page186   Page187  

Chumash

Summary:
 
(5730) End of the Parsha (and Rashi)(Lev.26:2) "I am the L-rd: Who is faithful to give reward"
and the connection to the statement of R' Meir (Avot 4:10): "if you toil much in Torah, there is much reward to give to you"

Debate in the original supposition (hava amina) that a "slave sold to a gentile" etc.

Explanation of Zohar (Behar 108a) that a Jewish slave is exempt form the "Yoke of the supernal kingdom" according to the explanation of the Alter Rebbe in Tanya (Chap. 41) concerning the acceptance of the Yoke of Heaven and the parable of the the Zohar (ibid) "like that ox that they place a yoke upon"
 

Translation:

1. In the Shabbat days between Pesach and Shavuot one learns Pirkei Avot, each Shabbat a Perek.

And since all aspects of Torah are the epitome of precision ( and how much more so, from that which even the aspects of the world are not happenstance, G-d forbid, but with Divine Providence) it is understood that this Perek, which one learns in this specific Shabbat, has a relation also to the Sidra which one reads then.

Of the Mishnayot of this Perek (Perek 4) which has a specific subject that is related to this week’s Parsha (Parshat Behar) is the Mishnah (4:10):

“Rabbi Meir would say: Engage minimally in business, and occupy yourself with Torah etc.” and the conclusion is “if you toil much in Torah, there is much reward to give to you.”

רבי מאיר אומר, הוי ממעט בעסק, ועסוק בתורה .והוי שפל רוח בפני כל אדם.ואם בטלת מן התורה, יש לך בטלים הרבה כנגדך. ואם עמלת בתורה, יש שכר הרבה לתן לך

This is similar to the conclusion of the Sidra that states: “I am the L-rd” (which means, as Rashi says: “faithful to give reward” (נאמן לשלם שכר))

The promise of reward for Torah study and the fulfillment of Mitzvot, in general, is found in many of the Sidrot of the Torah and in many Mishnayot (also in tractate Avot). However the innovation which is in the conclusion of this week’s Sidra, is expressed in that which it states “faithful to give reward”.

The innovation of the verse here, is (not the promise (צוזאג) that one receives reward for keeping Shabbat and in the fear of the Mikdash, but) that G-d is “faithful” to recompense and not, to withhold (פארמיידן), G-d forbid, the reward that is due to those that fulfill the required commands.

Similarly, it is also in the conclusion of the aforementioned Mishnah:

Rabbi Meir innovates here that (not that due to one’s toiling much in Torah, one is due a reward, but) that ”there is much reward to give to you.”

This means that the person could think:

It is indeed true that he deserves much reward for the great toil. However it is possible (געמאלט) that he will not receive it in full measure, since there does not exist, that much reward to give him – therefore Rabbi Meir stresses that “there is much reward to give to you” - that it exists in greater measure, and therefore the person can be certain that he will receive the “much reward”.

One must understand:

What is the “innovation”

·         (both, in the verse) that G-d is “faithful” to recompense (באלוינען) the person that which he deserves, and

·         (also in the Mishnah) that G-d possesses the sufficient “much reward” to pay the person, what he deserves?

2. The verse: “You shall keep My Sabbaths, and revere My Sanctuary. I am the L-rd” Is also stated in a previous Sidra, and there Rashi does not comment: “faithful to give reward” like the verse in our Parsha.

From this it is understood that this forewarning, namely that G-d is “faithful to give reward” applies only to this verse of “You shall keep My Sabbaths etc.” – which comes subsequent to the previous verse “You shall not make idols for yourselves”. And both of these commands were said in relation to a Yid who is “sold to a non-Jew”.

Regarding Yidden, in general, that just as regarding them, there is no special innovation in the command itself – so too there is also no innovation that G-d has, and will, give the entire reward for carrying out the command.

However, regarding one who is sold to a non-Jew, where the Torah must separately tell him that “You shall not make idols for yourselves - You shall keep My Sabbaths” –

because without the command, one could think to himself: “Since my master worships idols. . Since my master desecrates the Sabbath, I will also be like him!”-

there can also be a place to mean that, since he is “sold to a non-Jew”, therefore there is not much reward to give him for keeping the commands.

Therefore one must say that with the words "I am the L-rd”, the verse is intending to stress that even regarding him, G-d is faithful to give reward.

And in the same manner, this is also the innovation of the Mishnah: “if you toil much in Torah, there is much reward to give to you.”

With the words “there is much reward etc.” it does not refer to the toil in Torah, in general (for then, there is no innovation). But rather it is in relation to “if you toil much in Torah” – meaning from a special category of person that is spoken of in our Mishnah – a business person (בעל עסק).

In the beginning of the Mishnah it states: “Engage minimally in business, and occupy yourself with Torah”.

This means that even a business person - one who according to Law, may have “his work permanent and his Torah study temporary (מלאכתו קבע און תורתו עראי) – must reduce his “business” (his personal dealings) and engage in Torah study. For a business person who “toils much in Torah”, and who does this within the letter of the law (לפגים משורת הדין), Rabbi Meir innovates that “there is much reward to give to you”.

It is however difficult to understand - and in both cases one could say that the opposite is more logical:

If regarding the keeping of Shabbat etc., by a regular person, meaning by one who is free (בן־ חורין) and (also) by Torah study of a Torah scholar

(Who are not connected with “toil” – meaning with a separate effort (באמיאונג) – not to fool oneself or to do it “with “the Midah of Chassidut and the love of Torah”),

it is a simple matter that they have and will receive the full reward – therefore, how much more so is it, in the case when one who is sold to a non-Jew keeps the Shabbat like the Halacha

(Notwithstanding that there is a supposition - in Torah - that “Since my master desecrates the Sabbath, I will also be like him!”)

And (also) when a business person toils “much in Torah” through reducing his “business”

(Even though he is not required to do so according to the law) –

then it must certainly be simple that they will receive and be certain of the full reward!

How is it, that specifically for them, it is necessary to forewarn that G-d is “faithful to give reward” and that there is “there is much reward to give to you”?

3. One must also understand:

How could there be a supposition that “Since my master worships idols I will also be like him!”?

Regarding the desecration of Shabbat, one could explain that since, according to Torah, he is subjugated to his master, that he is obligated to work for him. And since, regarding his master, there is no aspect of Shabbat, and it is a day like any other day, one could, therefore automatically come to an erroneous conclusion that, the obligation to work is in-force (גילטיק) also on Shabbat.

(and moreover: Since he may (according to his error) and must - work on Shabbat for his master, then the entire obligation of keeping Shabbat is completely broken (נפקע). “I will also be like him” – implies that he may desecrate the Shabbat also in a case where it is not related to the work for his master)

One could have a similar reasoning regarding incest (גילוי עריות):

Since “reproducing” (להו­ליד וולדות) is a part of the service of a servant to his master – which is why it states regarding a Hebrew slave that is sold to a non-Jew that “His master gives him a Canaanite maidservant in order to give birth to servants from her”.

Therefore since the Yisroel who is sold to a non-Jew may and must also take a Canaanite maidservant in order to give birth to servants from her, one could conclude that the entire prohibition of incest is broken (those types of incest in which Yidden are distinguished from the Bnei Noach) and therefore just like his master - “I will also be like him”- he is not precluded from the incest which are permitted to a Ben Noach.

However, idol worship is different, for:

1. Even for his master the prohibition of worshipping idols applies. For this is one of the Seven Noachide Commandments and

2. This is a thing which has no relation whatsoever, with the work done for his master. And since this is so, why should there be a place, which there is not (וועלכע־ניט־איז), to mean that he should also be allowed to worship idols?

4. One could understand this by prefacing that which the Zohar states (in the beginning of this week’s Parsha) regarding a Hebrew slave that is sold to a Yisroel. That servants are exempt from the “yoke of the Supernal Kingdom” (עול מלכותא דלעילא) and therefore they are also “exempt from Mitzvot”.

With this the Zohar explains the meaning of “in the seventh (year) he is to go out free” (ובשביעית יצא לחפשי חנם). For since he is a servant (which before the time of his going free),  “everything that he does is free" – meaning without the yoke of the kingdom of heaven”.

 This is similar to what it states: “We remember the fish which we ate in Egypt freely” - that when the Yidden were in servitude in Egypt, they did not have the “supernal yoke” (עול דלעילא). It was in a manner of “free” (חנם).

This however is not understood:

One could explain that the reason that the Zohar states that slaves are exempt from the “yoke of the Supernal Kingdom” - is because they are subject (אוגטערגעווארפן) to the yoke of a mortal being. Therefore it is not in the realm that they should also, at the same time, have to (completely) bear the yoke of the kingdom of heaven.

(And this fits with the saying of the Sages that “The ear that heard on Mount Sinai: "For to Me are the Bnei Yisroel servants, and not servants to servants and he, nevertheless, went ahead and acquired a master for himself (should have his ear pierced!).

For since he makes himself proposed (פארשקלאפט) to another “master” he becomes a “servant to servants” and therefore the Avodat HaShem is (as it were) relieved from him.)

However, when it speaks regarding the fulfillment of Mitzvot in actuality, a Hebrew slave, even one who is sold to a non-Jew, is obligated to fulfill all the Mitzvot. For his statement: “Since my master . . I will also be like him!”- is only a supposition that Torah negates, as it states: “that he should not say”. Also the supposition is just regarding certain Mitzvot (incest, idol worship and the desecration of Shabbat), however not in regard to all the Mitzvot –

Therefore what is meaning of the Zohar‘s statement that a Hebrew slave that is sold to a Yisroel is exempt from Mitzvot?!

One must also understand that which the Zohar compares the ”For six years you shall plant your field etc.” (which is before the “rest for the land“ in the seventh year) to the “for six years he shall serve” of a servant (which is before the “in the seventh (year) he is to go out free”).

Seemingly, what is the comparison in this?

Although it is true that the six years, when one is involved with the work of the field, he does not have so much time to be engaged with Torah study and Avodat HaShem like in the seventh year - for the seventh year will be a “rest for the land, a Shabbat for G-d”. Nevertheless, even during the six years, the Yid is not subject to any yoke of a mortal – he is not a “servant of servants” - therefore in what regard can he be compared to the case of “for six years he shall serve” which through “acquiring a master for himself”, he becomes (as it were) exempt from the yoke of the kingdom of heaven?

5. One can understand this, from the continuation of the Zohar there, where he explains the aspect of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven with a parable – and the Alter Rebbe cites this is Tanya –

“Just like that ox on which one first places a yoke in order to make it useful to the world,...so too must a human being first of all submit to the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven. . and if this (submission) is not found in him, holiness cannot rest within him....”

What, seemingly, is clarified here and explained, through citing this parable of “Just like that ox etc.”?

Especially, since the Alter Rebbe cites this parable in Tanya (even though he omits many of the aspects that are in the Zohar there) - it is understood that with this, an integral aspect, in the aspect of accepting the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven is explained?

The explanation of this is:

The innovation which the Alter Rebbe accomplished in the chapter (Chap. 41) where he cites the parable from the Zohar - and in which itself, he explains it – is

(not just that a Yid must, in general, have Kaballat Ol  - the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven – for this is simple to understand: Since the root of the 365 Negative Mitzvot is the fear of G-d, it is therefore understood that a Yid is required to have fear – Kaballat Ol - in order that he should fulfill the 365 Negative Mitzvot – but) - even

that

“Although fear is the root of “turn away from evil” (סור מרע) and love (is the root of) “do good,” (עשה טוב) nevertheless, it is not sufficient to awaken the love alone to “do good,” but at the very least, before performing the positive command, one must first arouse the innate fear (which lies hidden in the heart of every Jew not to rebel against the Supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He)”.

Thus, even for the “do good”, it requires accepting the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven - Kaballat Ol.

Therefore he also cites the parable of: “Just like that ox on which one first places a yoke in order to make it useful to the world”. For from this parable it is understood that even for the “Do Good” there must be the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven.

Just like “that ox” - that the reason that “one first places a yoke on it” is (not just in order to prevent it from goring (שטויסן) and not causing harm, but also) “in order to make it useful to the world”, so too “a human being first of all submit to the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven”.

It is

(Not just in order to forewarn that he should “turn away from evil” (סור מרע), but also)

because “if this (submission) is not found in him, holiness cannot rest within him”.

For even the “resting of the holiness” (השראת הקדושה) – the “revelation and drawing down of G-d into the lower realm” which comes through the Positive Mitzvot – can rest within him only when the fulfilling of the Positive Mitzvot are (also) because of the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven.

6. One could however ask:

The Alter Rebbe cites the wording of the parable in Zohar “and if this . . is not found in him, holiness cannot rest within him”. From this alone it is also clear that - even for the resting of the holiness which comes through the fulfillment of Positive Mitzvot, it requires Kaballat Ol – therefore why must he also bring the parable of “Just like that ox”?

This can be understood after explanation the wording of the Alter Rebbe”

“Although fear is the root of “turn away from evil” (סור מרע) and love (is the root of) “do good,” (עשה טוב) nevertheless, it is not sufficient”.

Seemingly this is necessary here only to forewarn regarding the “Do Good” that even the root of the “Do Good” is love, nevertheless, it is “not sufficient” to have love alone, and one must (even because of the “Do Good”) awaken also the fear.

However what relevance here, is the explanation of the words “Although fear is the root of “turn away from evil” (סור מרע)?

However, the explanation of this is:

With those very words, the Alter Rebbe allows one to clearly understand what it means that fear and Kaballat Ol are necessary even for the Avodah of “Do Good”.

If just the aspect of the love and the “Do Good” would have been mentioned, one could mean that it speaks here of a case where the aspect of Kaballat Ol and fear is completely lacking. And therefore one would automatically infer that the reason that “it is not sufficient to awaken the love alone to ‘do good’” and one must have Kaballat Ol – so much so that “and if this . . is not found in him, holiness cannot rest within him” - is because the lack of Kaballat Ol contradicts the resting of the holiness.

For when one does not have Kaballat Ol, he is therefore not Batel (i.e. he does not possess the self-nullification) to G-d. Therefore there is no resting of the holiness (הש­ראת הקדוש) in him since “G-d does not rest in a thing unless it is Batel to Him”.

Therefore he cites the words “fear is the root of ‘turn away from evil'’ (סור מרע)”. For although he is not lacking the fear as a root to the “turn away from evil”. It is only that his Avodah of “Do Good” is done because of the awakening of love alone, and not because of Kaballat Ol – nevertheless this is not sufficient and also in his “Do Good” - “if this (Kaballat Ol) is not found in him, holiness cannot rest within him”.

And in order to further clarify the explanation of “if this . . is not found in him etc.” – namely that this means (not only the manner of the lack of Kaballat Ol which actually contradicts the resting of the holiness, but also) that because the Resting of the Holiness itself requires Kaballat Ol – the Alter Rebbe cites the parable of “Just like that ox” in which this very aspect becomes brought out and clearly emphasized (אונטערגעשטראכן) that the reason that one “first places a yoke on it” is “in order to make it useful to the world”.

And with this it is also understood why the Zohar says that servants are exempt from Mitzvot:

The main aspect of Mitzvot is like their name, ‘Mitzvah’ from the word ‘command’ (מצוה מל׳ ציווי) – that their fulfillment is because of the command (באפעל). And since they are exempt from the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, they are automatically exempt from “Mitzvot” – from the word “command’.

7. The reason that the Resting of the Holiness itself requires the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven also in the area of “Do Good” (עשה טוב) is that - when this comes only from love, it does not draw down the Resting of the Holiness (even though he has Kaballat Ol in the area of “turn away from evil” (סור מרע)).

A created being has no comparison (ערך) to the Creator. Therefore, when the fulfillment of Mitzvot is just because of love, which is a feeling that is connected with the being of the lover (מציאות האוהב), meaning the being of the person - then this (type of) fulfillment of the Mitzvah (with love – the aspect of the person) cannot reach the level of the “revelation and the drawing down of G-d” (the revelation of the Creator). For then, the Creator is incomparably higher than the person. Specifically when the fulfillment of Mitzvot is because of Kaballat Ol -accepting the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, since Kaballat Ol is connected (not with his being, but) with the existence of the “King” - then the Mitzvah contains, as it were, the power of the “Creator” and can therefore effect the “Resting of the Holiness”.

This and even more:

The boundary of a servant is that he in completely acquired to his master (קנוי לרבו). And if he feels (שפירט) in himself, a part of his own being, this is contrary to the aspect of being a servant. Therefore when his fulfillment of Mitzvot (of “Do Good”) is “with love alone” it comes out that this itself – namely his feeling of love

(Which is connected with his being and individuality (מציאות והתפשטות))

is a contradiction to the aspect of Kaballat Ol

(Even though he has Kaballat Ol, with regard to “turn away from evil” (סור מרע)) and he has fear “not to rebel against G-d’s sovereignty”) -

and therefore – to the Resting of the Holiness.

Therefore the “Do Good” must also (just like the love which is the “root of the “Do Good”) be permeated (דורכגעדרונגען) with Kaballat Ol,

(That even his love for G-d (אהבת ה׳) should come from the command “and you shall love the L-rd your G‑d”) –

like a servant which has no being for himself except for the being of his master.

8. According to the aforementioned one can also understand the comparison of the ”six years you shall plant etc.” (with regard to Shmittah) to the “six years he shall serve” of a servant.

From the complete (פולשטענדיקער) dependency and the devotion (איבערגעגעבנקייט) of a servant to his master, that his entire being is acquired to his master – then just as it is not applicable that the servant should have his own desires

(So much so that he does not even have any love for his master, as aforementioned, except that with this love itself he carries out the command of the master) –

so too, on the other hand, it is not his thing to fulfill his own needs. The obligation rests on the master to feed him and to provide his servant with all of the needs – the servant himself must not be concerned (זארגן) with this since he is a part of the property of the master.

Therefore the Zohar compares the ”six years you shall plant etc.” to the “six years he shall serve” of a servant who is exempt from accepting the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven.

Since during the “six years”, G-d says to a Yid “plant your field” and “prune your vineyard”, that the Yid alone should provide for his Parnassah.

(And even though the growth of the “planting” and “pruning” comes, exclusively (אויסשליסלעך) from G-d’s blessing, as it states: “your G-d, will bless you in all you do”. Since however the blessing of G-d is, as it is, enclothed and becomes expressed (אויסגעדריקט) specifically in “all that you do”

(and specifically since, because of the hiddenness and concealment, there can still be a place to err that “My strength and the power of my hand have acquired this wealth for me.")

and not like the seventh year when the “I will command My blessing” is visible and not enclothed in the garments of nature

(since from the perspective of nature, since one “does not plant and does not reap etc.” –

the question (so much so that even Torah gives a place for this question) could arise: “and if they shall say what will we eat?”)

Therefore it comes out that in the “six years”, similar to the ”six years he shall serve”, G-d removed, as it were, His dominion (אדנות) over the Yid and set the person in his own domain (ברשות עצמו) - that he alone must work for his Parnassah – even though a master is obligated to provide sustenance for his servant – since the ownership is not visible.

9. Even though, in the “six years”, the blessing - “your G-d, will bless you” - is enclothed and hidden in the “all you do” - meaning in the garments of nature. Nevertheless, since it states regarding the Yidden that “G-d's portion, is with His people” – meaning that they are a part of G-d (חלק פון הוי׳)

(Who is Omnipresent - past present and future as one - היי הוה ויהי׳ כאחד)

Who is above nature – therefore the garments of nature do not, so much, hide – even in the course of the “six years”, when Torah itself says that there must be planting and pruning. This means that even in nature, the Yidden feel that which is above nature.

This is the difference between the effluence from above to the Yidden, and the effluence to the nations (אוה״ע), to distinguish (להבדיל):

Regarding the nations of the world, since they receive their effluence from the stars and constellations (כוכבים ומזלות) (and from the seventy ministering-angels that are appointed over the seventy nations) “that your G-d, has made them available to all the peoples” – regarding them - nature is indeed a true hiddenness and concealment.

(This is the reason that Bnei Noach are not forewarned against “Shituf”

(Note: the heretical idea that there can be some sort of co-partnership with G-d)

 – Even though the stars and constellations are only, with regard to G-d – like the ax in the hand of the hewer (כגרזן ביד החוצב). For since “G-d has made them available to them” - it gives room that with regard to the Bnei Noach, the stars and constellation (and the ministering-angels) look, in a certain way, like “partners”, which have (as it were) a say in the Godly effluence.)

However with regard to Yidden, they are forewarned against Shituf, for although, the effluence to the Yidden come in a manner of “with the sweetness of the produce of the sun etc.” - nevertheless, they feel, visibly, how the sun and the moon etc., are just like the ax in the hand of the hewer, and that the effluence comes from G-d.

10. according to this one can also understood, how there can be a supposition that “Since my master worships idols. . I will also be like him!”:

Since the effluence of Parnassah to the servant comes completely through his master – and as aforementioned, that he is obligated, according to Torah, to sustain his servant

(So much so, that if the servant, on his own, provides for himself, it is the very opposite of the aspect of servitude, as aforementioned) –

therefore the servant could have a supposition (אויפקומען א סברא) that “Since my master worships idols etc.“.

For since there are aspects of idol worship in which “my master” is permitted,

(As aforementioned, in the aspect of Shituf, on which his master is not forewarned, since regarding him, the stars and constellations, are indeed, as if they are partners)

and since his sustenance comes from his master – therefore he can think: “I will also be like him!”- that also the effluence to him comes (through his master and) and like through Shituf/partnership from the stars and constellations – idol worship.

And this is the innovation in the statement of Torah “You shall not make idols for yourselves”, namely that a Yid, in whatever condition he is in – is a “portion of G-d” (חלק הוי׳). The difference is only with regard to the hiddenness and revelation. That in the seventh year it is “and I will command My blessing” with the epitome of revelation. Whereas in the ”six years” the blessings - “your G-d, will bless you” - is enclothed and hidden in the “in all that you do”.

And for one who is sold to a non-Jew, G-d’s blessings are enclothed in an even coarser garment, so much so that his Parnassah (in the revealed sense) comes through the work for a non-Jew (and even lower than that, since one may work for: “an idol of the family of a non-Jew” (נמכר לעקר) - through being a wood -chopper and water-drawer for idol worship).

This is however, only an external garment. However in his Pnimiyut, the effluence is from G-d who is above nature.

11. According to the aforementioned, one can also understood, why specifically by the fulfillment of the command of “You shall not make idols etc.” and “You shall keep My Sabbaths etc.” – where it speaks regarding one who is “sold to a non-Jew” , the verse must state the innovation that "I am the L-rd”- “faithful to give reward”:

The reward for a Mitzvah is (not a side thing (זייטיגע זאך), with which a person is paid for the Mitzvah which he has done, but) a direct outcome of the Mitzvah itself. And as the Alter Rebbe states: “The cause of the reward for the Mitzvah is the Mitzvah itself”.

However in the reward for the Mitzvah itself, there are two aspects:

1. The realization (ווערן) of the entity of the reward, which becomes created through the deed of the Mitzvah, and

2. The payment (תשלום) of the reward - the payment which is paid and comes to the person.

Regarding all Mitzvot it is a simple matter that:

1. Through the fulfillment of the Mitzvah, the reward for the Mitzvah (Above), becomes created.

2. The reward comes to the person who fulfills the Mitzvah.

However when it speaks of the command “You shall not make idols etc.” and “You shall keep My Sabbaths etc.” which is said to one who is sold to a non-Jew. To such a person, as this, who, visibly is in a condition of “I am like him” – namely that he receives his effluence through his master (and not from G-d who is above nature) -

He can therefore think to himself that:

Since Torah says to me that “You shall not make idols for yourselves - You shall keep My Sabbaths”, therefore it is indeed a certainty that through my fulfilling this very Mitzvah, the aspect of reward will be effected. However there is a place to infer - that this very reward will not be paid (אפגעצאלט) to me, since according to my condition – I am “like him”. Therefore how is it possible that the reward which comes about through not worshiping idols and through keeping Shabbat (which is the revelation of G-d who is above nature, which is related specifically to Yidden) should come to me, and, even more so, into revelation?

Therefore the verse states “I am the L-rd”– “faithful to give reward”:

From the level of "Havaye" -G-d - where even (the name) “Havaye” is just an appelation (even though that among the Names itself, it is the Shaim HaEtzem – Tetragrammaton - the Shaim HaMeforash, Shaim HaMeyuchad etc.) however, it can indeed, not come into revelation, to such a Yid that has been sold to a non-Jew. And therefore, from the perspective of Torah, there is a place for the supposition that “Since my master worships idols. . Since my master desecrates the Sabbath, I will also be like him!”

Even though that “G-d's portion, is with His people” – for regarding a Yid who is sold to a non-Jew, the name of G-d does not illuminate visibly.

However, through that which he fulfills the command (for Mitzvot reside in Atzmut – the Essence if G-d) of “You shall not make idols for yourselves - You shall keep My Sabbaths” This effects the “I am the L-rd” and since from the perspective of “I am” meaning from G-d’s perspective, there are no limitations –the reward therefore comes even to one that is sold to a non-Jew.

12. Similar to this is also regarding the promise that there is “there is much reward to give to you” which Rabbi Meir says to the Yidden who “reduce the business”, and instead of this, he engages in Torah study – that since he as at such a level, which due to his standing and condition, is, according to Shulchan Aruch, considered a business person (and also the directive of the Mishnah is not that he should refrain from being a business person and become a Torah scholar, but that he should just reduce his business) - he does not stand in the level of those that “do the Wlll of the Omnipresent” (עושין רצונו של מקום) of which the Talmud states in Tractate Berachot, whose Avodah is “with all your might” - who are completely devoted to Torah and whose Parnassah comes down in a manner that is above nature (similar to “and strangers will arise and pasture your flocks” which will be in the Future) –

Therefore he can think to himself that the “toiling in Torah“

1. Does not contain any “reward” – an outcome in the realm of reward – since it is higher than this.

2. It cannot come to one whose standing and condition is like his, since this is completely higher than this, higher that “time and place”.

Therefore Rabbi Meir states that

1. “There is much reward”

2. “To give to you”

meaning that from the perspective of Atzmut, - G-d –

who is not bound in any limitation, G-d forbid, not in the realm of Gevul/limitation and also not in the realm of Bli Gevul/unlimited,

there is “much reward” and it is also “to give to you”.

Msichas Shabbat Parshat Behar – BechuKaballat Oltai 5724

Shabbat Parshat Eikev 5728

Links:
 
Date Delivered:   Reviewer:       
Date Modified:    Date Reviewed:  
Contributor: