סיום הפרשה (ורש"י) "אני ה' - נאמן לשלם שכר" והקשר למאמר ר"מ באבות (פ"ד מ"י) "ואם עמלת בתורה הרבה יש שכר הרבה ליתן לך" שקו"ט בקס"ד דעבד הנמכר לעכו"ם "לא יאמר הואיל ורבי מגלה עריות .. עובד ע"א .. מחלל שבת אף אני כמותו", ביאור דברי הזהר (בהר קח, א) דעבד עברי פטור מ"עול מלכותא דלעילא", ע"פ ביאור אדה"ז בתניא (פמ"א) בענין קבלת עומ"ש ומשל הזהר (שם) "כהאי תורא דיהבין עלי' עול כו'"
Parshas Behar
1. On the Shabbasos between Pesach and Shavuos, it is customary to study1 Pirkei Avos, one chapter each Shabbos.2
Since all matters of Torah are utterly precise (and all the more so, given that even worldly matters are not, G‑d forbid, random, but are directed by Divine Providence), it is understood that the chapter studied on a particular Shabbos is also connected with the Torah portion that is read at that time.
Among the mishnayos of today's chapter (chapter 4), the one whose content has a special connection to today's parsha (Behar) is the mishnah3 "ר"מ אומר הוי ממעט בעסק ועסוק בתורה כו'" ("Rabbi Meir says: Minimize your business activity and occupy yourself with Torah..."), whose conclusion is "ואם עמלת בתורה הרבה4 יש שכר הרבה ליתן לך" ("And if you have toiled much in Torah, there is much reward to give you") — paralleling the conclusion of the parsha, "אני הוי'" ("I am G‑d"), which means, as Rashi says:5 "נאמן לשלם שכר" ("faithful to pay reward").
The promise of reward for Torah study and the fulfillment of mitzvos in general is found in many, many Torah portions and in many mishnayos (also in Tractate Avos6). The novelty in the conclusion of today's parsha, however, lies in "faithful to pay reward": what the verse adds here is (not the assurance that one will receive reward for keeping Shabbos and revering the Sanctuary, but) that the Almighty is "faithful" to pay, and will not, G‑d forbid, withhold the reward due to those who fulfill the aforementioned commands.6*
The same applies to the conclusion of the above mishnah: Rabbi Meir's novelty here is (not that great toil in Torah earns much reward, but) that "there is much reward to give you." That is, a person might think: True, much reward is due to him for his great exertion; but it could perhaps be that he will not receive it in full, because there simply does not exist so much reward to give him. Rabbi Meir therefore emphasizes and assures: "There is much reward..." — it exists in that great measure — and consequently the person is assured of receiving the "much reward."7
This needs to be understood:8 What is the "novelty" (in the verse) that the Almighty is "faithful" to reward a person with what is due to him, and (in the mishnah) that the Almighty possesses enough "much reward" to pay a person as much as is due to him?
2. The verse "את שבתותי תשמורו גו' אני ה'" ("You shall keep My Shabbasos... I am G‑d")9 also appears in an earlier parsha,10 and there Rashi11 does not explain "faithful to pay reward," as he does on the verse in our parsha. From this it is understood that the assurance that the Almighty is "faithful to pay reward" is required only for the verse "You shall keep My Shabbasos..." here — which comes in continuation of the preceding verse, "לא תעשו לכם אלילים" ("You shall not make idols for yourselves"), both of these commands having been said in connection with a Jew "הנמכר לנכרי" ("who is sold to a non-Jew").
Regarding Jews in general: just as there is no special novelty for them in the command itself, so too there is no novelty in the fact that the Almighty has, and will give, the full reward for carrying out the command.
It is different, however, with one sold to an idolater, whom the Torah must specially instruct, "You shall not make idols... You shall keep My Shabbasos..." — for were it not for the command, such a person could have thought to himself: "הואיל ורבי עובד ע"ז אף אני כמותו, הואיל ורבי מחלל שבת אף אני כמותו" ("Since my master worships idols, I too am like him; since my master desecrates Shabbos, I too am like him")12 — here there could also have been room to think that, being one "sold to an idolater," there is no "much reward" with which to reward him for these commands. We must therefore say that with "I am G‑d" the verse means here to emphasize that also with regard to him the Almighty is faithful to pay reward.
In the same way, this is also the point of the mishnah "And if you have toiled much in Torah, there is much reward to give you": "There is much reward..." does not refer to toil in Torah in general (for then it would be no novelty), but specifically to "you have toiled much in Torah" of a special kind, of which our mishnah speaks — that of a businessman:
At the beginning of the mishnah it says, "Minimize your business activity and occupy yourself with Torah" — that even a businessman, one who according to Torah law may13 make his work fixed and his Torah study occasional,14 should minimize his "business" (his own occupation) and occupy himself with Torah. And regarding the "toiling much in Torah" of the businessman, which is done beyond the letter of the law, Rabbi Meir states the novelty that "there is much reward to give you."
This, however, is difficult to understand, and in both cases one can argue the very opposite: If regarding the Shabbos observance, etc., of an ordinary Jew, a free man, and regarding the Torah study of one who "sits in the tent" (which are not connected with "toiling" — with special exertion — neither to fulfill an obligation nor to act "במדת חסידות ואהבת התורה" ("out of piety and love of Torah")12) it is obvious that they have, and will receive, full reward — then all the more so, when one sold to an idolater keeps Shabbos properly (despite there being a supposition — in the Torah itself — that "since my master desecrates Shabbos, I too am like him"), and when a businessman toils "much in Torah" by minimizing his "business" (although he is not obligated to do so by law), it should surely be obvious that full reward is due to them and assured to them! Why is it precisely regarding them that it is necessary to assure that "He is faithful to pay reward" and that "there is much reward to give you"?
3. One must also understand: Why should there be any supposition that "since my master worships idols, I too am like him"?
Regarding Shabbos desecration, one can explain it: Since according to Torah he is bound in servitude to his master,14 he is obligated to work for him; and since for his master there is no concept of Shabbos, and it is a day like any other day,15 one could consequently draw from this the mistaken conclusion that the obligation to work for him applies to him on Shabbos as well. [And even more: since (according to this mistake) he may, and must, work on Shabbos for his master, the obligation of Shabbos observance has thereby been removed from him entirely1616* — "I too am like him" — so that he may desecrate Shabbos even where it does not concern his service of his master.]
A similar explanation can be given regarding forbidden relations: Since "להוליד ולדות" ("begetting offspring") is part of the slave's service to his master — which is why it is said of a Jewish slave sold to a Jew that "רבו מוסר לו שפחה כנענית להוליד ממנה עבדים" ("his master gives him a Canaanite maidservant to beget slaves from her")17 — therefore, since a Jew sold to an idolater may and must18 take a Canaanite maidservant to beget slaves from her,19 one might conclude that for him the entire prohibition of forbidden relations falls away (those forbidden relations in which Jews are set apart from the children of Noach20), and that like his master — "I too am like him" — he is not warned against the relations that are permitted to the children of Noach.21
With idolatry, however, it is different: (a) because the prohibition of serving idols applies to his master as well, it being one of the seven Noachide commandments;22 and (b) because it is something that has nothing whatsoever to do with his service of his master. That being so, why should there be any room whatsoever to think that he too may serve idols?
4. This will be understood by first introducing what the Zohar says (at the beginning of today's parsha23) regarding a Jewish slave sold to a Jew: that slaves are exempt from "עול מלכותא דלעילא" ("the yoke of the Kingdom Above"), and therefore they are also "פטורין מן המצות" ("exempt from the mitzvos").
With this the Zohar explains the meaning of "ובשביעית יצא לחפשי חנם" ("and in the seventh he shall go free, for nothing"):24 as long as he is a slave (that is, before the time of "he shall go free"25), "כל מה דעביד חנם הוא — בלא עול מלכות שמים" ("all that he does is 'for nothing' — without the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven"). This is similar to what is written,26 "זכרנו את הדגה אשר נאכל במצרים חנם" ("We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt for nothing") — while the Jews were enslaved in Egypt, the "yoke Above" was not upon them; it was in the manner of "for nothing."
This, however, is not understood:
What the Zohar says, that slaves are exempt from "the yoke of the Kingdom Above," can be explained: being subject to the yoke of a flesh-and-blood master, it is consequently not feasible that at the same time they themselves should bear (fully) the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven as well.
[This accords with the statement of our Sages:27 "אזן ששמעה כו' כי לי בני ישראל עבדים ולא עבדים לעבדים והלך זה וקנה אדון לעצמו" ("The ear that heard... 'For the children of Israel are servants to Me' — and not servants to servants — yet this one went and acquired a master for himself"): by enslaving himself to another "master" and becoming a "servant to servants," his servitude to the Almighty is (as it were) removed from him.28]
When it comes to the actual fulfillment of the mitzvos, however, a Jewish slave — even one who is sold to an idolater — is obligated to fulfill all the mitzvos. For "since my master... I too am like him" is no more than a supposition which the Torah negates ("שלא יאמר" — "he should not say"); and even this supposition concerns only specific mitzvos (forbidden relations, idolatry and Shabbos desecration), not all the mitzvos.29 What, then, is the meaning of the Zohar's statement that a Jewish slave sold to a Jew is exempt from the mitzvos?!
One must also understand why the Zohar compares the "six years" of work (before "ושבתה הארץ" — "the land shall rest" — in the seventh year) to the "שש שנים יעבוד" ("six years he shall serve") of a slave (before "and in the seventh he shall go free").
Seemingly, what kind of comparison is this? True, during the six years, when one is busy working the land, one does not have as much time to devote to Torah study and the service of G‑d as in the seventh year, when "ושבתה הארץ שבת לה'" ("the land shall rest a Shabbos to G‑d");30 nevertheless, during the six years too, a Jew is not subject to the yoke of any flesh-and-blood master; he is then not a "servant to servants." In what way, then, can this be compared to the case of "six years he shall serve," where through "acquiring a master for himself" he becomes (as it were) exempt from the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven?
5. This will be understood from the fact that the Zohar there goes on to explain the matter of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven with a parable — which the Alter Rebbe cites in Tanya32 — "כהאי תורא דיהבין עלי' עול בקדמיתא בגין לאפקא מיני' טב לעלמא .. ה"נ איצטריך לי' לב"נ לקבלא עלי' עומ"ש31 בקדמיתא .. ואי האי לא אשתכח גבי' לא שריא בי' קדושה" ("Like an ox upon which a yoke is first placed in order to bring forth from it good for the world... so too a person must first accept upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven... and if this is not found in him, holiness does not rest upon him").
Seemingly, what is clarified and explained here by giving the parable "like an ox..."? Especially since, from the fact that the Alter Rebbe copies this parable into Tanya (even though he omits many matters that appear in the Zohar there), it is understood that it explains a fundamental point in the matter of accepting the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven?
The explanation of this:
The novelty that the Alter Rebbe introduces in the chapter where he cites the parable of the Zohar — and by which he interprets it — is (not that a Jew must in general have acceptance of the yoke of Heaven; that is obvious: since the root of the 365 prohibitions is fear of G‑d,33 it is understood that a Jew must have fear — acceptance of the yoke — in order to be careful regarding the 365 prohibitions — but rather) that "אע"פ שהיראה היא שרש לסור מרע והאהבה לועשה טוב, אעפ"כ לא די לעורר האהבה לבדה לועשה טוב ולפחות צריך לעורר תחלה היראה כו'" ("Although fear is the root of 'turn away from evil' and love is the root of 'do good,' nevertheless it is not enough to arouse love alone for 'do good'; at the very least one must first arouse fear..."),34 i.e., that also for "do good" acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven is required.
That is why he also copies here the parable "like an ox upon which a yoke is first placed in order to bring forth from it good for the world," from which it is understood that also for "do good" there must be acceptance of the yoke: just as with "this ox," the fact that "a yoke is first placed upon it" is (not only to prevent it from goring and causing damage, but also) "in order to bring forth from it good for the world," so too, the fact that "a person must first accept upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven" is (not only to ensure that he will "turn away from evil," but also) because "if this is not found in him, holiness does not rest upon him": the "resting of holiness" as well — the "גילוי והמשכת אוא"ס ב"ה למטה" ("revelation and drawing down of the Infinite Light, blessed be He, below"),35 which comes about through the positive commandments — can be present in him only when the fulfillment of the positive commandments is (also) out of acceptance of the yoke.36
6. One may still ask, however: The Alter Rebbe copies the wording of the analogue in the Zohar, "and if this is not found in him, holiness does not rest upon him," from which alone it is already clear that also for the resting of holiness that comes through fulfilling positive commandments acceptance of the yoke is required. Why, then, must he also bring the parable "like an ox..."?
This will be understood after explaining the Alter Rebbe's wording, "כי אף שהיראה היא שרש לסור מרע והאהבה לועשה טוב, אעפ"כ לא די כו'" ("For although fear is the root of 'turn away from evil' and love of 'do good,' nevertheless it is not enough..."): Seemingly, what is needed here is only to caution regarding "do good" — that although the root of "do good" is love, love alone nevertheless "is not enough," and one must (even for "do good") arouse fear as well. What bearing, then, does the caution of the words "although fear is the root of 'turn away from evil'" have here?
The explanation is that with these very words the Alter Rebbe makes clear what is meant by saying that fear and acceptance of the yoke are needed also in the service of "do good":
Had he mentioned here only the detail of love and "do good," one could have thought that he is speaking of a case where the matter of acceptance of the yoke and fear is lacking altogether; and one would consequently have concluded that the reason "it is not enough to arouse love alone for 'do good'" and one must come to acceptance of the yoke — to the point that "if this is not found in him, holiness does not rest upon him" — is because the absence of acceptance of the yoke contradicts the resting of holiness, since37 when a person has no acceptance of the yoke he is not nullified before the Almighty, and therefore there can be no resting of holiness in him, for "אין הקב"ה שורה אלא על דבר שבטל אצלו ית'" ("the Holy One, blessed be He, rests only upon something that is nullified before Him").38
That is why he also adds the words "that fear is the root of 'turn away from evil'": although in his case fear, as the root of "turn away from evil," is not lacking — it is only that his service of "do good" is done out of the arousal of love alone and not out of acceptance of the yoke — nevertheless this is not enough, and also in his "do good," "if this (acceptance of the yoke) is not found in him, holiness does not rest upon him."39
And in order to make even clearer the meaning of "and if this is not found in him..." — that it refers (not only to the case of the absence of acceptance of the yoke, where this simply contradicts the resting of holiness, but also) to the fact that the resting of holiness itself requires acceptance of the yoke — the Alter Rebbe copies the parable "like an ox...," in which this very point is brought out and clearly underscored: that the fact that "a yoke is first placed upon it" is "in order to bring forth from it good for the world."
This also explains what the Zohar says, that slaves are exempt from the mitzvos: the essence of mitzvos is as their name — "mitzvah" from the word "tzivui" (command) — that they are fulfilled because of the command. And since slaves are exempt from the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, they are consequently exempt from "mitzvos" — in the sense of command.
7. The reason why acceptance of the yoke of Heaven is needed for the resting of holiness itself, also in the line of "do good," and why, when this comes from love alone, it does not draw down the resting of holiness (even though he does have acceptance of the yoke in the line of "turn away from evil"):
A created being bears no comparison whatsoever to the Creator. Therefore, when the fulfillment of the mitzvos is out of love alone — a feeling that is bound up with the existence of the one who loves,40 the existence of the created being — the fulfillment of the mitzvos (with love, a matter belonging to the created being) cannot reach the "גילוי והמשכת אוא"ס ב"ה" ("revelation and drawing down of the Infinite Light, blessed be He") (the revelation of the Creator), since the Creator is incomparably higher than the created. Only when the fulfillment of the mitzvos is out of acceptance of the yoke of Heaven — acceptance of the yoke being bound up (not with one's own existence, but) with the existence of the "King," blessed be He — does the mitzvah possess, as it were, the power of the "Creator," and consequently it can bring about "the resting of holiness."
Moreover: the definition of a "servant" is that he is entirely owned by his master;41 and if he feels within himself anything of his own existence, this is the opposite of servitude. Therefore, when his fulfillment of the mitzvos (of "do good") is "with love alone," it follows that the very fact that he has a feeling of love (which is bound up with his own existence and self-expansion) contradicts the matter of acceptance of the yoke (even though he does have acceptance of the yoke regarding "turn away from evil," and he fears "שלא למרוד במלכותו ית'" — "lest he rebel against His Kingship") — and consequently contradicts the resting of holiness. Therefore the "do good" (as well as the love that is the "root of 'do good'") must also be permeated with acceptance of the yoke (so that even his love of G‑d comes from the command "ואהבת את ה' אלקיך" — "You shall love the L‑rd your G‑d"42) — like a servant who has no existence of his own apart from the existence of his master.
8. According to the above we will also understand the comparison of the "שש שנים תזרע גו'" ("six years you shall sow...") (in connection with Shemittah) to the "six years he shall serve" of a slave:
Because of the servant's complete dependence on and devotion to his master — his entire existence being owned by his master — just as it is not fitting for the servant to have desires of his own (not even love for the master, as explained above, unless through that very love he carries out a command of the master), so too, conversely, it is not his business to provide for his own needs: upon the master lies an obligation to feed his servant and provide him with everything he needs43 — the servant himself need not worry about this, since he is part of the master's property.
That is why the Zohar compares the "six years you shall sow..."44 to the "six years he shall serve" of a servant who is exempt from the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven: since during the "six years" the Almighty tells a Jew "תזרע שדך" ("sow your field") and "תזמור כרמך" ("prune your vineyard"), so that the Jew himself must provide for his livelihood
[and although the growth resulting from the "sowing" and "pruning" comes exclusively from "וברכך ה' אלקיך בכל אשר תעשה" ("and the L‑rd your G‑d will bless you in all that you do"),45 nevertheless, since the Almighty's blessing is clothed in, and expressed specifically through, "all that you do" (and especially since, because of the concealment and hiding, there can still be room for the mistake that "כחי ועוצם ידי עשה לי את החיל הזה" — "my strength and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth"45) — unlike in the seventh year, when "וצויתי את ברכתי גו'" ("I will command My blessing...")46 is revealed and not clothed in the garments of nature (for from the standpoint of nature, since "לא תזרע ולא תאסוף גו'" ("you shall not sow nor gather..."), the question can arise (to the point that even the Torah gives room for the question) "וכי תאמרו מה נאכל" ("And if you shall say: What shall we eat?")47)] —
it follows that during the "six years," analogous to the "six years he shall serve," the Almighty has, as it were, withdrawn His mastership from the person and placed him in his own domain, so that he himself must work for his livelihood48 — even though a master is obligated to feed his servant — because the mastership is not revealed.
9. Although during the "six years" "the L‑rd your G‑d will bless you" is clothed and concealed in "all that you do," in the garments of nature, nevertheless, since it is said of the Jewish people "כי חלק הוי' עמו" ("For G‑d's portion is His people")49 — that they are a portion of Havayah (Was, Is and Will Be as one50), which is above nature — the garments of nature therefore do not conceal so much for them, even during the "six years," when the Torah says there must be "sowing" and "pruning"; that is, even within nature Jews perceive what is above nature.
This is the difference between the influence from Above to the Jewish people and — to differentiate — the influence to the nations of the world: the nations of the world, since they receive their influence from the stars and constellations (and from the seventy ministering angels) "אשר חלק ה' גו' לכל העמים" ("which the L‑rd... has apportioned to all the peoples")51 — for them nature is indeed truly a concealment and hiding. [This is the reason why the children of Noach are not warned against "shituf" (associating other powers with G‑d)52 — even though, for the Almighty, the stars and constellations are merely "כגרזן ביד החוצב" ("like an axe in the hand of the woodcutter") — because, since "G‑d apportioned them" to them, there is room for the stars and constellations (and the ministering angels) to appear, for the children of Noach, at least as partners who have (as it were) a say in the G‑dly influence.53]
The Jewish people, in contrast, are warned against shituf, for although the influence to Jews too comes in the manner of "ממגד תבואות שמש גו'" ("with the precious fruits of the sun..."),54 they perceive openly that the sun, moon, etc., are merely like an axe in the hand of the woodcutter, and that the influence comes from the Almighty.
10. Accordingly, we will also understand how there can be a supposition that "since my master worships idols, I too am like him":
Since the servant's livelihood comes entirely through his master — as stated above, that according to Torah he is obligated to feed his servant (to the point that if the servant provides for himself, this is entirely contrary to the concept of servitude, as explained above) — there can consequently arise in him the reasoning "since my master worships idols": since there are aspects of idolatry that are permitted to "my master" (as mentioned, the matter of shituf, against which his master is not warned, because for him the stars and constellations are indeed as though partners), and since his own influence comes through his master — "I too am like him," i.e., the influence to him too comes (through his master, and) as though through the partnership of the stars and constellations — idolatry.
And this is what the Torah's instruction "You shall not make idols for yourselves..." accomplishes: a Jew, in whatever situation he may find himself, is "G‑d's portion"; the difference is only one of concealment and revelation: in the seventh year "I will command My blessing" is utterly revealed; during the "six years," "the L‑rd your G‑d will bless you" is clothed and concealed in "all that you do"; and with one sold to an idolater, the blessing of G‑d is clothed in an even coarser garment, to the point that his livelihood (outwardly) comes through working for a non-Jew (and even lower than that — one "sold to an offshoot" of an idolatrous family — by becoming a woodchopper and water-drawer for idolatry55). This, however, is only an external garment; inwardly, it is the influence of G‑d,56 which is above nature.57
11. According to the above it will also be understood why, specifically regarding the fulfillment of the command "You shall not make idols..." and "You shall keep My Shabbasos...," where it speaks of one "sold to an idolater," the verse must state the novelty "I am Havayah" — "faithful to pay reward":
The reward of the mitzvos is (not some side matter with which a person is rewarded for the mitzvah he performed, but) a direct result of the mitzvah itself.58 As the Alter Rebbe says:59 "כי הגורם שכר המצוה הוא המצוה בעצמה" ("For what brings about the reward of the mitzvah is the mitzvah itself").
Within the reward of the mitzvos itself, however, there are two matters: a) the coming into existence of the reward, which is created through performing the mitzvah; and b) the payment of the reward — the recompense that is paid and reaches the person.
Regarding all the mitzvos it is obvious that: a) through fulfilling the mitzvah, the reward of the mitzvah is brought about (Above); and b) the reward reaches the person who fulfills the mitzvah. But when it comes to the command "You shall not make idols... You shall keep My Shabbasos," which was said to one sold to an idolater — to one who outwardly stands in a situation of "I too am like him," receiving his influence through his master (and not from Havayah, which is above nature) —
he may therefore think to himself: Since the Torah tells me, "You shall not make idols... You shall keep My Shabbasos," it is indeed certain that through my fulfilling this mitzvah the matter of reward will be brought about; but there is room to argue that this reward will not be "paid out" to me, that it will not reach me. For since, according to my situation, it is "I too am like him," how is it possible that the reward brought about through not serving idols and through keeping Shabbos (which is the revelation of Havayah that is above nature, which pertains specifically to Jews) should reach me — and openly at that?
To this the verse says, "I am G‑d — faithful to pay reward": from the standpoint of the level of Havayah alone — for Havayah too is only a Name (even though among the Names themselves it is the Essential Name, the Explicit Name,60 the Unique Name, etc.61) — it indeed cannot be drawn down openly to a Jew who is sold to an idolater. Therefore there is room in the Torah for the supposition "since my master... I too am like him" — even though "G‑d's portion is His people" — because in a Jew who is sold to an idolater the Name Havayah does not shine openly.
But by fulfilling the command (and mitzvos reach the very Essence) "You shall not make... You shall keep My Shabbasos," he touches the "I" of "I am Havayah." And since from the standpoint of the "I" — the Essence — there are no limitations, the reward therefore reaches even one who is sold to an idolater.
12. The same applies to the promise "there is much reward to give you," which Rabbi Meir tells the Jew who "minimizes his business" and instead occupies himself with Torah: since he stands at a level where, by his standing and situation, he is a businessman according to the Shulchan Aruch62 (and the mishnah's instruction, too, is not that he should stop being a businessman and become one who sits in the tent, but only that he should minimize his business); he does not stand at the level of those who "עושין רצונו של מקום" ("do the will of the Omnipresent") of whom the Gemara in Berachos speaks, whose service is "בכל מאדך" ("with all your might"),63 who are entirely devoted to Torah and whose livelihood is drawn down to them in a manner above nature64 (like "ועמדו זרים ורעו צאנכם" ("and strangers shall stand and feed your flocks"), which will be in the Time to Come) —
he may think to himself that "toil in Torah": a) has no "reward" — an effect in the category of reward — because it is higher than that;65 and b) cannot reach him in his standing and situation, because it is entirely higher than that, higher than "time and space."66
Says Rabbi Meir: a) "there is much reward"; b) "to give you,"
for from the standpoint of the Essence, which is not bound by any definitions, G‑d forbid — neither by the definition of the finite nor by the definition of the infinite — there exists the "much reward," and it is also "to give you."
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Behar-Bechukosai 5724 and Shabbos Parshas Eikev 5728)
Notes
1) Sefer HaPardes of Rashi (in the commentary on the prayers) and the Siddur of Rav Amram Gaon — in the name of Rav Sar Shalom Gaon (except that there it says simply "on Shabbos"). And in the Siddur of the Alter Rebbe (and so too in the Tur, Orach Chaim, sec. 292, and the Kol Bo — simply "on Shabbos"); Abudarham (end of the Order of the Days of the Omer); [and the] sources in the following note: it is customary to recite Pirkei Avos.
2) Abudarham, ibid. Pirkei Moshe on Avos, at the beginning. Midrash Shmuel on Avos, in the introduction. The Alter Rebbe in his Siddur. And in the Siddur there (and so too in the Rema on Orach Chaim, end of sec. 292; the Siddur of the Ramak; and elsewhere): "some have the custom to do so on all the Shabbasos of the summer." (For other customs in this regard, see Machzor Vitri, sec. 141; Kol Bo, end of sec. 40.) Note also several maamarim of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe [the Previous Rebbe], delivered after the festival of Shavuos, which open with a mishnah from the chapters of Pirkei Avos studied on those Shabbasos.
3) Mishnah 14.
4) So it is in the Siddur of the Alter Rebbe. In Tractate Avos as printed in the Mishnayos, the Talmud, etc., the (first) word "much" is absent. See Shaar HaKollel, that several variant readings in Pirkei Avos are found in the Siddur (this one and that of the Shelah).
5) And so it is in the Toras Kohanim here ("I am faithful...").
6) End of chapter 2, and elsewhere.
6*) Note the various differences in Rashi's commentary on the Torah in the several places where "I am G‑d" is said. For example: above, 22:30 (and on 22:31 he offers no comment at all); 22:33. This is not the place to elaborate.
7) Note chapter 2, mishnah 16, where both matters are stated: "[He] gives you reward..." and also "faithful is He... that He will pay you..." — but there the novelty is "gives," while here the novelty is "there is reward." Note further that there, also in the Mishnayos etc., the reading is "much Torah" (see above, note 4).
8) Further precise points in this mishnah were explained in the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Eikev 5728.
9) Kedoshim (19:30).
10) And so too in the Toras Kohanim.
11) Toras Kohanim and Rashi here. See also below, note 13.
11*) Therefore a special instruction is needed in this matter from Rabbi Meir, "Minimize..." — for this is not a legal ruling in the laws of Torah study, but an additional instruction and a measure of piety (see Bava Kamma 30a): "One who wishes to be pious... [should fulfill] the matters of Avos."
12) See the Alter Rebbe's Hilchos Talmud Torah, ch. 3. One cannot say, however, that the intent of the mishnah in "Minimize your business activity and occupy yourself with Torah" is [the law] "for one who has studied Torah, or whose mind is keen...," who must make his Torah study fixed and live a life of hardship (ibid., par. 3 and 4) — for that instruction is in chapter 6 of Avos (mishnah 4), which is not the case here. This is also evident from the wording "minimize your business." Accordingly, the connection of "and be humble of spirit before every man" [where the novelty is "before every man," literally (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah; see also Tanya, beginning of ch. 30)] to "Minimize your business activity and occupy yourself with Torah" will also be understood — for businessmen also have an advantage over those who sit in the tent (as explained in Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim (44, end of col. d ff.) on "אמצאך בחוץ" ("I will find you outside")). This is the novelty of the Tanna: although he possesses both advantages — the advantage of businessmen and also the advantage of those who sit in the tent (since he minimized his business and occupied himself with Torah) — nevertheless, "be humble of spirit before every man," both before businessmen and before those who sit in the tent.
12) The Alter Rebbe's Hilchos Talmud Torah, ch. 3, par. 4.
13) In the Malbim on the Toras Kohanim here: "That he should not learn from his master's conduct to throw off the yoke of mitzvos... since it is difficult for him to keep G‑d's mitzvos while in the house of an idolater." However, from the fact that the verse warns only "You shall not make idols... You shall keep My Shabbasos..." [and does not warn about keeping the mitzvos in general (even though he could learn from his master to throw off the yoke of all the mitzvos) — as in the warning (Acharei 18:3) "כמעשה ארץ מצרים אשר ישבתם בה גו' וכמעשה ארץ כנען גו' לא תעשו" ("Like the practice of the land of Egypt where you dwelt... and like the practice of the land of Canaan... you shall not do")], and also from the fact that the Toras Kohanim and Rashi here specify and enumerate only forbidden relations, idolatry and Shabbos desecration — it is evident that the intent of "he should not say" is according to the plain meaning of the words: that he should not say in his heart and think that these three things have been permitted to him. This is also implied by the wording of the Toras Kohanim (according to several editions), "the verse teaches," i.e., a special teaching is needed so that he should not say "since my master...".
*) The reason why the Toras Kohanim and Rashi also enumerate forbidden relations — although no warning about it is stated here — while they do not mention "מקדשי תיראו" ("revere My Sanctuary"), which is stated here (and, on the contrary, adjacent to "I am G‑d"); and conversely: since the supposition is that the slave would be permitted forbidden relations as well, why did the verse not warn about it as it warned about idolatry and Shabbos (and likewise, the reason why Rashi changes the order of these three things from the order in the Toras Kohanim) — was explained at length in the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Behar 5725.
14) As is evident from the fact that the verse needed to give a reason for "ויצא בשנת היובל" ("he shall go out in the Jubilee year"): "כי לי בני ישראל עבדים — שטרי קודם" ("For the children of Israel are servants to Me — My deed came first"); that is, the idolater too has a deed (and lien) on him (and, according to one opinion (Bava Kamma 113b), even his body is acquired), but since "My deed came first," the idolater's lien takes effect (from the outset) only until the Jubilee (see Rashi, 25:48). And the fact that also regarding his redemption — even before the Jubilee — "לא תבא עליו בעקיפין מפני חילול השם" ("do not deal with him by circuitous means, because of the desecration of G‑d's Name") (Rashi ibid.; Bava Kamma 113, end of side a) — this is because [otherwise] taking from an idolater or voiding his loan would be permitted (see Bava Kamma ibid.). Nevertheless, he is acquired by his master; it is only that it would be permitted to take from him or void [his claim].
15) On the contrary: an idolater who keeps Shabbos is liable to death (Sanhedrin 58, end of side b; Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 10:9).
16) For — in addition to the fact that a prohibition that has been permitted in part is weakened (see Kesubos 32a) — since the permission (according to the supposition) to work for his master on Shabbos stems from his servitude to him, and the definition of a slave's servitude is that he has no existence of his own (see at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 5, p. 235 ff.), one may therefore say (according to this supposition) that in matters pertaining to the service of his master "I too am like him" — even when in practice [OCR unclear] it does not concern his master. (In contrast, regarding prohibitions that do not pertain to his master at all, there is no supposition of "I too am like him," as mentioned above, note 13.)
16*) In addition to the above (in the previous note) regarding all prohibitions, there is a further reasoning for nullifying the prohibition regarding Shabbos, according to the supposition in the Mechilta (Sisa 31:14): "הואיל וחללנו מקצתה נחלל את כולה" ("Since we have desecrated part of it, let us desecrate all of it") — for it is already in a state of desecration. See Rashi, Menachos (72, beginning of side b); and the opinions regarding a dangerously ill person, whether Shabbos is desecrated for all his needs (cited in the Beis Yosef, Orach Chaim, beginning of sec. 328, s.v. "And what our master wrote, and so too one who is struck"). This is not the place to elaborate.
17) Kiddushin 14b ff. Mechilta and Rashi, Mishpatim 21:4. Sifri and Rashi, Re'eh 15:18. Especially if we say that the law is the same even with a maidservant who does not belong to their master. — See the following notes.
18) If his master has a Canaanite maidservant (this is discussed in Minchas Chinuch, end of mitzvah 42) and compels him to beget slaves from her.
19) See HaMakneh, Kiddushin 15b, Tosafos s.v. "Amar Rava." [As for the difficulty he raises there from what the Maharsha wrote (Gittin 41b), that even a Jewish slave is permitted only with his own maidservant: (a) see the Noda BiYehudah (cited in note 21), that the Maharsha's intent concerns a different matter; (b) see Minchas Chinuch ibid., that even a non-Jew [OCR unclear] a maidservant. This is not the place to elaborate.]
20) See Sanhedrin 57b ff.; Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 9:5.
21) See above, note 16. — This is analogous to the fact that a Jewish slave (sold to a Jew) is permitted even with a maidservant who does not belong to his master (although the offspring do not belong to his master), as is evident in Temurah 30a. The Maharsha, Gittin ibid., writes: "But with a Canaanite maidservant who does not belong to the master of the Jewish slave, he is forbidden" (and the Karnei Re'em there challenges him from Tractate Temurah ibid.). But see the Noda BiYehudah, Mahadura Tinyana, Even HaEzer sec. 31, that the Maharsha's intent is that it is forbidden without his master's permission. See there.
22) Sanhedrin 56, end of side a ff.; Rambam ibid., beginning of ch. 9.
23) 108a.
24) Mishpatim 21:2.
25) The word "for nothing" regarding "and in the seventh he shall go free" is as the Zohar there explains: "ואע"ג דחנם הוו עבודוהי, יצא לחפשי ויהא לי' נייחא" ("Although his labors were 'for nothing,' he shall go free and have rest"). See also below, the first gloss to note 57.
26) Behaalosecha 11:5. Note the Sifri and Rashi there: "free of the mitzvos."
27) Kiddushin 22b (cited in Rashi, Mishpatim 21:5).
28) This is stated more explicitly in the Jerusalem Talmud (Kiddushin 1:2): "The ear that heard at Mount Sinai 'You shall have no other gods before Me,' yet cast off the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven and accepted upon itself the yoke of flesh and blood... the ear that heard... 'For the children of Israel are servants to Me'..."
29) The Jerusalem Talmud (Berachos 3:3) states that the reason slaves are exempt from the Shema and tefillin is "because it says 'Hear O Israel... G‑d is One' — one who has no master but the Holy One, blessed be He; this excludes the slave, who has another master." However [in addition to the fact that it speaks there of a Canaanite slave, even if we say (like the opinion cited in Nitzutzei Zohar on the Zohar there; see the sources cited there) that according to the Jerusalem Talmud the law is the same for a Jewish slave, nevertheless] it is understood that one cannot learn from this to the other mitzvos (the Shema and tefillin are different: since their content is "Havayah is One," they do not pertain to slaves, who have another master), as stated explicitly in our parsha, that even a slave sold to an idolater is obligated in Shabbos observance, etc.
30) See Sforno, 25:2: that the entire year of cessation from working the land should be set aside for His (G‑d's) service.
31) Ch. 41 (57a).
32) So it is in Tanya there. In our editions of the Zohar: "לקבלא עלי' עול בקדמיתא" (omitting the words "the Kingdom of Heaven"). Possibly (a) the Alter Rebbe found such a reading in the Zohar; or (b) these words are parenthetical — added by the Alter Rebbe for further explanation, as is understood from the continuation of the passage in the Zohar there (not cited in Tanya), that the "yoke" refers to the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven.
33) As stated in Tanya ch. 4 (and so too in the "Perush" on Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, beginning of ch. 2), and at the beginning of ch. 41 (quoted below in the text).
34) Wording of the Alter Rebbe in Tanya, beginning of ch. 41. In the continuation there as well (before he cites the Zohar passage), he emphasizes: "If he studies and fulfills the mitzvah with love alone, it is not called by the name 'the service of a servant'" — that Torah study and the fulfillment of positive commandments too — although "love is the root of all the 248 positive commandments" — must be (not only with love alone, but also) in the manner of the service of a servant.
35) Wording of the Alter Rebbe in Likkutei Torah, Balak 70c. There [it explains] that this is accomplished through the 248 positive commandments, which are analogous to "arranging and setting up beautiful furnishings," while the purpose of the prohibitions is "to eradicate the evil" — analogous to a dwelling prepared for a flesh-and-blood king, where (before the beautiful furnishings are arranged) "one must clear the palace of all filth and dirt."
36) Note the statement of our Sages (Zohar I, 27a; II, 165b; and elsewhere — cited in Likkutei Torah there): "לעבדה — זו רמ"ח מ"ע" ("'to work it' — these are the 248 positive commandments") (and in the Sifri, Eikev 11:13: "'to serve' — this is study"), that (Torah study and) the fulfillment of the positive commandments too must be in the manner of "service."
37) For — in addition to the fact that since fear (specifically) is the root of the 365 prohibitions, and in the absence of fear it is possible that he will transgress a prohibition, G‑d forbid, it is consequently impossible for holiness to rest in him (as is understood from the parable in Likkutei Torah there, that arranging the beautiful furnishings comes specifically after clearing the palace of all dirt) — the absence of acceptance of the yoke in itself (even where there is no concern that he will commit any transgression, G‑d forbid — see Likkutei Torah, Masei 90b; see also "Kitzurim LeTanya," p. 43) contradicts the resting of holiness, as in the text.
38) Tanya ch. 6 (10b).
39) In more detail one may say: in the fulfillment of the positive commandments themselves there are two aspects: a) their fulfillment in the manner of "turn away from evil": since one who neglects a positive commandment (also) rebels against His Kingship (as stated explicitly at the beginning of Iggeres HaTeshuvah), he therefore fulfills the mitzvah, since neglecting a positive commandment is a transgression; b) the fulfillment of the positive commandment because of its positive content — the service of "do good." This is the Alter Rebbe's novelty in writing "For although fear is the root of 'turn away from evil' and love of 'do good'...": that not only the "turn away from evil" aspect of the positive commandments* must stem from fear, but also their "do good" aspect — although its root is love — must nevertheless stem (also) from acceptance of the yoke.
*) This also clarifies why he writes "the root of 'turn away from evil'" and does not write "of the 365 prohibitions," as in ch. 4.
40) See Sefer HaMaamarim 5562, p. 277; the maamar beginning "Shofar Chatzotzros" (in Sefer HaMaamarim 5699), sec. 6.
41) See at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 5, p. 233 ff.
42) See Or HaTorah, Pinchas, p. 1211, that this is the reason for what is written in the writings of the Arizal, that before the Shema one should say: "I hereby take upon myself the mitzvah of 'You shall love...'" See there.
43) Toras Kohanim on our parsha, 25:23 (in Rashi there, [25:]54 — according to several readings). Rambam, Hilchos Avadim, beginning of ch. 3.
44) Re'eh 15:18.
45) Eikev 8:17. See Derech Mitzvosecha (8a; 107a), that this is the reason why it must be "in all that you do."
46) Our parsha, 25:21.
47) Ibid., 20.
48) In addition: since there is no place devoid of Him, even the performance of work itself — when one stands before the King, the King of the world — is rebellion; all the more so than "one who gestures [before the king]" (Chagigah 5b). — The reason a person is permitted to do work is that, because of the concealment, etc., he is not like one standing before the King (Derech Mitzvosecha 5a (see also Likkutei Sichos vol. 1, p. [OCR unclear], Vayakhel) — regarding the six weekdays. See also Rashi on our parsha, 25:2).
49) Haazinu 32:9. See Iggeres HaTeshuvah ch. 4.
50) Zohar III, 257, end of side b; Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah ch. 7 (82a).
51) Va'eschanan 4:19. See the Ramaz, beginning of Haazinu; Derech Mitzvosecha, the mitzvah of the Oneness of G‑d.
52) Cited in Sefer HaMaamarim Melukat vol. 1, p. 30; the maamar beginning "Mayim Rabbim" 5717 (Sefer HaMaamarim Melukat ibid., p. 52 ff.); and elsewhere.
53) See at length the maamar "Mayim Rabbim," ibid., and the sources cited there.
54) Berachah 33:14.
55) Rashi on our parsha, 25:47.
56) In simple terms, this is the concept of the blessings over enjoyment and their content.
57) Accordingly, the connection between the conclusion of the parsha and its beginning will also be understood — for the novelty at the beginning of the parsha, too, is that the sowing, etc., during the six years should be done in a manner that does not contradict "ושבתה הארץ" ("the land shall rest") in the seventh year.* It may also be said that the connection of the beginning and conclusion of the parsha to "Behar" — for the name of a parsha (whether according to Torah or according to Jewish custom) indicates the content of all its matters — is that the combination of two opposites: the concealment and hiding of nature (in "six years you shall sow," and especially in one sold to an idolater), and together with this — "and in the seventh year, a Shabbos of complete rest"; "you shall not make...," comes from "Mount Sinai," which is the lowest of all the mountains (Midrash Tehillim 68:17 (Buber edition); see also Megillah 29a), so that even in a "mountain," which signifies loftiness and elevation, there should be "lowliness."**
*) This explains why it says "six years you shall sow..." — which seemingly is superfluous — and also why this verse is stated among the laws of the seventh year (between "the land shall rest..." and "and in the seventh year..."): for the novelty in "six years you shall sow..." is that although you sow, it should nevertheless be in a manner that afterwards leads to the "Shabbos of complete rest." (This is analogous to the word "for nothing" regarding "and in the seventh he shall go free" — see above, note 25.)
**) This is also what the Alter Rebbe emphasizes in ch. 41, that the Zohar passage is in Parshas Behar — (there being three ways [of citing the Zohar] in Tanya: "Zohar" alone; with the parsha added; with the page indicated. For an example (of all three) — [OCR unclear]) — for in Tanya there, too, the subject is the combination of two opposites: love, which is a feeling of self — the loftiness of a "mountain"; and nevertheless — the self-nullification of acceptance of the yoke, "lowliness."
58) For the various opinions on this, see the Shelah, Beis Acharon (12a-b).
59) Tanya, beginning of ch. 37. And in ch. 39 (53a): from its reward (of the mitzvah) its nature and level are known.
60) That this is even higher than the title "the Unique Name" — see Kesef Mishneh on Rambam, Hilchos Avodah Zarah 2:7.
61) Sotah (38a); Sanhedrin 56a ff. For an explanation of these three titles, see Pardes, Shaar 19, at the beginning.
62) See Kuntres Acharon to Hilchos Talmud Torah, ibid. (near the end): "On the contrary, it is better that he increase his commerce in order to support Torah scholars."
63) Berachos 35b.
64) See Rambam, end of Hilchos Shemittah VeYovel.
65) See Berachos (34b): "All the prophets prophesied only... but..." [OCR cut off — the rest of this note is missing from the source].
66) [The text of this note is missing from the OCR source.]
Key Lesson
Even when a Jew's situation outwardly conceals G‑dliness — whether he is immersed in earning a livelihood or finds himself in circumstances that seem to subordinate him to others — he remains "G‑d's portion," and his livelihood truly comes from G‑d. When he fulfills mitzvos out of acceptance of the yoke of Heaven, he connects with G‑d's very Essence, which knows no limits; therefore the reward reaches him in full, wherever he stands.