Parshas Mishpatim
1. In our Parsha, on the verse1 "ורצע אדוניו את אזנו במרצע" ("His master shall bore his ear with an awl"), Rashi explains: "הימנית, או אינו אלא של שמאל, ת"ל אזן אזן לגזירה שוה" ("The right one. Or perhaps it is only the left one? The Torah therefore says 'ear,' 'ear' for a gezeirah shavah: here it says 'His master shall bore his ear,' and regarding the metzora it says2 'the lobe of his right ear' — just as there it is the right one, so too here it is the right one")3.
Simply understood, Rashi's intent is as follows: the verse says "His master shall bore his ear" — in the singular — and does not specify whether it is the right ear or the left ear. Rashi therefore explains that the intent is the "right" ear, since we learn a gezeirah shavah from the metzora.
However, this requires clarification: from Rashi's lengthy wording, "Or perhaps it is only the left one?" (which seemingly is superfluous), it is implied that, in essence, it is more reasonable that the verse intends specifically the left ear, except that we are compelled to interpret it as "the right one" because of the gezeirah shavah from the metzora4. What is the reason for this?
2. Rashi continues (in the same comment): "ומה5 ראה אזן להרצע מכל שאר אברים שבגוף" ("And why was the ear chosen to be bored, out of all the other limbs of the body? Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai said: This ear, which heard at Mount Sinai 'You shall not steal'6, and went and stole — shall be bored. And if he sold himself: the ear7 which heard at Mount Sinai 'For the Children of Israel are servants unto Me'8, and went and acquired a master for himself — shall be bored. Rabbi Shimon9 would expound this verse like a chomer: Why were the door and the doorpost singled out from all the fixtures of the house? The Holy One, blessed be He, said: The door and the doorpost, which were witnesses in Egypt when I passed over the lintel and the two doorposts and I said, 'For the Children of Israel are servants unto Me' — they are My servants and not servants of servants — and this one went and acquired a master for himself; let him be bored before them").
This needs to be understood:
a) "The ear which heard 'You shall not steal'" (does not explain why specifically the right ear is bored, but rather) is a reason why the ear is bored and not one of all the other limbs of the body. Consequently, it has no connection or relevance to what Rashi said before this — that "ear" means specifically "the right one." Rashi should therefore have written them as two separate comments, or at least without the connecting vav: "Why was it chosen" and not "And why was it chosen"?
b) Even more difficult is that Rashi afterwards brings (in the same comment) the exposition of Rabbi Shimon, "Why were the door and the doorpost singled out, etc." If Rashi's intent is to explain why "the door and the doorpost were singled out," he should have explained this earlier (and in a separate comment) on the words "אל הדלת או אל המזוזה" ("to the door or to the doorpost"). We must therefore say that, according to the plain meaning of the verse, this is not a question (as is precise in Rashi's wording: "Rabbi Shimon would expound… Why were… singled out"), but that it comes as a continuation of what Rashi explained before it10. This requires clarification: what is the connection between Rabbi Shimon's exposition and the words of Rashi that precede it?
c) In Rashi's words that the reason for the boring is because "This ear which heard… 'You shall not steal' and went and stole… shall be bored. This ear which heard… 'For the Children of Israel are servants unto Me'… and went… shall be bored," it is not understood:
(a) Accordingly, he should be bored immediately once he transgressed these commands — why is he not bored until six years have passed11, and even then only if "אמר יאמר העבד" ("the servant shall say")?
(b) Why did the Torah state this law only regarding a thief who has nothing with which to pay and is sold by the court? The reason for the boring ("This ear which heard… and went and stole shall be bored") applies to every thief, even when he has the means to pay.
(c) This reason12 applies to all the commands of the Torah — accordingly, a person should be bored for every sin and transgression he commits. Why did the Torah state this law only regarding one who transgressed "You shall not steal" or "For the Children of Israel are servants unto Me"13?
3. The words of Rashi also require clarification:
a) Why does Rashi bring an additional reason for the boring of one whom the court sold (because he transgressed "You shall not steal")? Since he is bored only after six years have passed and he decides of his own will to remain with his master, he too is bored only when he becomes one who "sells himself" — when he "acquires a master for himself"14?
b) Regarding "one who sells himself," Rashi writes, "The ear which heard 'For the Children of Israel are servants unto Me'… and went and acquired a master for himself shall be bored," meaning that he is punished for going and selling himself in the first place15. Why did he not explain, according to the simple meaning of the verses, that he is punished for his present claim, "לא אצא חפשי" ("I will not go out free")?
c) It is known16 that Rashi's way is to copy from the Gemara and Midrashim only the words needed for his explanation according to the plain meaning of the verse. Accordingly, clarification is needed in our case: (a) What is the precision in "which heard at Mount Sinai" — seemingly it would have sufficed to say "which heard" (without specification17)? (b) What is the relevance of prefacing Rabbi Shimon's exposition with the words that he "would expound this verse like a chomer"18?
d) It has been mentioned several times19 that when Rashi brings the name of the author of a statement, it is in order to explain thereby some matter in the plain meaning of the verse — except that it is not such a difficult matter, and only a quick and sharp student would ask about it; therefore Rashi alludes to it by bringing the name of the author of the statement. We must therefore say: what is the difficulty in the plain meaning of the verse that Rashi resolves by bringing the name of the author of the statement?
4. The explanation of all this:
Rashi's main intent in saying "And why was the ear chosen to be bored, etc." is not to explain the reason for the verse — why the Torah chose specifically the ear (for according to the plain meaning there is no need to give a reason for the details of the Torah's laws20). Rather, it is a question that arises (in the plain meaning of the verses) through his explanation that "his ear" means "the right one," as will be explained.
This will be understood by first raising a question about the matter itself: Why does specifically this servant deserve the punishment of permanent disgrace and a blemish21 such as boring? On the contrary — we are speaking of one who stole and is unable to return the stolen item or to pay, which ordinarily is because he is a crushed pauper who stole to still his hunger and the hunger of his household; "poverty drove him to act against his own will and against the will of his Creator"22 — so why should he be punished so severely (and as it is written23, "לא יבוזו לגנב כי יגנוב למלא נפשו כי ירעב" ("Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his soul when he is hungry"))?
The same applies to one who sells himself as a servant because of his distress: the fact that he lowered himself and accepted upon himself the authority of a master shows that his poverty pressed him to the point that he would do something contrary to human nature.
Likewise, he should not be punished so severely for his present wish to remain with his master ("I will not go out free"), for his claim is a rational one: "אהבתי גו' את אשתי ואת בני" ("I love… my wife and my children")24 (i.e., the wife his master gave him and the children she bore him), and when he goes out free he will be forced to part from them, as it is written24, "The wife and her children shall belong to her master." And regarding this love it is said, "הוא אמר ויהי הוא צוה ויעמוד" ("He spoke and it came to be; He commanded and it endured")25.
Because of this question, we must say that, on the contrary, the Torah chose this unusual punishment because it is a very light punishment — so much so that people were accustomed to bore the ear voluntarily in order to put an earring in it: men and women, sons and daughters26.
5. However, according to the above — that the reason (according to the plain meaning) why specifically the ear was chosen to be bored is in order to lighten the punishment — it is reasonable that the boring should be specifically on the left ear, since the left is inferior to the right. This is similar to what Rashi explains regarding the left hand, "ידכה" ("your hand")27: "the left hand… the hand that is weak"28. It is therefore reasonable that the boring should be on the inferior left ear and not on the superior right ear.
Therefore, after Rashi explains that "his ear" means "the right one," he asks, "Or perhaps it is only the left one?" — meaning: on the contrary, it is reasonable, as above, that the intent is the left ear! And he answers that there is a gezeirah shavah from the metzora, for which reason we are compelled to interpret it as "the right one" (contrary to what is simply reasonable29).
But this raises the question30, "And why was the ear chosen to be bored?" Since the Torah commanded to bore "the right ear," it implies that the ear was not chosen to be bored in order to lessen his punishment, but for another reason. If so, "why was the ear chosen to be bored, out of all the other limbs of the body?"
Rashi explains: "The ear which heard at Mount Sinai… shall be bored." That is, this punishment must be specifically on the ear, since the ear heard these commands at Mount Sinai and transgressed them (and therefore the superior of the ears, which is the main one that hears — specifically the right ear — is punished).
6. To explain why the one who is bored deserves such a punishment (boring), Rashi continues that the reason the ear is bored (in one whom the court sold for his theft) is because "it heard 'You shall not steal'" (and not because it heard "For the Children of Israel are servants unto Me" while this one acquires a master for himself by saying "I will not go out free"). Similarly, one who sells himself is punished because he "went and acquired (in the first place) a master for himself" (and not because he now says "I will not go out free"):
As explained above, when a person steals from his fellow and transgresses the command "You shall not steal," it is possible to say that he was coerced by his distress and hardship. Therefore (although this does not justify his improper conduct, nevertheless) he should not be punished with the punishment of boring (and this is also the reason that not every thief receives this punishment).
However, it is understood that when a person steals under duress, he is ashamed of it and does not want his disgrace publicized. If he is sold as a servant and it becomes known that he was sold for his theft, it pains him greatly, and throughout his stay with his master — the time of his disgrace — he looks forward to the time he will go out to freedom.
If he is not eager to go out free, and on the contrary, he wants to remain with his master, this proves that from the outset the matter was no disgrace in his eyes, to the point that he does not mind that it is publicized that he is a servant because he stole and was sold for his theft. His end proves his beginning: he stole because of his bad character, and his transgressing the command "You shall not steal" was not because of his distress. Therefore, "This ear which heard… 'You shall not steal'… shall be bored."
The same is understood regarding one who sells himself because of his distress31: at the time of the act, he should not be punished with boring, since he was coerced by his distress. But if afterwards he claims, "I love my master, etc.," and does not want to go out free, he thereby shows that this matter — being a servant — is not grave in his eyes, and that when he sold himself in the first place it was not only because of the duress of his distress, but rather that he does not mind being a servant.
Therefore, although he should not be punished with boring for his present wish to remain with his master, since (at least partially) he is coerced by his natural love for his wife and children, as above — nevertheless, it is understood from his claim "I love my master" that he does not mind (so much) being a servant, and his end proves his beginning: that he did not sell himself in the first place because of the duress of his distress, but of his own free will32. Therefore he is bored for having "gone and acquired a master for himself"33.
According to this it is also understood that one who (did not go and acquire a master, but rather) was sold by the court against his will should not be punished for "For the Children of Israel are servants unto Me" at the time he says "I love my master, etc.," since at that time he is coerced34, as above. Therefore Rashi is compelled to explain that one whom the court sold is bored because he transgressed "You shall not steal."
7. According to this, Rashi's precise wording, "the ear which heard at Mount Sinai," will also be understood — for this further emphasizes the gravity of the sin and the reason for the punishment of the one who is bored:
He heard these commands at Mount Sinai from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He35, before Whom it is revealed and known that a person may come to a situation of poverty, and the time may press him to steal or to sell himself as a servant in order to sustain himself and his household. Nevertheless, He commanded him "You shall not steal"36 and said "For the Children of Israel are servants unto Me, etc."37 And since the Holy One, blessed be He, nourishes and sustains all His creatures38, He will surely provide him his livelihood39 in another way, so that he will not be compelled to transgress His will. Therefore, even when he is in a situation of distress, he must trust in the Holy One, blessed be He, that He will certainly help him and rescue him from his distress. And since he did not trust in the Holy One, blessed be He, and transgressed His commands, therefore "the ear which heard… 'You shall not steal'… shall be bored. This ear which heard… 'For… are servants unto Me'… shall be bored."
8. Now, to further explain and sweeten what was explained above — that the reason for boring the ear is because "it heard… 'For… are servants unto Me,' etc." — Rashi adds and brings, in continuation of this, "Rabbi Shimon would expound this verse, etc." According to this, it is explained that in our matter (the boring of the servant), the Torah was precise in all the details of the punishment, so that the matter in which he sinned ("For the Children of Israel are servants unto Me"37) would be emphasized and alluded to in them.
Rashi himself explains the reason for bringing Rabbi Shimon's exposition, by quoting that "Rabbi Shimon would expound this verse כמין חומר (like a chomer)":
"Chomer" means39* "a bundle of pearls and a bundle of spices." Rashi is precise that the effect of this explanation in our matter is like the effect and nature of "a bundle of pearls and a bundle of spices": a pearl that is in a room (especially a bundle of pearls) spreads light and illuminates40 the room and the things in it; likewise, when a person wears it as an ornament and for beauty, although it is in a particular place on the body, it affects and adorns the whole person wearing it. Similarly, "a bundle of spices" acts and spreads a good fragrance all around it.
This is what Rashi writes, that this explanation is "like a chomer": this explanation of the reason that "the door and the doorpost were singled out" — because they were "witnesses in Egypt… and I said, 'For the Children of Israel are servants unto Me,' etc." — acts and adds understanding also to the preceding matter (that the ear is therefore bored, since "it heard… 'For the Children of Israel are servants unto Me,' etc.").
Now, according to all the above, it is understood that Rashi's intent in his explanation "And why was the ear chosen to be bored, etc." is not to explain the reason for the verse — for that is not Rashi's concern in explaining the plain meaning of the verse, to explain the reasons for the verses, the reasons for the Torah's punishments. He was compelled to explain this reason only to remove the difficulty41 that arose through his explanation at the beginning of the comment, "his ear — the right one" (as explained above at length in Section 2). Therefore Rashi brought the exposition of Rabbi Shimon without the connecting vav, and not in a separate comment earlier on "to the door, etc.," for this exposition only explains the reason for the verse, and that is not Rashi's concern in the plain meaning of the verse. This is why Rashi is precise and writes (the name of the author of the statement) "Rabbi Shimon would expound, etc." — thereby alluding that this explanation is only the reason for the verse, since it was expounded by Rabbi Shimon, who "expounds the reason for the verse"43.
Nevertheless, Rashi brought it in continuation of the statement of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, since he expounded the "verse" in a way that is "like a chomer"44, as above. In somewhat different words: in answer to the question "And why was the ear chosen to be bored": a) "Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai said, etc."; b) "Rabbi Shimon would expound, etc."42
9. In order to explain also to a sharp student who will argue that, after all, why should he be punished with such a severe punishment — the sin of this theft is not as grave as an ordinary transgression of "You shall not steal," since he steals because of his distress; and also for his saying "I love my master" it is difficult to punish him so severely, since he also claims "I love… my wife and my children," as above —
Rashi brings that this reason was said by "Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai":
Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai's entire concern (after he was called "Rabban") was the study of Torah, even though he lived at the time of the Destruction and afterwards, when there was a situation of hardship and poverty, etc.45 As our Sages say46: "(He engaged in commerce for forty years,) for forty years he learned and for forty years he taught"; and "he never walked four cubits without Torah… and no one ever preceded him into the study hall"47. And at the time of the Destruction he took care that the Torah would endure in Israel, and he requested, "תן לי יבנה וחכמיה" ("Give me Yavneh and its Sages")48.
This is what Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai taught everyone, as he taught in Avos49: "אם למדת תורה הרבה אל תחזיק טובה לעצמך כי לכך נוצרת" ("If you have learned much Torah, do not take credit for yourself, for this is what you were created for"). That is, this is the purpose of every person — even of a businessman50 — and his main concern in life.
This is what Rashi emphasizes: this was said by Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai (whose concern was Torah). That is, the Torah commanded to marry a wife and said "He spoke and it came to be" — this is the love of a wife, etc., as above — and nevertheless it commanded him to go out free after six years.
Likewise, the Torah informed us51 that "the poor shall never cease from the land," and nevertheless it commanded "You shall not steal."
10. We further find that Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai greatly extolled the matter of gemilus chassadim (acts of kindness), as related in Avos d'Rabbi Nosson52: Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai and his student Rabbi Yehoshua passed by the site of the Holy Temple and saw the Holy Temple in its destruction. Rabbi Yehoshua said, "Woe to us for this, that it is destroyed!" Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai answered him, "Do not be distressed; we have one atonement that is like it. And what is it? Gemilus chassadim" — he equated the matter of gemilus chassadim with the matter of the Holy Temple.
Rashi alludes to this by bringing that this reason was said by Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, for through this the reason he is bored is better understood: even for one who is in a situation of hardship and poverty, the Torah took care and commanded "אם כסף תלוה את עמי" ("If you lend money to My people") — this is an obligation53. And since it is an obligation, he would certainly have found many who would lend to him, and he should have made the effort to borrow through an interest-free loan and not transgress these commands.
11. From the matters of the "יינה של תורה" ("wine of the Torah") in our Rashi:
There are those who are so preoccupied with their material affairs during the six weekdays that they become "servants of servants" — of their material desires — like this person who acquires a master for himself for six years. And even when the "seventh" day comes, the holy Shabbos day, on which one must go out free54, to cease and rest from all weekday matters — they do not want to go out free and release themselves from their love of and servitude to their material affairs, and they are preoccupied and harried with worldly matters.
About this comes the directive: the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded "For… are servants unto Me" — a person's purpose is the service of G‑d through the study of Torah (and the fulfillment of mitzvos55), "for this is what you were created for." This is the purpose of his soul's descent and its mission in the world. And since this is the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, Who gives life to and brings everything into being, He will surely give him the strength and ability needed to fulfill his mission in the world. That is, even during the weekdays, when he is occupied with his material affairs, he is not enslaved to them; his occupation is not in the manner of a "servant of servants," but on the contrary, he uses them for his true need — to be a servant of the Holy One, blessed be He. And when the holy Shabbos day comes, he sanctifies, separates, and elevates himself completely from weekday matters, and his occupation56 is the study of Torah and the service of G‑d.
Through this conduct in the study of Torah57 (and mitzvos), a person goes out free from his personal exile, and thereby also hastens the exodus from the general exile — just as we find with Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, who at the very time of the Destruction prevailed upon the destroyers of the Holy Temple to give him "Yavneh and its Sages" — the Torah of the Great Sanhedrin58. Through the study of Torah a person becomes free, and speedily we will merit the coming of Moshiach59 and the building of the Holy Temple, and "the door and the doorpost" (which were witnesses in Egypt) — "טבעו בארץ שעריה" ("her gates have sunk into the ground")60 — will be revealed and will complete61 the building of the Holy Temple in its fullness.
(From the sichah of Shabbos Parshas Mishpatim 5730)
Notes
1) 21:6.
2) Metzora 14:14, 17, 25, 28. In the verse there, the wording is "the lobe of the right ear of the one being purified," but in all the printings of Rashi and in Rashi manuscripts it is as quoted in the text. So it is also in the Mechilta on the verse and Sifri, Parshas Re'eh 122.
3) Mechilta on the verse (with a change of wording).
4) The Ra'av writes: "'Or perhaps it is only, etc.' means 'or this' (for where would we derive to say the left and not the right)." But from Rashi's wording, "Or perhaps it is only, etc." (especially since he does not write "'His ear' — I do not know which one; the Torah therefore says, etc." or similar), it is implied that there is reason to say it should be specifically the left one, as in the text.
5) Mechilta on the verse (with a change of wording).
6) Several commentators (Moshav Zekeinim on the Torah, Re'em, Riva, Maskil L'David, and others) asked that "You shall not steal" of the Ten Commandments (Yisro 20:13) refers to one who kidnaps a person (see Rashi there), and he should have cited "You shall not steal" (in the plural, Kedoshim 19:11), which speaks of one who steals money. [See Chizkuni, Maskil L'David, and others, who emended the text to read "You shall not steal" (plural).]
See the Re'em, who answered: it can be said that this is the meaning — the ear that heard at Sinai "You shall not steal" in a general way, in which was included also the warning of "You shall not steal" (plural) that speaks of money (especially since all the mitzvos are included in the Ten Commandments — as Rashi explains later (24:12) in the name of Rav Saadia Gaon).
Similarly it can be said regarding what Rashi says afterwards, "The ear which heard at Mount Sinai 'For… are servants unto Me'" (which is not in the Ten Commandments, but in Parshas Behar (25:55)) — that it is included in the first Commandment, "I am… Who took you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." See Rashi there: the Exodus is worthy that you be subservient to Me. See also Lekach Tov (Va'eira), cited in Torah Sheleimah here, §123.
It can be said that it is also included in the second Commandment, "You shall have no [other gods]" — based on the Jerusalem Talmud, ch. 1 of Kiddushin (end of halachah 2): "The ear that heard from Mount Sinai 'You shall have no other gods before Me,' and cast off the yoke of Heaven and accepted upon itself the yoke of flesh and blood" (but the Jerusalem Talmud there also concludes, "the ear that heard at Mount Sinai 'For… are servants unto Me'").
This needs examination in the Azharos of Rav Saadia Gaon (printed in his Siddur), but this is not the place to discuss it.
7) Kiddushin 22b.
8) Behar, ibid., 55. See also above, note 6.
9) Kiddushin, ibid. It is not in the Rashi manuscript; see below, note 44.
10) In the first and second printings, the expositions of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai and Rabbi Shimon appear in reverse order — first the explanation of Rabbi Shimon and then the explanation of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai*. But in most printings it is as in the text.
*) Seemingly the reason can be said to be that "He shall bring him to the door, etc." comes in the verse before "He shall bore… his ear." But this is not so — for according to this, Rashi should have explained it earlier, in a separate comment, on the words "to the door or to the doorpost," as in the text.
11) Although it could be said that specifically after six years, when he says "I love my master," his sin is then greatest (since he has repeated his sin — see Maskil L'David), and therefore he is punished; nevertheless, from the plain wording of Rashi, "went and acquired a master for himself," it is evident that it refers to his having "gone and acquired" in the first place, as below in Section 3, and see below, Section 5.
12) The question in the text is mainly regarding the reason "it heard 'You shall not steal,'" for regarding the reason "it heard 'For… are servants unto Me,'" it can be said that this is a general and fundamental command — to be a "servant of G‑d" — which is not the case with individual commands.
13) See also Moshav Zekeinim on the Torah, Rosh, Gur Aryeh, Maskil L'David, and others.
14) Especially since this is explicit in Kiddushin, ibid. And Rashi follows the version of the Mechilta specifically. See also Torah Temimah here (§57).
15) See Chizkuni: "And if you will ask: but from the beginning of his servitude… he is liable for this reason… therefore the text reads 'and this one goes and acquires,' meaning at the end of his servitude… and he goes and acquires a master again, a second time."
16) See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 10, first sichah on Parshas Vayeishev.
17) Especially since in the Mechilta Mount Sinai is not mentioned, only "the ear which heard" without specification. And in the Gemara it says "which heard My voice," and Rashi did not copy this wording*.
*) In the Rashi manuscript it is written: "which heard My voice at Sinai." But in all the printings (also in the first and second printings) this wording was not copied. See below, note 35.
18) Especially since in this very case, in the Mechilta and the Gemara this wording is stated in the exposition of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai** — and there Rashi does not copy it (in the first and second printings the wording "like a chomer" is written also regarding Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, but in all the printings (and in the Rashi manuscript) it is not).
**) It should be noted that among the expositions of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai we find this wording elsewhere (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 7:2): "Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai would say five things like a chomer."
19) See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 5, pp. 191, 204.
20) Although in our case there is room to explain the reasons for the laws according to the plain meaning, since the laws stated here are of the category of mishpatim (rational laws), nevertheless Rashi's wording, "And why was the ear chosen, etc.? [Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai] said, etc." — in the style of question and answer — does not fit this so well. It should also be noted that Rashi does not bring the reason (by way of allusion) for why an awl is used (see Baal HaTurim; Daas Zekeinim MiBaalei HaTosafos).
21) See in the Mechilta the dispute whether a Kohen is bored.
22) Eiruvin 41b.
23) Mishlei 6:30.
24) Our Parsha, 21:4.
25) Shabbos 152a. See Tanya, ch. 49, that the command in the Shema, "with all your heart," refers to this — for a person's heart is naturally bound up with them.
26) Ki Sisa 32:2-3.
27) Bo 13:16.
28) Ibid., 9.
29) According to this, one can also sweeten why a gezeirah shavah specifically is needed, and not a binyan av and the like — for one can distinguish that in our case, where his punishment should be lessened, it should be specifically the left one, as in the text. See Rashi, s.v. "ozen" (Yevamos 104a): "'Ear,' 'ear' is free on both sides, both regarding the metzora and regarding the one who is bored." See also the Ra'av on Rashi here.
30) Maskil L'David answered (along these lines) that without the gezeirah shavah one would have thought that the boring is in the earlobe, which is thin and soft flesh and causes only a little pain; but now that Rashi has written that we learn a gezeirah shavah from the metzora, then since there is no half gezeirah shavah, just as there it is in the body of the ear itself, namely within the middle ridge, there is great pain there as in any other place, and now one can ask, why was the ear chosen, etc.
But in Rashi's explanation here, it is not mentioned at all that the place of the boring is the lobe of the ear (see Mechilta on the verse; Kiddushin 21b).
31) The Re'em writes: it is forced to say that because at the beginning of the six years he sold himself only because of his distress, he is not called one who "went and acquired a master for himself." But see Moshav Zekeinim: when he sells himself because of his distress the first time, he is sold because of poverty, and therefore it is not just that he be bored, but, etc. See Maskil L'David and others.
32) Especially since his food and the food of his wife and children are the master's responsibility (Rashi 21:3), so ordinarily he still has the money he received when he sold himself as a servant. Furthermore, when he leaves, the master will give him a gift, as commanded (see 15:14), "הענק תעניק לו" ("You shall surely furnish him"). Thus it cannot be said that he wishes to remain a servant because of the distress he will face when he goes out free.
33) Maskil L'David answered that indeed boring would have been appropriate even at the beginning… but the Torah only obligated the one who is bored because he repeated the sin. But this answer is not sufficient (see also above, note 11), for according to this the question remains why a person is not bored also for other sins that he repeated.
34) See also Moshav Zekeinim: "for he was not sold of his own accord, etc., and although now he sells himself, nevertheless this sale is not a sale, but only a result of the sale by the court." And certainly he should not be punished for having caused himself to be sold as a servant in the first place.
35) In the plain meaning of the verse: "And G‑d spoke all these words." And Rashi explains (Yisro 20:1) that the Holy One, blessed be He, said the Ten Commandments in one utterance. See Tzeidah LaDerech on Rashi (there), that Israel heard and understood from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself. And also when Moshe would speak and convey the Commandments to Israel the second time (Rashi there, 19:19), he "returned and explained each utterance separately," meaning the explanation of what they heard from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He (in one utterance). It should be noted that the second time, too, this was with the voice of the Holy One, blessed be He — see Tzeidah LaDerech on Rashi (there).
For the views on the manner of the saying and hearing of the Ten Commandments, see Torah Sheleimah on Yisro (20:1), §8 and in the Miluim there.
It should be noted that in Kiddushin (ibid.) it says "the ear which heard My voice, etc."; see the Re'em and Tzeidah LaDerech here (that it refers to what they heard the first time — only the voice of the Holy One, blessed be He). As for why Rashi did not write the wording "which heard My voice" (see above, note 17, and the gloss there), it can be said that it is because our wording, "which heard at Mount Sinai," includes also their hearing the utterance "You shall not steal" a second time through Moshe, as above.
36) And he too accepted it upon himself and answered "yes" to the positive and "no" to the negative (Rashi there, 20:1). See at length Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 6, p. 119 ff.
37) See Shabbos 107b: "The Holy One, blessed be He, sits and nourishes, from the horns of wild oxen to, etc."
38) See Kesubos 67b: that to each and every one the Holy One, blessed be He, gives his livelihood in its time.
39) And also regarding one whom the court sold — although he should not be punished for having caused himself to be sold as a servant, nor for saying now "I love my wife," nevertheless this matter of "For… are servants unto Me" applies to him too, and therefore there is also in his case "He shall bring him to the door, etc."
39*) Rashi on Kiddushin, ibid.
40) See the teachings of our Sages on the verse "צהר תעשה" ("Make a light," Noach 6:16; Sanhedrin 108b; Bereishis Rabbah 31:11; and elsewhere) that a pearl illuminates. Nevertheless, Rashi on the Torah there explains (only) "a precious stone," for this includes many kinds of precious stones. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 10, p. 19, gloss to note 4.
41) According to this, it is also understood why Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai explained only the reason for "why was the ear chosen" and did not also explain the reason for the door (for seemingly, if he set out to explain the reason, why did he not also explain the reason for this?) — for Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai's intent is not to explain the reason for the matter, but to resolve the difficulty. And as for why Rabbi Shimon did not explain the reason for "And why was the ear chosen, etc." (although his concern is to explain the reason for the verse, as in the text), it can simply be said that Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, who preceded him, had already explained it (for "Rabbi Shimon" without specification is Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (Rashi, s.v. "mishmo," Shevuos 2b), the student of Rabbi Akiva, the student of Rabbi Eliezer the Great, the student of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai)*.
*) But one cannot say that Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai relied on Rabbi Shimon; one is compelled to say as in the text of the note.
42) According to this, the change of order in Rashi's explanation is sweetened: the question "Why was the ear chosen, etc." is not brought in the words of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai (for it is a question in the plain meaning of the verse, as above in Section 2), while the question "And why were… singled out, etc." is brought in the words of Rabbi Shimon (for it is a question only for one who expounds the reason for the verse).
43) Yoma 42b; Yevamos 23a, and sources cited there. In the Gemara (Kiddushin, ibid.) the reading is "Rabbi Shimon bar Rebbi would expound, etc.," and so it is in the second printing of Rashi. But in the first printing and the other printings it is as in the text. According to what is explained in the text, it is understood why Rashi chose the reading "Rabbi Shimon" (without specification) — for Rabbi Shimon without specification is the one who expounds the reason for the verse.
44) It can be said that this is the reason that in the Rashi manuscript the exposition of Rabbi Shimon is absent — since it is not a primary matter in the plain meaning of the verse in its own right. See above, note 9.
45) See Gittin 56a ff., and elsewhere. According to this, the question of the Tosafos Yom Tov on Rashi at the end of Tractate Sotah is resolved: on the Mishnah, "When Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai died, the splendor of wisdom ceased," Rashi writes, "I do not know what this is," and the Tosafos Yom Tov asks, "Why does he not explain it similarly to how he explains the splendor of the priesthood further on?" (on "When Rabbi Yishmael ben Fabi died, the splendor of the priesthood ceased," which Rashi explains, "for he was wise and wealthy, and many Kohanim ate at his table"; and seemingly one could explain the same regarding Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, that he was wealthy and many Torah scholars ate at his table, and when he died it ceased, etc.).
However, according to what is explained, it is understood that Rashi could not explain it so (for even if you will say that Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai was wealthy before the Destruction, one cannot explain the Mishnah this way, for at the time of the Destruction and afterwards there was a situation of poverty, etc., and this was many years before the time of "When Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai died, … ceased").
46) Sanhedrin 41a.
47) Sukkah 28a.
48) Gittin 56b.
49) Ch. 2, Mishnah 8.
50) As is implied by the wording "If you have learned much Torah," meaning more than the measure allotted to him; whereas for Torah scholars and those who dwell in the tents of Torah, their measure is "you shall meditate therein day and night" literally (see at length the Alter Rebbe's Hilchos Talmud Torah, ch. 3, halachah 14).
51) See 15:11.
52) Ch. 4:5.
53) Our Parsha, 22:24, and Rashi there. See below, the second sichah on our Parsha.
54) See the commentary on the Torah by Rabbeinu Avraham, son of the Rambam. See also the Jerusalem Talmud cited above, note 6. It should also be noted from what Chizkuni writes regarding a servant sold for his theft — that it indicates his lack of fear of Heaven, "and he fears the creature more than the Holy One, blessed be He… as our Rabbis taught… (Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai) said to them: this one equated the honor of the servant with the honor of his Owner, etc."
55) It should be noted that gemilus chassadim — which Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai equated with the Holy Temple — is the totality of the mitzvos (Likkutei Torah, Re'eh 23c, and elsewhere; and in Tanya, ch. 37, and in the Jerusalem Talmud, it is called simply "mitzvah," etc. (see Jerusalem Talmud, end of Pe'ah); Iggeres HaKodesh, sec. 32).
56) The Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, sec. 290:5. See Yalkut Shimoni, beginning of Parshas Vayakhel; Iggeres HaKodesh, at its end. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 6, p. 217, note 47.
57) It should be noted from the saying of our Sages (Kiddushin 30b), "If this repulsive one [the evil inclination] meets you, drag it to the study hall." See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 2, p. 371, in the explanation of the saying of our Sages (Avos 6:2), "אין לך בן חורין אלא מי שעוסק בתורה" ("No one is free except one who occupies himself with Torah") — that through occupation with Torah the soul is freed from its exile in the body and the animal soul.
58) [OCR unclear: "ד"ה"] 89b; ibid., 31a, end.
59) See Rambam, Hilchos Melachim, end of ch. 11: "A king will arise from the House of David, who studies Torah and is occupied with mitzvos… and he will compel all Israel to walk in it and to strengthen its breaches… and he will build the Holy Temple in its place and gather the dispersed of Israel, etc." (It is known that the Rambam is precise also in the order of his words. See also the beginning of that chapter.)
60) Eichah 2:9. See Bamidbar Rabbah, end of ch. 15: the gates of the Holy Temple were hidden away in their place, as it says, "Her gates have sunk into the ground, etc." So it is also in Eichah Rabbah 2:13 (on the verse), and so it is also in Zohar I, 3a. See Torah Or on the verse, §[OCR unclear].
61) According to this, one can reconcile the two views in the sayings of our Sages regarding the future Holy Temple: see Tanchuma, end of Parshas Pekudei; Zohar I, 28a; Rashi and Tosafos, Sukkah 41a, end — that the future building will be revealed from heaven (built and perfected); but in the Rambam, Hilchos Melachim (beginning of ch. 11 and at its end — based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah 1:1, and elsewhere), that Moshiach will build the Holy Temple. See also below, pp. 185-186, and the sources cited there, notes 39, 42.
According to the above, it can be said that the Holy Temple will descend from heaven, but the doors — its gates, which "sank into the ground" (and which were made by human hands) — will rise and be revealed, and they will be set in their place; and one who sets up the doors is considered as if he built it all — see Bava Basra 53b. See also Sha'arei Zohar on Sukkah, ibid.
Key Lesson
A Jew is a servant of G‑d alone, and his true purpose is Torah study and the service of G‑d — not servitude to his material affairs. One who trusts that G‑d, Who commanded "For the Children of Israel are servants unto Me," will surely provide his needs, uses the weekdays for his true purpose and frees himself completely on Shabbos for Torah. Through this he goes out from his personal exile and hastens the coming of Moshiach and the rebuilding of the Holy Temple.