Chasidut for Shabbat 125:13
א"ל אביי לרב דימי ואמרי לה לרב אויא ואמרי לה רב יוסף לרב דימי ואמרי לה לרב אויא ואמרי לה אביי לרב יוסף מ"ט דר"א דאמר תכשיטין הן לו דכתיב (תהלים מה, ד) חגור חרבך על ירך גבור הודך והדרך
Abaye asked R. Dimi — others state, R. Awia, — others again state, R. Joseph [asked] R. Dimi — and others state, R. Awia whilst others state, Abaye [asked] R. Joseph: What is R. Eliezer's reason for maintaining that they are ornaments for him? — Because it is written, Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O mighty one, Thy glory and thy majesty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. XLV, 4. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
Kedushat Levi
The Talmud in Shabbat 63 interprets the words of Solomon, speaking of the Torah in Proverbs 3,16 by describing it as follows: ארך ימים בימינה בשמאלה עשר וכבוד, “lengthy days is her right hand; in her left hand riches and honour,“ anyone reading this forms the impression that Solomon assures people keeping the Torah of worldly rewards, and at least when the reward hoped for is material, i.e. worldly riches etc., it is considered as belonging to the left side of the emanations, i.e. is a negative. This would contradict our statement that even though one keeps the Sabbath for such reasons, it is a positive accomplishment, though of a lower order, i.e. is not the kind of service that the Creator would prefer from His creatures, and that optimally, G’d prefers for His creatures not to serve Him for physical material rewards. Some righteous people completely eschew any recognition of their service to G’d as long as they have attained a more profound understanding of the essence of G’d while on this earth. Some go so far as to renounce the claim to a “name” in the world to come so as not to appear as looking for personal recognition of their accomplishments. This is what the Talmud in B’rachot 64 and in Moed Katan 29 had in mind when it stated that the Torah scholars have no “rest”, מנוחה, either in this world or in the world to come, but they keep progressing spiritually from one level to another. [“Rest” in this context is clearly considered as a negative, instead of as a positive quality as in connection with the Sabbath rest. Ed.] According to the way our author understands the prayer quoted, the repeated insistence that in all sections of the universe there is no One that has a name bar the Creator, reflects his view that the perfect tzaddik feels that being singled out (by a name) would detract from his selfless service of the Lord. When the author refers to the world to come in that prayer, he means that he does not desire “to rest on his laurels,” even after he (his soul) has been admitted to the celestial regions. The author of that prayer continues by stating that even if one serves G’d with the objective of experiencing the arrival of the messiah and the additional insights we will all be granted concerning the nature of G’d at that time, this too is not the ultimate optimal kind of service of the Lord.
[I must confess that I have difficulty in understanding the above prayer as anything but having G’d as its subject, not the author himself or his yearnings for a דבקות ה' at the expense of any individuality of his personality. Surely, G’d does not wish to be worshipped anonymously, but wishes to point out to us lesser mortals how great men such as Avraham, Yitzchok, Yaakov, etc, whose names matter, can serve as models for us. Ed.]
[I must confess that I have difficulty in understanding the above prayer as anything but having G’d as its subject, not the author himself or his yearnings for a דבקות ה' at the expense of any individuality of his personality. Surely, G’d does not wish to be worshipped anonymously, but wishes to point out to us lesser mortals how great men such as Avraham, Yitzchok, Yaakov, etc, whose names matter, can serve as models for us. Ed.]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
This is also how we can understand the Mishnah in Avot 2,1 where we are told to consider a commandment, which on the surface appears as easy to fulfill, involving neither much expense nor physical effort, as equal to a commandment which appears as much harder to fulfill. The essence of the value of fulfilling the commandment lies in the heart of the person performing it, not the intrinsic material value of the commandment itself. The author of that Mishnah reminds us that the donor does not know by what yardstick the recipient (G’d) will judge his gift (mitzvah performance), therefore he should not lightly dismiss performing a commandment, which in his eyes, seems trivial.
In this context it is worth recalling another statement in the Talmud Shabbat 63, where we are told: כל העושה מצוה אחת כמאמרה אין מבשרין לו בשורה רעה, “whoever performs one commandment in complete accordance with all its meaning will not become the recipient of bad tidings.” The author of that statement quotes as his source Kohelet 8,5 שומר מצוה לא ידע רע, “he who obeys the commandment will know no evil.” The word כמאמרה in the Talmud’s statement, is the same as לשמה, “in order to fulfill its intrinsic purpose,” i.e. to please the Creator Who decreed it. The word מצוה clearly refers to the commandment’s purpose, i.e. to conform to the will of the Creator Who legislates for us to perform His will in this manner. [At this point the author quotes a verse purportedly from Proverbs which I have been unable to find even elsewhere. Ed.] His point is that seeing that the Creator is concerned with His creatures performing His commandments because He desires it, not because the creature considers it worthwhile and an intelligent thing to do, it does not matter whether performance of that commandment involves much effort and expense or no effort and little expense, as by doing it for the right reason he has met the standards set by the lawgiver. In other words, once the donor’s intention for bringing the gift has been established beyond doubt, as long as the gift itself is not something demeaning for the recipient, the monetary value of the gift has become totally irrelevant. It follows that performance of a relatively easy to perform commandment, may bring in its wake the same reward as performance of a commandment involving far more effort and expense, as long as the intention of the person performing the commandment had been to provide his Creator with pleasure. This is why the author of the Mishnah in Avot exhorts us to treat performance of a מצוה קלה, “a commandment which appears trivial in our eyes,” with the same seriousness which we would automatically accord a מצוה חמורה, a commandment which is “difficult to perform.”
In this context it is worth recalling another statement in the Talmud Shabbat 63, where we are told: כל העושה מצוה אחת כמאמרה אין מבשרין לו בשורה רעה, “whoever performs one commandment in complete accordance with all its meaning will not become the recipient of bad tidings.” The author of that statement quotes as his source Kohelet 8,5 שומר מצוה לא ידע רע, “he who obeys the commandment will know no evil.” The word כמאמרה in the Talmud’s statement, is the same as לשמה, “in order to fulfill its intrinsic purpose,” i.e. to please the Creator Who decreed it. The word מצוה clearly refers to the commandment’s purpose, i.e. to conform to the will of the Creator Who legislates for us to perform His will in this manner. [At this point the author quotes a verse purportedly from Proverbs which I have been unable to find even elsewhere. Ed.] His point is that seeing that the Creator is concerned with His creatures performing His commandments because He desires it, not because the creature considers it worthwhile and an intelligent thing to do, it does not matter whether performance of that commandment involves much effort and expense or no effort and little expense, as by doing it for the right reason he has met the standards set by the lawgiver. In other words, once the donor’s intention for bringing the gift has been established beyond doubt, as long as the gift itself is not something demeaning for the recipient, the monetary value of the gift has become totally irrelevant. It follows that performance of a relatively easy to perform commandment, may bring in its wake the same reward as performance of a commandment involving far more effort and expense, as long as the intention of the person performing the commandment had been to provide his Creator with pleasure. This is why the author of the Mishnah in Avot exhorts us to treat performance of a מצוה קלה, “a commandment which appears trivial in our eyes,” with the same seriousness which we would automatically accord a מצוה חמורה, a commandment which is “difficult to perform.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 22,12. “He (the angel) said to him: ‘do not touch the lad, and do not harm him in any way;’….for now I know …and you have not withheld your only son from Me.” We need to examine why in this verse the word ממני has been added, as well as why this word is omitted when G’d speaks about the oath He has sworn to Himself in verse 16. Before answering these questions, let us look at Shabbat 63 where the Talmud states that כל העושה מצוה כמאמרה אין מבשרין לו דבר רע, “when someone performs one of G’d’s commandments in accordance with its halachot, one (heaven) does not sadden him by informing him of bad news. The Talmud bases this on Kohelet 8,5 שומר מצוה לא ידע רע, “he who will obey the commandments will know no evil.” The word כמאמרה in the Talmud poses a problem. The Talmud means that both study of Torah and performance of the commandments must be based on one’s desire to carry out G’d’s wishes. If one studies Torah to pass an exam, this is not accounted true Torah study. If one blows the shofar on New Year’s day in the synagogue, however expertly, but in order to earn the fee one has been promised, the promise that such people will be spared bad news is not applicable.
Furthermore, even having performed the mitzvah according to the halachah and exclusively in order to fulfill G’d’s wish, one must not congratulate oneself for having carried out one’s Creator’s wishes and have pleased him. If one thinks along these lines, one’s performance of the commandment will not please the Lord.
It is related in Chagigah 15 that it happened once that Rabbi Yoshua ben Chananyah (one of the leading scholars in his time) was standing on one of the steps leading up to the Temple Mount, [the Temple had already been destroyed, but the Mount had not yet been levelled by the Romans, Ed.] when he saw ben Zoma in front of him, and the latter did not rise in acknowledgment of the presence of his teacher. Rabbi Yoshua asked ben Zoma what subject he was so deeply immersed in that he had not noticed the presence of his teacher. The latter replied: “I was contemplating the significance of the difference between the “upper waters,” and the “lower waters,” (Genesis 1,7) and he had discovered that the distance between them was only three fingers’ breadth.” He claimed that the proof was founding Genesis 1,2 where the spirit of the Lord is described as hovering above the surface of the waters.” He considered the word מרחפת, used by the Torah there as describing the act of “hovering” as a reference to a pigeon hovering above its young without touching them. Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yoshua commented to his other students: “ben Zoma is still on the outside.” He meant that ben Zoma had not yet become privy to hidden aspects of the Torah. [The reader will note that ben Zoma, in spite of sayings of his being quoted in the tractate Avot, is never referred to as “Rabbi.” Ed.]
We learn from this passage that even if a person performs the commandments in a manner which affords G’d satisfaction as the worshipper had reduced himself to negating earthly concerns, this does not automatically mean that he has attained the level of awe of the Creator that would overcome him when he enters the palace of a King. He may have attained the awe that a visitor to the King’s palace experienced when entering the vestibule of the palace, but not the awe that overcomes people who enter the inner sanctum of the palace. The closer the visitor approaches the presence of the king, the more profoundly will he be impressed with the aura of glory and power surrounding his majesty. Recognition of this obligates him to prostrate himself, this act being an expression of his being aware how totally inadequate anything that he had done to honour his king really was.
Furthermore, even having performed the mitzvah according to the halachah and exclusively in order to fulfill G’d’s wish, one must not congratulate oneself for having carried out one’s Creator’s wishes and have pleased him. If one thinks along these lines, one’s performance of the commandment will not please the Lord.
It is related in Chagigah 15 that it happened once that Rabbi Yoshua ben Chananyah (one of the leading scholars in his time) was standing on one of the steps leading up to the Temple Mount, [the Temple had already been destroyed, but the Mount had not yet been levelled by the Romans, Ed.] when he saw ben Zoma in front of him, and the latter did not rise in acknowledgment of the presence of his teacher. Rabbi Yoshua asked ben Zoma what subject he was so deeply immersed in that he had not noticed the presence of his teacher. The latter replied: “I was contemplating the significance of the difference between the “upper waters,” and the “lower waters,” (Genesis 1,7) and he had discovered that the distance between them was only three fingers’ breadth.” He claimed that the proof was founding Genesis 1,2 where the spirit of the Lord is described as hovering above the surface of the waters.” He considered the word מרחפת, used by the Torah there as describing the act of “hovering” as a reference to a pigeon hovering above its young without touching them. Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yoshua commented to his other students: “ben Zoma is still on the outside.” He meant that ben Zoma had not yet become privy to hidden aspects of the Torah. [The reader will note that ben Zoma, in spite of sayings of his being quoted in the tractate Avot, is never referred to as “Rabbi.” Ed.]
We learn from this passage that even if a person performs the commandments in a manner which affords G’d satisfaction as the worshipper had reduced himself to negating earthly concerns, this does not automatically mean that he has attained the level of awe of the Creator that would overcome him when he enters the palace of a King. He may have attained the awe that a visitor to the King’s palace experienced when entering the vestibule of the palace, but not the awe that overcomes people who enter the inner sanctum of the palace. The closer the visitor approaches the presence of the king, the more profoundly will he be impressed with the aura of glory and power surrounding his majesty. Recognition of this obligates him to prostrate himself, this act being an expression of his being aware how totally inadequate anything that he had done to honour his king really was.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy