English translation — ראה ד

A.

About the mitzvah of bestowing a gift — that the master must give to the slave who goes out free from him¹

—it is stated in Sefer HaChinuch²,

that although one is obligated in this mitzvah only "at the time when the Jubilee is practiced"

(because at a time when the Jubilee is not practiced the law of a Hebrew slave does not exist),

one can nevertheless learn from it,

that also <b>in the present time</b> — "the wise will hear and increase learning, that if one hires from the children of Israel and employs him for a long time or even a short time, he should bestow a gift upon him when he goes out from him, from that with which the L-rd has blessed him."

On this the Minchas Chinuch says,

that this which one can learn from the mitzvah of bestowing a gift regarding a <b>hired worker in the present time</b>,

that by virtue of "his good morality" of the employer he must bestow a gift upon him "when he goes out from him" — is only according to the opinion³,

that the obligation of bestowing a gift exists both by a slave whom the court sold and by a slave who sells himself;

But according to the opinion&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;

that the mitzvah of granting gifts was said &lt;b&gt;only &lt;/b&gt;regarding a slave sold by the court

derives it from the verse&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;

"You shall surely grant him gifts" – "to him and not to one who sells himself" &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;],

is

nevertheless the reason for the mitzvah of granting gifts is &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;"from the aspect of morality"

("And who knows for what reason")

- because if "from the aspect of morality," then there is indeed no reason to differentiate between the two types of slave – and consequently one cannot learn from it regarding a hired worker in our time.

The Minchas Chinuch remains however with a question: the Rambam⁸

rules indeed,

that the law of granting is practiced only by one sold by the court - and according to the Chinuch it turns out that the obligation of granting is also by one who sells himself - and it is not common "that the great author

(the Chinuch)

will deviate from the opinion of the Rambam,

unless he explains explicitly".

B.

And one can answer and explain:

The lesson that hanakah applies only to "one sold by the court" and not to "one who sells himself",

can be learned in two ways:

a)

The novelty of hanakah is,

that one must grant a gift to the slave who was sold by the court

(<b>העניק תעניק לו</b>)

- and since "you have nothing in it except its novelty"⁹

then <b>automatically</b> there is no hanakah by "one who sells himself";

And according to this manner one cannot learn from the case of one sold by the court regarding a hired worker in our time.

b)

The novelty is

(Not that one sold by the court <b>receives</b> a grant,

but)

"Lo <b>velo</b>

&lt;b&gt;To one who sells himself&lt;/b&gt;”: That which a person who sells himself receives &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;any grant¹⁰.

And according to this manner it turns out,

that even according to the opinion that by one who sells himself there is &lt;b&gt;no &lt;/b&gt;grant,

one can however from the law of grant by one sold by the court learn for other cases¹¹

(that also by them there should be a certain obligation of grant)

- if only they are not in the category of one who sells himself,

which is &lt;b&gt;explicitly excluded &lt;/b&gt;from grant;

And consequently,

since the education speaks here

(which is not applicable in our time),

but]

about a hired worker — one who hired himself out as a laborer — one can learn from one sold by the court,

that from the aspect of ethics one should give him a grant "when he goes out from him."

3.

And one can say,

that the two modes in the aforementioned study depend on the two modes of reasoning that one can say in the matter of the grant¹²

a)

It is a category of wage payment,

as

It is implied from the Gemara¹³

"The Torah calls him a hired worker: just as a hired worker's wages go to his heirs, so too his wages go to his heirs" - and according to this manner it is plausible,

that the novelty and decree of the verse is that which the slave sold by the court <b>receives</b> a grant - because the giver gives it as <b>wage payment</b>

(<b>in addition</b> to that which one pays the entire wage for his <b>entire</b> work)

is a novelty.

b)

It is a category of <b>charity</b>¹⁴,

which the master gives as recognition for the work of the servant — and according to this manner, logic obligates,

that the novelty and decree of the verse is that one who sells himself receives <b>not</b> any grant; because that which by those sold by court requires a grant is a matter with reason,

as above.

What is the opinion of the Rambam in this?

One can learn it out from that which in Sefer HaMitzvos¹⁵

the Rambam places the commandment of grant

(not among the commandments of a Hebrew servant and maidservant¹⁶,

but)

immediately after the commandment of charity¹⁷

; from this adjacency to the commandment of charity¹⁸

it is implied,

that according to the opinion of the Rambam, grant is in the category of

And based on this, one must not say that the education is "deviating from the opinion of the Rambam".

Even according to the Rambam's view that the Torah excludes a seller of himself from [the law of] granting,

one can learn from one sold by the court²⁰,

that from the aspect of ethics

Charity¹⁹.

(- charity)

one should also give a hired worker in our times a grant "when he goes out from you".

4.

Since the above teaching of chinuch can come out according to all opinions,

also according to those who hold that by a seller himself there is no endowment — it is worthwhile to awaken and publicize,

that one should pay attention to this teaching:

When one hires another to work for him and the time of his work ends,

and all the more so when one sends him away from the work before the time ends

(If he goes away from himself alone before the time,

the mitzvah of granting a gift is absent,

as the law

(regarding a slave)

that a "fugitive who goes out with a reduction of money, we do not grant him a gift"&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

- but if the employer sends him away -)

Whether because now he has enough workers without him,

or even because he is not satisfied with his work - he must give him a gift;

And since a bonus has the category of &lt;b&gt;charity&lt;/b&gt;,

it is understood,

that one cannot fulfill [the obligation] by giving something that one is already obligated in it.

The wages that are due to him for his work are obviously that one must pay him in full; even the "additions" that the employer had previously agreed to give the worker - also do not enter into a bonus,

since these "additions" are not a matter of &lt;b&gt;charity&lt;/b&gt;.

And in this there is also no difference how long he worked for him,

and in the language of the Chinuch: "a long time or &lt;b&gt;even a short time&lt;/b&gt;"; there is also no difference

(as above)

whether he was satisfied with him - both "the house was blessed on his account" and "&lt;b&gt;the house was not &lt;/b&gt;blessed on his account" he must give a bonus&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

according to the measure of the time that he worked&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;,

And all the more so, there is no case when "the house is blessed because of him,"

so then²⁴

is indeed the law²²

"according to the blessing give to him,"

one must increase in his endowment²⁵

"from what²⁶

<b>He blessed </b>Him."

5.

The concept of endowment exists - like every concept in Torah - also in spiritual service:

The father explains in his notes²⁷

on Tractate Kiddushin,

that by a Hebrew slave there is only mochin d'katnut,

and therefore,

when he goes out free from his slavery,

one must give him "hanka" - mochin d'gadlut

The concept of "master" and "slave" in spirituality means

a master and student; as Rabbi Yochanan said²⁹,

that whoever will to him

(teach how to)

answer a certain matter in Torah

(which was difficult for him)

- "muvilna manei abatrei le'bei mesuta",

which is similar to the work that a slave does for his master.

the Rebbe must know,

that he must give the student "enrichment".

That is: he may not content himself with giving him "mochin d'katnut",

rather he must teach with him in a manner,

that when the student "grows up"

(and "goes away" from him)

he has

(also)

(also)

the "mochin <b>d'gadlut</b>" of the Rebbe.

In simple words it means:

A rav is obligated to give a student to understand also the "depth of the halacha in its reason well",

even when this requires that he review with him the halacha "several times" until he will understand it³⁰

- this is the depth which is in the category of intellectual comprehension

The student

but for now he has not yet comprehended it;

But the matters that are <b>higher</b> than the category of the intellect of the student — such ones that by the Rebbe himself are in the aspect of "expanded intellect" — he is not obligated to give to the student.

Comes the commandment of endowment and adds,

that this is from the side of the <b>obligation</b> of a teacher to a student.

As "charity" however — "endowment" — a teacher must devote himself and toil with the student,

until that finally the student will "take" the depth of the intellect of the <b>teacher</b>³¹

— if only it is a matter that exists by the teacher,

it must finally reach the student.

6.

The same thing is regarding the tone in bringing those who are still "small ones" and students in Judaism to Torah and mitzvos:

One might think,

that since that one is still a "beginner",

it is enough when one applies oneself to learn with him that to which he is <b>now</b> relevant -

The Torah says,

that since he is your student — even if he learned from you only “one letter” — you are called “his rabbi, his teacher, and his acquaintance”³²

— you must give him “granting”; one must act with him in a manner that ultimately he will reach <b>your </b>level in Judaism.

And through the service of Jews

(<b>My servants </b>of the Lord)

in the “six years he shall serve”³³

— in the six thousand years that the world exists — one will very soon merit the “and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing”³³,

What then will the Almighty give not only the reward which is <b>proportionate</b> to the service in this time,

but also "granting" - the most sublime revelations which

come only in the manner of <b>charity</b>

(because they are entirely disproportionate to the service)³⁴,

In the seventh millennium,

a day that is entirely Shabbat and rest for the life of the worlds.

(From the sicha of Shabbat Parshat Re'eh 5737)