English translation — תצא א

A.

At the conclusion of tractate Chullin¹

The Gemara says: "It was taught in the school of Rabbi Yakov: 'There is no single mitzvah in the Torah whose reward is stated alongside it that the resurrection of the dead is not dependent on it,

Regarding honoring father and mother it is written²

In order that your days be lengthened and in order that it be good for you,

Regarding sending away the mother bird it is written³

In order that it be good for you and you lengthen days,

Behold, if his father said to him: 'Go up to the attic and bring me young birds,' and he went up and sent away the mother and took the young, and on his return he fell and died — where is the length of days of this one and where is the goodness of this one?

Rather, 'In order that your days be lengthened' in a world that is entirely long, and 'in order that it be good for you' in a world that is entirely good.

And perhaps⁴

It was not so; Rabbi Yakov saw an actual incident, etc.

Rather, reward of mitzvot in this world does not exist."

Learning it simply, it emerges,

That Rabbi Yakov disagrees with the anonymous Mishnah there,

Which says: "If regarding a light mitzvah which is like an issar the Torah said 'In order that it be good for you and you lengthen days,' then all the more so regarding weighty mitzvot in the Torah" — which simply means the Mishnah's "it be good for you and you lengthen days" is length of days in this world⁵.

And so I also [explained] explicitly in the plain Mishnah at the beginning of Peah: "These are the things that a person eats their fruits <b>in this world</b> and the principal remains for him in the World to Come: honoring father and mother, and acts of kindness, and bringing peace between a person and his fellow, etc."

On the other hand, we find however,

that the Rambam<sup>6</sup>

rules: "The hidden good for the righteous is the life of the World to Come, and it is the life that has no death with it, and the good that has no evil with it.

It is that which is written in the Torah: 'that it may be well with you and you may prolong your days.'

From the oral tradition they learned: 'that it may be well with you' — for a world that is entirely good, and 'you may prolong your days' — for a world that is entirely long"; and as he also says in that chapter after this<sup>7</sup>

"That the reward of the commandments and the good that we will merit if we keep the way of the Lord written in the Torah is the life of the World to Come, as it is said: 'that it may be well with you and you may prolong your days'" — which is the opinion of Rabbi Yakov<sup>8</sup>.

One must understand: Why does the Rambam rule like Rabbi Yakov and not like the aforementioned plain Mishnah in Chullin and Peah<sup>9</sup>?

2.

Further: the Rambam continues¹⁰

"Since we know that the reward of the commandments etc. is the life of the World to Come etc., what is this that is written in the entire Torah, 'If you listen, such-and-such will come to you, and if you do not listen, such-and-such will happen to you,' and all those matters in this world,

such as plenty and famine, war and peace, kingship and lowliness, settlement of the land and exile, success of one's deeds and their loss, and all other matters of the covenant.

All those matters are true and will be, and at the time when we perform all the commandments of the Torah, all the good things of this world will come to us,

and at the time when we transgress them, the evils that are written will befall us,

and even so, those good things are not the ultimate reward of the commandments, nor are those evils the ultimate vengeance taken upon one who transgresses all the commandments,

but rather this is the explanation of all matters.

The Holy One, blessed be He, gave us this Torah; it is a tree of life, and whoever does all that is written in it and knows it with complete and correct knowledge merits through it the life of the World to Come.

And according to the greatness of his deeds and the abundance of his wisdom, he merits.

And He promised us in the Torah that if we do it with joy and with a good spirit and constantly meditate on its wisdom, He will remove from us all the things that prevent us from doing it, such as illness, war, famine, and the like,

and He will bestow upon us all the good things that strengthen our hands to do the Torah, such as plenty, peace, and abundance of silver and gold,

so that we will not spend all our days on things the body needs, but rather we will sit free to study wisdom and perform the commandment, in order that we may merit the life of the World to Come."

Now, since one must anyway learn that all these promises in the Torah speak about reward in this world—why should he not also learn it this way?

The promise of "in order that it may be well with you and you may prolong your days"?

The Maharsha¹¹

says "and let it not be difficult for you from all the promises that are in the Torah, for one must explain them only in this world, that if you listen, all the blessings and good things will come upon you and they will dwell on their land, and conversely if you do not listen, all the curses will come and you will be lost from the land,

one can say according to Rabbi Yehuda that he admits that the merit of the many and their good deeds bring them all the blessings and good things that are mentioned in the Torah also in this world etc., but Rabbi Yehuda did not say so except regarding an individual etc.".

In the Rambam, however, one does not find

that he distinguishes between many and an individual.

Also one must understand: why does the Rambam bring¹²

(only)

the verse "lema'an yitav lecha veha'arachte yamim" which is stated by shilu'ach haken,

and does not bring

(also)

the verse "lema'an ya'arichun yamecha ulema'an yitav lecha" which is stated <b>earlier </b>in the Torah,

by kibbud av va'em — not like the baraitha

(Rabbi Yaakov),

which brings both verses¹³?

3.

Will one understand this with the introduction of the question¹⁴

: Why does R. Y. need to bring a proof,

that "there is no reward for commandments in this world" both regarding the commandment of honoring father and mother and regarding the sending away of the nest,

and it is not enough to say this regarding one of them?

And

Although that "R. Yaakov saw an incident",

What happened when one fulfilled <b>both</b> commandments - one can also in this very thing ask: Why is it necessary to emphasize in the incident,

that this occurred when he fulfilled <b>both</b> commandments?

If there would have been mentioned here only the fulfillment of the commandment of sending away the nest alone¹⁵

would there also have been a proof that "there is no reward for commandments in this world"¹⁶.

On the other hand,

even after the proof from the action seen in the fulfillment of both commandments,

one can ask: from where is the proof that "reward of a commandment in this world does not exist" - it could be that the son did not have any intention to fulfill the commandments and therefore the reward was not present there?

And even according to the opinions of the halachic authorities¹⁷

that "commandments do not require intention,"

the explanation of this is,

that in the fulfillment of the commandments there does not need to be any intention for the sake of the commandment; but if he has an opposite intention - he intends not to fulfill the commandment with his

Action,

he is then not yotze¹⁸

the obligation of the mitzvah¹⁹,

today, since it can indeed be that in this particular case the son had an opposite intention — not to fulfill the mitzvah of honoring father and mother and the mitzvah of sending away the mother bird — then the proof from the action is nullified.

4.

In the last mishnah of tractate Chullin it is stated: "A person should not take the mother with the children even to purify a leper.

And if regarding a light commandment which is worth an issar, the Torah said 'that it may be well with you and you may prolong your days,' how much more so regarding the weighty commandments of the Torah."

It is known the question²⁰

in this: what is the connection between the two cases in the Mishnah,

these are indeed two separate things: a law about sending away the mother bird,

a notification about the greatness of the reward of the commandments.

One cannot say that the Mishnah brings this only in order to conclude with a good thing

(and not with the words "to purify the <b>leper</b>")²¹,

because if due to this,

it does not need to stand specifically in the same Mishnah²²,

and moreover with a "vav" that adds "<b>and</b> what"²³.

Also one must understand: according to the Mishnah that one learns a kal vachomer from the mitzvah of shiluach haken to the other mitzvos - why

it is stated explicitly "lema'an ya'arichun yamecha" by honoring father and mother

(which is from the severe mitzvos²⁴

in the Torah)²⁵?

5.

And one can explain all this: The law "A person should not take the mother bird with the young, even to purify a leper" is derived by the Gemara²⁶

from the superfluous wording of "

(send)

you shall send" — "I have only for a matter of permission; for a matter of a mitzvah, from where?

The verse states 'you shall send' in any case."

And the Gemara explains that this speaks "when he took it with the intent to send it away, where there is no positive commandment, but there is a positive commandment" — "It might enter your mind: Since the Master said, 'Great is peace, etc.,' and this leper, as long as he is not purified, is forbidden in marital relations, etc., what would you say? Since he is forbidden in marital relations, let the positive commandment of his come and override the positive commandment of sending away the nest. It teaches us [that it does not]."

But although this is derived from a verse,

there is no necessity to say that this is from the minority of commandments,

which are a statute and a decree of the verse,

but that there is a reason for this²⁷

The Mishnah says²⁸

: "One who says, 'On the bird's nest Your mercies reach,' etc., they silence him."

From this itself it is understandable²⁹,

that sending away the mother bird is a thing that is demanded from the aspect of mercy and intellect,

but one may not say that in this consists the

(<b>entire</b> and)

essential reason of the commandment

(as the Gemara says "because He makes His attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, mercies, and they are only decrees")³⁰

; and as one finds in several books³¹,

several reasons of sending away the mother bird that are connected with mercy³².

And since that to purify the leper is also a commandment that is connected with mercy - upon the person

("Great is peace between a man and his wife, for the Torah said that the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, written in holiness, shall be blotted out on the water, and this leper...

is forbidden in marital relations etc.'"),

is when the two commandments come together,

it is indeed according to the law of mercy upon a person - it pushes aside mercy upon an animal - also in a fortiori and a fortiori from the laws of animal suffering³³

that when there is "benefit for a person" is "one does not concern oneself with their suffering"*³³,

"And it goes without saying that one does not concern oneself with animal suffering because of the honor of a person, such as when he is a scholar or

elder"³⁴

(and especially after that he will later fulfill also the commandment of sending away the mother bird*³⁴).

And this is learned from the verse,

that one must <b>immediately</b> fulfill the commandment of sending away the mother bird,

and the reason can be said in the manner of the Gemara³⁵

says regarding the commandment "you shall surely help him lift it up" — "One who loves to unload and hates to load,

the commandment is with the enemy — in order to subdue his inclination"³⁶

; and <b>similarly</b>

(and especially according to the view of El*³⁶

— that even when it is his enemy whom it is a commandment to hate — he precedes him)

in our case,

"in order to subdue his inclination" — i.e.,

i.e.,

his attribute of mercy,

he must immediately fulfill the commandment of sending away the mother bird³⁷.

In any case, from this it is proven,

that sending away the mother bird is a commandment which also the intellect

(and feeling)

of man obligate it³⁸,

and accordingly the a fortiori argument is understood: "And if regarding a light commandment which is like an issar

(and especially since there are commandments that cost even less⁴⁰

or — cost nothing),

but also because the intellect of man assists in it⁴¹],

the Torah said 'in order that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days,'

how much more so regarding the severe commandments of the Torah",

and especially those in which there is no intellectual reason and human feeling that would obligate fulfilling the commandment,

it is certainly that for them He gives the reward of "that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days".

6.

On the other hand,

from the conclusion of the law "he shall not take [the mother] etc. to cleanse the leper" it is forced,

that the commandment of sending away the nest is not in the manner of a commandment between a person and his fellow

(but instead of the benefit of his fellow there is the benefit

of "the mother" — therefore it is not exactly such a commandment),

because regarding a commandment between a person and his fellow the intention is not relevant,

but the actual deed — i.e.

the

the benefit that his fellow receives in actuality is what matters;

and consequently, when sending away the nest would be a commandment only for the benefit of "the mother",

then in the case of "to cleanse the leper" the [commandment] between a person and his fellow of cleansing the leper would prevail,

because bringing peace between a man and his wife overrides

the benefit of the mother of a bird.

Based on this it is understood,

that with the juxtaposition of the kal vachomer "And what if a light commandment etc. the Torah said 'in order that it be good for you and you will lengthen days'" to the law "He shall not take etc. to purify etc." the Mishnah explains,

that the "in order that it be good for you and you will lengthen days" that is spoken of here is not the same reward as "a person eats their fruits in this world and the principal remains for him in the World to Come"

(in tractate Peah)

-which this is specifically by commandments between a person and his fellow - since that his fellow has

from this a benefit in this world,

he also receives his reward of their fruits in this world⁴⁷

By shiluach haken however

(since that the inyan of the mitzvah is

(mainly)

not the good through the action,

but the essence of the action

(as understood from the law "lo yitol adam em al banim afilu l'taher etc.'),

it is therefore)

a mitzvah bein adam lamakom,

is the "l'maan yitav lecha v'ha'arachta yamim" for Olam Haba*⁴⁷.

Therefore has here no relevance the "l'maan ya'arichun yamecha u'l'maan yitav lecha" that stands by kibud av v'eim,

since that kibud av v'eim is from the mitzvos bein adam l'chaveiro that a person eats their fruits in Olam Hazeh⁴⁸.

7.

In connection with this, the Gemara continues: "It was taught in the school of Rabbi Yaakov, saying, etc." where it brings the proof that there is no reward for a mitzvah in this world from "he fell and died,"

which happened not only in the fulfillment of the mitzvah of sending away the mother bird,

but also in the fulfillment of the mitzvah of honoring father and mother,

and on the contrary: <b>specifically</b> from honoring father and mother,

since it is a mitzvah between a person and his fellow,

the proof is that "there is no reward for a mitzvah in this world":

By the mitzvah of sending away the mother bird,

since this is a mitzvah between a person and the Omnipresent and its main subject is the very <b>action</b> of the mitzvah,

therefore an opposite intention

(the intention

&lt;b&gt;Not &lt;/b&gt;to fulfill the commandment)

Causes,

That this should not be called a fulfillment of the commandment - and consequently it is from "and it falls and dies" by sending away the nest

(Itself)

Not a proof,

Because one can learn,

That this is because he did it with an opposite intention⁴⁹.

By honoring father and mother however,

Since this is a commandment between man and his fellow⁵⁰

In which is relevant

(Primarily)

The benefit of the action,

That the father should receive the fledglings,

In this is not relevant⁵¹

The intention⁵².

And as we find

(In the books on our portion⁵³)

Regarding the commandment of charity: "From where [do we know] that one who loses a sela from his hand and a poor person finds it and goes and sustains himself with it, Scripture credits him as if he merited? It is said, etc. And these are a fortiori: If one who did not intend to merit, Scripture credits him as if he merited, then one who intended to merit, all the more so."

When a person loses a sela,

it is not only that there is no intention involved in its being lost

(fulfilling the commandment of charity),

but he has &lt;b&gt;distress&lt;/b&gt; over losing the sela; and nevertheless he fulfills the commandment of charity,

since the intent in &lt;b&gt;the&lt;/b&gt; commandment is&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;,

that the poor man should receive it&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;.

Similarly regarding the commandment of honoring father and mother: since the father wanted to have the young doves,

it does not matter what the son’s intention was,

as long as he brings him the young doves.

And based on this it is understood,

that specifically from "he fell and died" in the fulfillment of honoring father and mother is the main proof that "there is no reward for a mitzvah in this world",

since that it remains a mitzvah even with an opposite intention,

as mentioned above⁵⁶,

and therefore

one must say,

that not only regarding mitzvot between man and God,

but also regarding the mitzvot between man and his fellow is "that your days may be prolonged in the world that is entirely long".

8.

Based on this, one can say that the Rambam rules like the mishnah in tractate Chullin and the anonymous mishnah in tractate Pe'ah,

that only regarding specific mitzvos — namely, regarding mitzvos between a person and his fellow — is it that "a person eats their fruits in this world"⁵⁷,

but regarding the other mitzvos it is "that it may be well with you in the world that is entirely good and that your days may be prolonged in the world that is entirely long"⁵⁸.

And therefore the Rambam does not bring the verse "that your days may be prolonged and that it may be well with you" which is stated regarding honoring father and mother,

because regarding mitzvos between a person and his fellow, the Rambam also holds that "their fruits are in this world"⁵⁹.

And this is not a contradiction to what he says that "the reward of the mitzvos and the good that we will merit if we have kept the way of Hashem written in the Torah is the life of the World to Come",

because the essence

(and main point)

of the reward is for the World to Come

(<b>the principal </b>exists for the World to Come),

and consequently it is also consistent with the opinion of the Rambam and the Mishnah the language "there is no <b>reward of a mitzvah </b>in this world"⁶⁰

; the dispute is only regarding "<b>their fruits</b>",

which comes as fruits of the essence of the reward - from "so that your days may be lengthened"

and "so that it may be well with you" in the World to Come: according to the opinion of the Mishnah and the Rambam, this exists by mitzvos between a person and his fellow which the Mishnah enumerates in tractate Peah,

in the language of Chassidus⁶¹

"And this is what our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said: <b>There is no reward for a mitzvah in this world</b>, because in this physical world, which is limited, etc., it is impossible for any illumination from the light of the Ein Sof, blessed be He, etc., to be clothed in the act of charity and acts of lovingkindness, [for] that which a person eats their fruits in this world, there are openings, as a metaphor, in the upper garment, etc., to shine from them to bestow light and bounty from the kindness of the right arm, length of days in this physical world, etc."⁶²]

And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzchak, also regarding <b>the</b> mitzvos there is no "their fruits in this world"⁶³.

9.

All this is said regarding <b>reward</b> of commandments — a reward

(an extraneous matter)

that comes <b>for</b> the fulfillment of the commandments.

But the promises in the Torah which are in this world,

are not a matter

(and reward)

extraneous,

rather they are connected with the essence of the command of fulfillment of the Torah and the commandments.

For example, when one acquires a slave,

that he should serve him,

the master must give the slave all his needs,

<b>so that</b> he should be able to carry out the work that lies upon him⁶⁴.

Similarly, when the slave wants to add,

serve the master even better — the master also adds,

he gives him more and more,

so that he should be able to carry out the addition in his work.

And all this is not any reward because of

(and after of)

his work,

but it is a kind of preparation and readiness before his service.

And so too regarding Jews,

since that "the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us this Torah; it is a tree of life etc.',"

then consequently "He promised us in the Torah that if we do it with joy and with good spirit and meditate in its wisdom always, that He will remove from us all the things that prevent us from doing it, such as illness and war and famine etc., and will bestow upon us all the good things etc., we will sit free to learn in wisdom and to do*⁶⁴

the commandment" and so too the opposite.

It is not a side matter,

but a necessity,

as it were - from the aspect of the command regarding the fulfillment of the Torah and the commandments -

And this is indeed &lt;b&gt;equal &lt;/b&gt;for all commandments - for go after the reason.

And in this also consists the difference <b>in practice</b> between the reward of the commandments and the physical promises: The physical promises that help a Jew fulfill Torah and commandments are - as the Rambam says - "such as satiety etc. and peace and kingdom etc. and settlement of the land etc. and success of endeavor etc.",

i.e., matters that are necessary

(or their opposite)

which are "strengthening our hands <b>to do</b> the Torah";

But the reward of the commandments is in a manner of beyond measure: That which the Most High gives additional matters,

much more than the necessities that one needs to have.

Yud.

Based on this it is also understood,

that the incident "he fell and died",

which R. Y. saw,

is not a contradiction to the physical promises in the Torah:

The physical promises in the Torah are given to a Jew at the time that he lives and there lies upon him an obligation to learn Torah and fulfill commandments,

so that then the Almighty, as it were, must give him all the promises so that he should be free "to learn wisdom and to do the commandment".

When the "number of your days" that was determined above for him to fulfill Torah and mitzvos ends,

then from the side of the material promises there is no necessity that he should live longer - have length of days.

And therefore "he fell and died" is no contradiction to the promises in the Torah,

because the time of his service has ended⁶⁵.

From the fact that "and he fell and died" is however a proof that &lt;b&gt;reward &lt;/b&gt;

(matter of the side that comes through the hei)

commandment

(even from their fruits)

is not in this world,

and consequently one learns from this that "reward of a commandment in this world does not exist" - according to Rabbi Yehuda regarding all commandments,

and according to the Rambam&lt;sup&gt;66&lt;/sup&gt;

regarding the commandments between man and the Omnipresent,

as above.

Yes.

And it can be said in the way of a hint: The tractate Chullin is in the order of Kodashim,

and as discussed several times regarding the lesson in this,

that also the "chullin" of a Jew are "kodashim"

(relative to the entire world).

And the manner and way how this comes out in the open is hinted at in the beginning and end of the tractate:

The tractate begins with "All slaughter" - slaughter

(And in several places⁶⁷

the entire tractate is called "Slaughter of Chullin"),

whose subject is,

as the Gemara⁶⁸

says "There is no 'and he slaughtered' but 'and he drew'" - and this gives the explanation in the inner aspect of the matters on the permission of slaughter:

It is indeed a question how one may slaughter an animal etc.,

One is indeed causing pain&lt;sup&gt;69&lt;/sup&gt;

a living creature that is forbidden,

and according to several opinions&lt;sup&gt;70&lt;/sup&gt;

is causing pain to living creatures a prohibition from the Torah?

Since however that the matter of slaughter&lt;sup&gt;71&lt;/sup&gt;

is "and he drew"*&lt;sup&gt;71&lt;/sup&gt;,

that one draws it from one domain into a second domain,

to a higher level than it was before,

therefore one may do this.

The "and draws" consists in this,

that the animal etc. are on the level of <b>animal</b>,

and through the slaughter they become fit to become blood and flesh like his flesh of the man⁷²

-a part of

(the level of)

<b>speaker</b>⁷³.

But this alone is still not sufficient,

for slaughter is only by Jews - it is not enough that the animal becomes a part of a speaker in general,

rather it must become a part of <b>man</b> - see there - <b>earth to the upper one</b>⁷⁴.

And this is explained at the end of the tractate: through the fact that a Jew fulfills commandments and from the command of the Holy One, blessed be He,

he subdues his evil inclination,

then he effects the "and he slaughtered — and he drew" also on his evil inclination and his &lt;b&gt;animal&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;75&lt;/sup&gt; soul,

that also the profane that is in him

(approximately the level of

children of Israel)

becomes prepared and elevated into holiness — he becomes transformed to be a part of the &lt;b&gt;G‑dly&lt;/b&gt; soul,

which is why "you are called Adam" referring to "Adamah" for the Supernal One.

And through this also the profane of the totality of the world,

life of the world,

is elevated into the holiness of the divine soul of a Jew.

Corresponding to this is the conclusion of the tractate,

that the ultimate purpose expresses itself in "in order that it be good for you in the world that is entirely good and in order that your days be lengthened in the world that is entirely long",

that then a Jew becomes connected openly with the Above,

until that also his body and animal soul become included in holiness and are nourished from G‑dliness⁷⁶.

12.

Since "and Your people <b>all of them </b>are righteous"⁷⁷,

and all Israel are full of commandments⁷⁸,

And especially in the month of Elul that every Jew engages in the service of the month of Elul in all three lines,

as is hinted in the acronym of the month of Elul:

"I will place you"

which in particular

(although in general it applies to

the time of Elul in general,

which then is the time of repentance etc.

this applies to Torah,

"words of Torah that are absorbing"

Elul acronym

"I am my Beloved's and my Beloved is mine",

which is the service of prayer.

Elul is an acronym

"A man to his fellow and gifts to the poor",

the thread of acts of kindness -

Then the Almighty fulfills His promise and gives every Jew, in addition to all the physical rewards, "abundance of peace and abundance of silver and gold," in order that they should be free "to study wisdom and to perform the commandment,"

Also &lt;b&gt;the reward &lt;/b&gt;of a commandment,

that the principal exists for the World to Come,

but "one eats their fruits in this world"

(for among the commandments there is also Torah study and acts of kindness, of which one eats their fruits in this world&lt;sup&gt;85&lt;/sup&gt;)

- length of days and good years literally in this world,

And every Jew and all Jews should have a writing and sealing for a good year and a sweet year in the revealed and manifest good below ten handbreadths.

28 Menachem Av,

5736)