English translation — שמיני ב

A.

The last tractate of the six orders of the Mishnah¹

— tractate Okatzin²

speaks about the detailed laws of impurity of foods and impurity of liquids

(which are in our parshah³),

and the last halachah⁴

of the tractate is: Cakes of honey, from when are they susceptible to impurity as a liquid?

Beis Shammai say: from when he thinks⁵

: from when he stirs]

Beis Hillel say: from when he crushes.

Beis Shammai hold that as soon as the person thinks in his thought⁷

"to extract the honey" it receives the status of a liquid and it becomes impure with impurity of liquids; unlike according to Beis Hillel, it becomes impure as a liquid only "from when he crushes" when then it becomes a liquid in actuality⁸.

Further,

in the mishnah after this

(the last mishnah of the six orders of the Mishnah)⁹

it says: Said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will bequeath to each and every righteous person three hundred and ten worlds, as it is said¹⁰

To bequeath to those who love Me substance, and I will fill their treasuries.

Said Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta: The Holy One, blessed be He, found no vessel that holds blessing for Israel except peace, as it is said¹¹

The Lord will give strength to His people; the Lord will bless His people with peace.

One must understand: What is the connection of the last mishnah — the statements of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta — to the mishnah before this

(the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel regarding the status of honey as a liquid)?

The Rambam¹²

(and other commentators¹³)

explain: "Since he completed all the laws of the halacha ..

he concluded the words with reward" — i.e.

i.e.

The mishna indeed has no thematic continuation to the preceding mishna,

rather this is a conclusion to the entire six orders of the Mishna¹⁴,

in order "to announce at the conclusion of the Mishna the reward of the righteous who learn and fulfill everything written in the Mishna"¹⁵.

According, however, to what one finds in the Gemara in many places¹⁶

that one explains the reason for the juxtaposition of mishnas even when they stand

(one after the other)

in separate tractates,

and all the more so two mishnas from the same chapter¹⁷

— ostensibly there is room to seek and explain also the connection of these two mishnas —

(even though the reason of the Rambam stands in its strength — at any rate to sweeten etc.).

And it can be said that the content of the mishnah adjacent to the conclusion of the mishnayos

(regarding the reward of the commandments),

the dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding the status of honey,

has a connection to the matter of reward of a commandment that is discussed at the conclusion of the mishnayos¹⁸.

B.

And with the introduction of the explanation in the words of the aforementioned commentators — that the conclusion of the six orders of the Mishnah in the aforementioned discourses is in order to inform about the matter of the reward of the righteous — it is seemingly not understood:

Here it is speaking, after all, about tzaddikim and how they are already holding at the "conclusion" of the six orders of the Mishnah — perfection in Torah study — the entirety of the Oral Torah — and how a tzaddik learns it — it is, after all, ostensibly simple and understood,

that they are already certainly holding at the manner of service according to the command of the Mishnah in the order of Nezikin — "serving the master not for the sake of receiving reward"¹⁹,

not for the sake of reward,

but for its own sake;

Moreover: the verse,

which is brought in the Mishnah itself,

says: "To bequeath to those who <b>love</b> Me" — those who serve the Almighty <b>out of love</b>,

which means

(as the Rambam explains at length²⁰)

that they do their service <b>for its own sake</b>,

not for the sake of reward but "doing the truth because it is truth"²¹,

(Indeed, truly, that he who is "does the truth because it is truth" is assured

(as the Rambam says there&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;)

that "ultimately the good will come because of it",

but not &lt;b&gt;that&lt;/b&gt; is the perfection towards which he strives to reach with his service; by a servant of G-d out of love, the matter of "ultimately the good will come because of it" is only a secondary and incidental thing,

and the &lt;b&gt;main thing&lt;/b&gt; for him is that he merited to serve the Most High &lt;b&gt;for its own sake&lt;/b&gt;)

And since the main point and purpose in the service of Torah and mitzvos is for its own sake and not to receive reward — how is it fitting,

that at the conclusion of all six orders of the Mishnah,

which means in a state of ultimate and sublime perfection in the service of G-d etc.,

the &lt;b&gt;conclusion&lt;/b&gt; should be

(not that "his soul is bound in love of G-d etc."&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

but)

that he will have 318 worlds etc. — as reward and recompense for the service of Torah and mitzvos&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;?

One must say,

that the matter of "to bequeath etc. 310 worlds" which is discussed in the Mishnah here,

is not a matter of reward of commandments in its ordinary sense²⁴

— a <b>payment</b> of worlds for service to God,

rather this is a higher perfection <b>in service</b>,

an <b>ascent</b> to which the servant out of love attains through <b>his service</b>²⁵.

3.

And this is the point of connection between this Mishnah and the preceding Mishnah — the dispute of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel regarding honey cakes:

from the reasons

(in the manner of a hint)

that the last halachos

(in the Mishnah)

— the sealing of the Mishnah,

that everything follows the conclusion²⁶

— are concerning "bees" and "honey",

is because "bees" are <b>as explained by Chazal</b>²⁷

alludes to the perfection of the service,

service <b>for its own sake</b>

(as below section 7),

that the service is a preparation and introduction to "in the future the Holy One, blessed be He, will bequeath to every righteous person etc." — the perfection which one attains through service like the work of bees;

and the rationales in the <b>dispute of</b> Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel in this dispute

(regarding honeycombs)

— which is

(as discussed several times²⁸)

connected with the general difference between their methods,

whether “we follow the potential” or “we follow the actual”: Beit Shammai holds that “we follow the potential” and therefore it receives the status of a liquid immediately

(“when he stirs it”,

or even)

“when he intends to stir it”

(because in potential it is already a liquid,

even though it is still far from being an actual liquid)

; and Beit Hillel holds “we follow the actual” and therefore it does not have the status of a liquid until it becomes a liquid actually “when he stirs it” —

bring out a practical difference in the general matter of the purpose of the creation of man on earth that “I was created to serve my Maker”²⁹

(as below section 8 and onward),

and consequently

(also)

— a practical difference regarding the perfection of man through his service.

And consequently specifically after the dispute of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel mentioned above the conclusion of the Mishnah “The Holy One, blessed be He, will bequeath etc.” is better understood.

4.

Language of the Mishnah which is concise language³⁰

And with utmost precision: "In the future the Holy One, blessed be He, <b>will bequeath </b>etc. 310 worlds" — is seemingly,

How does "bequeath" fit here,

A matter of inheritance³¹?

— Inheritance is <b>not </b>connected with the <b>service </b>of the heir

(Unless he <b>was born</b>³²

In proximity of an heir,

He is <b>automatically </b>an heir)

— So when it speaks about the giving of the <b>reward </b>of the righteous,

It should have said "In the future the Holy One, blessed be He, will give"

(Or the like)?

The difficulty is even greater: The same teaching is brought in tractate Sanhedrin³³,

And there it indeed says "In the future the Holy One, blessed be He, <b>will give </b>to each and every righteous person 310 worlds"!

And it can be said the explanation that — this is the proof

: The maamar in tractate Sanhedrin which was said by the amora Rava bar Mari indeed speaks about the reward of the commandments,

and therefore he says "The Holy One, blessed be He, will give";

But in the Mishnah — which comes as the conclusion and seal of the Mishnahs — it does not speak about the reward of the commandments

(in simple terms),

(as above)

about the perfection to which the righteous person attains through his service out of love.

And therefore Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

is precise "The Holy One, blessed be He, will bequeath" — because this perfection is in the manner and category of inheritance.

H.

Regarding inheritance,

is known what the Rogatchover³⁶

explains,

that an heir is not a <b>second </b>entity that receives assets from the testator,

but

but rather

(in the language of the verse³⁷)

"Instead of your fathers shall be your sons" — the heir stands <b>in the place of the testator</b>,

an heir is one thing with the testator

("the essence of the father" in his language).

And so too regarding a Jew: the perfection that is achieved by a Jew learning Torah and fulfilling commandments is that Israel, Torah, and the Holy One, blessed be He, are all one

("The three ..

are connected one with another: the Holy One, blessed be He, Torah, and Israel"³⁸,

become all one)

And so too³⁹

through fulfillment of the commandments, the language of joining <b>and connection </b>— a Jew becomes, as it were, one thing with the Giver of the Torah and Commander of the commandments,

the Most High Himself.

And this is the explanation of "to bequeath to those who love Me, 'yesh'": the Rambam

explains that the term "yesh" indicates "the continuous existence which has no end",

and "to bequeath to those who love Me, 'yesh'" means: "to those who love Me I will bequeath the absolute 'yesh'",

because "every soul that merits the life of the World to Come will never cease to exist".

How can a created being,

a limited one,

"take" an "absolute yesh",

a "continuous existence" — a matter of eternity and the unlimited?

Thus the verse explains and emphasizes "to bequeath to those who love Me, 'yesh'": Jews receive it not as a recipient from a giver,

a second existence which takes it from the "giver",

but rather Jews are the inheritors as an heir who is one thing with the testator: Jews are "children" to the Holy One, blessed be He,

— and therefore,

when a Jew studies Torah and fulfills commandments, it is revealed how he is one existence with the true "absolute yesh"

("continuous existence"),

"Me you are taking".

6.

From this it is understandable regarding the <b>pleasure</b> that emerges from it for the righteous

— which is the explanation in the words of R' Yehoshua ben Levi: "In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will bequeath to each and every righteous person <b>310 worlds</b>,"

as the Rambam⁴⁰

explains,

that this means that the delight of the World to Come is "three hundred times and ten times" like "all the delights of this world"⁴¹

This is not the pleasure of the righteous as they are for themselves

: the "nachas ruach to the created" — the nachas ruach that comes to a Jew as reward for having fulfilled the will of the Above],

Rather this is the delight of the <b>Above</b> as it were

("nachas ruach <b>to the Creator</b>"),

as our Sages of blessed memory⁴⁶

"nachas ruach <b>before Me</b> that I said and My will was done":

Since Jews are one thing with the "Bequeather",

they are "<b>inheritors</b>" as it were of the delight of the Creator.

explains clearly,

that what R. Yishmael b. R. Yose uses a number of "three hundred and ten" is "only by way of hint"&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;,

but in truth this is a pleasure &lt;b&gt;unlimited&lt;/b&gt;].

And this is the difference between reward of commandments and "to bequeath etc. those who love Me":

The pleasure that comes to the person as <b>reward</b> for the work — which <b>receiving reward</b> shows that the recipient of the reward is an existence in itself

(whom one must reward for his work)

— is the pleasure that a person as a <b>created being</b> can contain;

But the matter of "in the future the Holy One, blessed be He, will bequeath etc. to those who love Me" is the "satisfaction for the Creator"

(a matter of "absolute existence"),

which is not the matter of <b>reward</b> for a commandment,

but rather it is the "<b>essence</b> of the commandment"⁴⁵.

And this comes to the person by way of inheritance — because he is one thing, as it were, with the Most High.

7.

This is the reason why the “To bequeath ..

yesh” is “<b>to those who love Me</b>” specifically.

Because when can the person attain the matter of “to bequeath to those who love Me yesh” — at a time that also his <b>avodah</b> is in such a manner,

that he does not think about himself,

but he does entirely lishmah — for the sake of the Above.

As long as the person thinks about a matter of reward,

or about himself in general

(<b>his</b> elevation)

— it is not possible that he should become one thing with “the absolute yesh” and “the continuous existence” which is entirely above the category of created beings.

Specifically when his service is entirely lishmah — he is not an existence for himself,

he thinks only about the essence of the mitzvah

(from which comes the "satisfaction before Him that I said and My will was done")

— then becomes "Me you are taking",

and consequently — "to bequeath substance to those who love Me".

that a true "servant",

a servant according to the Torah of truth,

is not an existence for himself,

his entire existence is — "the existence of the master"⁴⁷].

And this is also the hint in this,

that the mishnayos before this speak about “a beehive” and “honey loaves” — because the service of Jews in the manner of lishmah is hinted at in that Jews are compared to “bees.”

As it is stated in the midrash⁴⁸

: “Like bees were the children..

Just as this bee — <b>all</b> that it gathers, it gathers for its owner,

so too <b>all</b> that Israel gathers of commandments and good deeds, they gather for their Father in heaven.”

And as explained in Likkutei Torah⁴⁹

that the service in this manner comes from the recognition that “the ultimate intention in the creation of man is not for the sake of man himself alone,

even though in truth his ascent is exceedingly wondrous,

nevertheless, this alone is not the ultimate intention, but rather for His glory, blessed be He.”

And as our Sages, of blessed memory, said⁵⁰

“I was created to serve my Creator.”

8.

Based on this, one can also explain the connection of the mishnah to the dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding honey cakes — and with an introduction: in the aforementioned wording

(from Likkutei Torah)

it is emphasized that in actuality, through his service below, man attains a most wondrous elevation,

it is only that "not this <b>alone </b>is the ultimate intention"⁵¹.

In this there is a difference between the view of Beis Shammai

(who hold "we follow the potential")

and the view of Beis Hillel

(that "we follow the actual")

— how deep the matter

(the elevation)

takes place⁵²

If “we follow the potential,”

that the essence of every matter is as it stands “in potential” — it turns out,

that the descent of the soul below

(the “actual”)

does not add any level

(<b>new</b>)

in the soul relative to how it was before its descent.

Because the <b>essence</b> of the matter — the “potential” to carry out the service below — is already present <b>in</b> the soul even before it descends below.

Even more: in our case one does not even need the “actual” as a “confirmation” of the “potential”⁵³

for the soul to carry out its service below — because it is a certain thing that ultimately every soul will carry out its mission in this world, as it is said⁵⁴

that none who is banished shall be cast away from him,

and furthermore, and this is also essential — it is revealed before Heaven that it will carry this out;

that according to Beis Shammai there is no place to say that the wondrous ascent of the person is an innovation and novelty for which reason there must be the descent of the soul below &lt;b&gt;in actuality&lt;/b&gt;; and that which the soul descends below is

(entirely not because of the ascent that is innovated in the soul,

but)

only “&lt;b&gt;to acquire for the lower ones&lt;/b&gt;”,

in order to carry out the intention of the &lt;b&gt;Supernal One&lt;/b&gt;,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, desired to have a dwelling place &lt;b&gt;in the lower realms&lt;/b&gt; — and for this matter it is not sufficient what the soul has “in potential” to make the dwelling,

but the &lt;b&gt;lower realm&lt;/b&gt; must actually be changed to be a dwelling for Him, blessed be He,

there must be the action &lt;b&gt;in&lt;/b&gt; the lower realm,

and consequently — the descent of the soul below in actuality&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;.

But not so according to the method of Beis Hillel that “we follow after the actual”,

It turns out,

it turns out,

that the descent of the soul below brings about a virtue

(also)

in the soul

(which it did not have previously)

— because specifically through the descent below she brings out her powers from potential to &lt;b&gt;actual&lt;/b&gt;

(which according to Beis Hillel &lt;b&gt;this&lt;/b&gt; is the essence of every matter).

And therefore,

according to Beit Hillel,

even though the main concept of the descent of the soul below is "for His honor" — I was created to serve my Creator,

in order to carry out the intention of "a dwelling place in the lower realms,"

and <b>that</b> must be the intention of the person in his service — nevertheless,

is his service below a matter that <b>brings about</b> a <b>novelty</b> also in him.

9.

The aforementioned difference between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel also provides an explanation for their dispute⁵⁶

— "These

(Beit Shammai⁵⁷)

say: It would have been better for man not to have been created than to have been created,

and these

(Beit Hillel⁵⁷)

say: It is better for man to have been created than not to have been created.

They voted and concluded: It would have been better for man not to have been created than to have been created; now that he has been created, let him examine his deeds."

In Likkutei Torah there⁵⁸

is explained the plain meaning in this statement of our Sages: They do not say “<b>good </b>for him that he was not created” — because there is certainly a good for the soul through its descent below,

that it receives an “ascent great and wondrous without end”: rather the plain meaning is — “<b>restful and easy </b>it would have been for him had he not been created”,

because the “ultimate intent in his creation” is that “he not work for his own sake and to receive reward”,

but only “to serve his Master”,

which is a most difficult labor,

and it is “restful and easy for him” that he should not need to do this.

According to this, the question arises: What is the initial assumption of Beit Hillel to say that “<b>restful </b>

(<b>and easy</b>)

it is for a person who was created more than if he had not been created”?

Then the explanation in this: according to Beit Shammai it is indeed simply that the entire matter of the descent of the soul below is

(not for the sake of

(the ascent)

&lt;b&gt;the soul&lt;/b&gt;,

but)

only “for His honor.”

And as above,

that for the sake of the ascent of the soul one does not need the descent &lt;b&gt;in actuality&lt;/b&gt;,

the “in potential” is sufficient.

And consequently it is simple that “it would have been better for man had he not been created etc.” — because for &lt;b&gt;him&lt;/b&gt;

(“for him”)

there is no &lt;b&gt;novelty&lt;/b&gt; through his descent below,

it is only for His honor.

But not so according to Beit Hillel, there is a place to say,

that “it is better for man that he was created than that he was not created”,

because if he had not been “created”,

he would have no connection to the “great and wondrous ascent without end.”

And since this is so,

the &lt;b&gt;pleasure&lt;/b&gt; from it that the soul has from the ascent is much greater than the pain of the soul in its descent below,

until that “it is better for him that he was created”

(feeling that this will bring a wondrous ascent

(immense pleasure),

despite the present pain),

than “not created” and not having any connection to the great and wondrous ascent.

But "they counted and concluded it would have been better for man not to have been created than to have been created" — because even though the soul will ultimately achieve through its descent below the "great and wondrous elevation without end",

but <b>this is not</b> what should be the thought of man during his service.

<b>He</b> must do his service entirely "not for himself and to receive reward",

but only "to serve his Creator",

completely not think about himself and his elevations.

And therefore,

it is "easier and lighter for him not to have been created than to have been created"⁵⁹.

Tenth.

And this is also the connection of the mishnah of "honey loaves" to the last mishnah "in the future the Holy One, blessed be He, will bequeath etc.":

Earlier the Mishnah brings the dispute of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel whether "we follow the potential" or "we follow the actual",

according to which there would be a place to say,

that according to Beit Hillel the ascent

(and reward)

of man is the primary reason

(or at least an equal reason)

for his descent below;

The Mishnah continues — analogous to the aforementioned "they counted and concluded" — "Said Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi: In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will bequeath etc. to those who love 'yesh'": to all opinions

(from the previous Mishnah),

also according to Beit Hillel,

the purpose and goal of the soul's service below

(not its reward and ascent,

but)

like the honey of bees "to be acquired for their owners" — to carry out the will and intention of the Holy One, blessed be He,

which is expressed in that the soul becomes one thing,

as it were,

with the "absolute yesh",

"the continuous existence".

Nevertheless, it does not mean that there will be absolutely no reward and elevation for the soul — that will also be.

And therefore R. Yishmael b. Elisha also brings the continuation of the verse⁶⁰

(which comes after the words "to give inheritance to those who love Me")

— "and My treasures<b>them</b> I will fill",

which refers to the treasures of <b>the righteous</b>

(in this world⁶¹)

: Since the Most High is "He does not withhold the reward of any creature"⁶²,

therefore the soul also receives a matter of reward

(as a created being).

But the matter of "and their treasures I will fill" R. Yishmael b. Elisha does not bring in his essential discourse

("In the future the Holy One, blessed be He, will give inheritance etc. and fill their treasures"),

only incidentally,

bringing the verse "to give inheritance to those who love Me" — because in his essential discourse he speaks about the <b>primary perfection</b> of the future; only in order to also indicate the <b>reward</b>

(in its simple sense — of)

the soul,

which comes in a <b>secondary</b> manner and does not occupy a place relative to <b>absolute</b> being,

he also brings the end of the verse "and their treasures I will fill".

11.

And additionally one can say regarding this:

It is known⁶³

that in the future the halacha will be like Beit Shammai.

One of the explanations that one can say about this

(according to the above)

is:

In this time, when the person feels his existence,

the halacha is like Beis Hillel and one tells the person that his service also brings about an elevation in him; as opposed to the future to come when there will be the "And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh together shall see that the mouth of the Lord has spoken"⁶⁴

and Jews will become in actuality one thing with the "absolute Being" and "the continuous reality" — then the existence of the person will entirely not occupy place,

and the entire activity will consist only in "to bequeath to those who love Me substance."

And therefore,

Rabbi Yehuda ben Ilai himself,

who speaks about the future time,

and in that itself — in the conclusion of the Mishnayos

(as it stands after the completion of the service — in the state of the perfection of the righteous)

— he says only "The Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future bequeath to each and every righteous person, etc.";

Only just as the study of the Mishnah is still in this world,

it also brings the conclusion &lt;b&gt;of the verse &lt;/b&gt;of "and I will fill their treasuries",

that the One Above will also fill the treasuries &lt;b&gt;of the righteous&lt;/b&gt;.

(From talks of 19 Kislev and Motzaei Shabbat Parshat Vayeshev and Miketz 5738)