English translation — קדושים ב

A.

After the Torah states the law of orlah and kerem revai¹,

it says in the verse²

: And in the fifth year you shall eat its fruit, to add to you its produce, I am the Lord your God.

Rashi quotes the words "to add to you its produce" and explains: This commandment that you keep shall be to add to you its produce, that as its reward I bless for you the fruits of the plantings.

Simply, one learns³,

that Rashi comes to protect that the words "להוסיף לכם תבואתו" are not a continuation

("דבוק")

to "ובשנה החמישית תאכלו את פריו" — because how is it fitting to say that because of "תאכלו את פריו" the reward of "להוסיף לכם תבואתו" will be?

! — Rather, this is attached to the previous verses where it speaks about keeping the commandment: "המצוה הזאת שתשמרו תהי׳ להוסיף כו׳".

But the verbosity in Rashi is not understandable — seemingly he should have said briefly

(like the Ibn Ezra⁴)

that "להוסיף לכם תבואתו" is "attached to קדש הלולים"

(and the like)

; or

(as in Rashbam⁴)

"להוסיף לכם תבואתו —

(to this you will merit)

if you do as I commanded".

And even if one interprets

(with great difficulty),

that Rashi also wants to clarify the <b>explanation</b> of "to add for you

its produce" — that this means "for its reward I bless you with the fruits of the plantings"⁵

— could Rashi have said briefly: "to add for you its produce — for the reward of this commandment I bless you with the fruits of the plantings"?

What is the length and repetition of language in Rashi: "the commandment that you keep will be to add to you its produce

(and afterwards)

that in its reward I bless you the fruits of the plantings"?

B.

Also there are still several precise points in the language of Rashi,

and among them:

A)

"The commandment <b>this </b>that you shall keep etc." — what is the added precision "this"?

If Rashi had said "when you keep the commandment"

(and the like,

without the emphasis "this")

one would also have known that it speaks about <b>the </b>commandment

(about which the verse speaks)?

B)

"I bless you <b>the fruits of the plantings</b>" — why does Rashi <b>change </b>from the language of the verse "its produce"?

Even if Rashi needs to ensure that the interpretation of "tevuaso" here is&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;

(not the produce of &lt;b&gt;the field&lt;/b&gt;,

but)

the plantings of the vineyard&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;

(and as the beginning of the matter&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

: and you shall plant every tree for food)

— Rashi would have needed to say

(in brief)

"blesses for you the fruits"

(or "the plantings").

What is the double language "fruits of the plantings"?

3.

Further, Rashi continues: "Rabbi Akiva would say: The Torah spoke against the evil inclination, so that a person should not say, 'Behold, for four years I am troubled over it for nothing'; therefore it is stated, 'to add to you its produce.'"

Why does Rashi bring the statement of R. Akiva?

The commentators learn⁹,

that with this Rashi answers why the reward is stated after "and in the fifth year you shall eat etc." and not earlier at the observance of <b>the commandment </b>

(for which the reward comes)

— Rashi brings the statement of R. Akiva¹⁰,

that the reward comes for that which "for four years I trouble myself with it for nothing" — that the person refrains from eating the fruits until the fifth year¹¹,

"And the verse says⁹

what you will eat of it in the fifth year <b>only </b>and not etc. will be to add".

But the explanation is not smooth,

because that the reward of a mitzvah is not stated earlier is initially no question in the simple meaning of Scripture: in general,

there where it is said in the Torah the reward of a mitzvah,

it stands at the conclusion of the topic.

And likewise in our matter: earlier the Torah finishes all the details of the mitzvah

(as the person must conduct himself with his fruits)

— "Three years ..

it shall not be eaten.

And in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy ..

(and that specifically afterwards)

And in the fifth year

(you may eat)

you shall eat its fruit" — and only afterwards is stated the reward of the mitzvah

(what the Almighty will give for it)

"to increase for you its produce"¹².

Also one must have an explanation why Rashi brings the matter with the addition of the name of the one who said it,

what

(as discussed many times)

Rashi does this only there where this adds to the understanding of the commentary.

And furthermore: in this very thing Rashi is precise "&lt;b&gt;was &lt;/b&gt;Rabbi Akiva saying",

that Rabbi Akiva used to &lt;b&gt;always &lt;/b&gt;say the statement — which adds to &lt;b&gt;the &lt;/b&gt;emphasis&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

in the understanding of the matter?

4.

In this very maamar — which Rashi brings from R. Akiva — it is not understood:

There are <b>several </b>mitzvos,

regarding which the Torah specifies the reward of the mitzvah,

and Rashi <b>does not </b>explain regarding them,

that the reason why the Torah promises the reward of the mitzvah is "against the evil inclination"

(i.e.,

that were it not for the reward, the evil inclination would not allow the mitzvah to be fulfilled)

From where is the necessity,

that specifically <b>the </b>reward is

(different from another reward of a mitzvah,

and is)

said "against the evil inclination"

(and not because the reward <b>comes </b>to the person since he troubled himself in vain for four years)?

It is understandable regarding the section of "beautiful captive woman",

it is understood what Rashi says¹⁴

on "and you shall take her to yourself as a wife"¹⁵

that "the Torah spoke only against the evil inclination" — because,

as Rashi explains,

"if the Holy One, blessed be He, <b>permits </b>her, he would marry her in prohibition"; i.e.

i.

e. that essentially it would have needed to be a <b>forbidden </b>thing¹⁶,

but the Holy One, blessed be He, <b>permits </b>her.

And consequently — a matter which is proven from itself that this was said only "against the evil inclination"¹⁷.

But in general, the matter of reward for a mitzvah is found explicitly in the Torah by several mitzvos

(as above)

And this is a foundation regarding mitzvos

(that the Almighty gives reward for mitzvos)¹⁸

— why is <b>the </b>reward distributed

(for the mitzvah of orlah and kerem revai),

that specifically it was said "against the evil inclination"¹⁹?

5.

Further, Rashi stands on the words "I am the Lord" and explains: "I am the Lord who promises regarding this and is faithful to keep My promise."

It is not understood: the usual language in Rashi in such a case is

(in brief)

"Faithful to pay reward"²⁰.

Why is Rashi here

lengthy in his language — "I am the Lord who promises this and is faithful to keep My promise"?

Further: not only is it a verbosity,

but also a change: not "faithful to pay &lt;b&gt;reward&lt;/b&gt;",

but "faithful to keep &lt;b&gt;my promise&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;.

And further,

Rashi changes

(also from &lt;b&gt;his &lt;/b&gt;previous language &lt;b&gt;in our matter &lt;/b&gt;"&lt;b&gt;in whose reward &lt;/b&gt;I bless etc."),

and says a matter of promise

("who promises ..

to keep my promise")?

6.

And one can say the explanation in this:

The question in the verse that Rashi comes to answer in his commentary is

(section 3)

that in the plain sense of Scripture this is initially no question — rather]

in the explanation of the words:

If the Torah simply intended to announce the reward of the commandment,

it should have stood

(in the manner as in other places²²)

"<b>In order that</b>²³

I add for you its produce",

or "And I will add for you its produce" and the like.

The wording "&lt;b&gt;to add &lt;/b&gt;to you its produce"

(with a lamed at its beginning)

shows,

that this is the intention and purpose of the commandment — "three years etc. shall not be eaten.

And in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy etc.

(&lt;b&gt;in order&lt;/b&gt;)

to add to you its produce."

Analogous to "Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it"&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;,

where the "to sanctify it" is

(not a &lt;b&gt;reward&lt;/b&gt;,

but)

the goal and purpose of the "Remember".

From this Rashi is compelled,

that the plain meaning in the verse is: "the commandment &lt;b&gt;this&lt;/b&gt;

that you will keep &lt;b&gt;will be &lt;/b&gt;to add for you its produce" — although that in general one must fulfill a commandment because that is what the Almighty commanded,

but regarding &lt;b&gt;this &lt;/b&gt;commandment the Torah says,

that your guarding&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;

is

(can be)

a priori with the intention "to add for you its produce"&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;.

And this is what Rashi elaborates in his language: the words "to add for you its produce" are not a statement about the &lt;b&gt;reward &lt;/b&gt;of the commandment,

rather the Torah speaks here

(primarily)

about the intention of &lt;b&gt;the person &lt;/b&gt;— that he does the commandment in order "to add for you its produce".

It turns out,

that in Rashi's commentary two matters are brought out:

(a)

The &lt;b&gt;explanation &lt;/b&gt;of "to add for you its produce" is that it speaks about the intention of the person — "this commandment that you will keep will be to add for you its produce".

(b)

The &lt;b&gt;reason &lt;/b&gt;how can the person think thus — because

(here the Almighty stated specifically that)

so it will be &lt;b&gt;in practice&lt;/b&gt;: "that in its reward I bless for you the fruits of the plantings".

7.

Based on this, the question arises: if "to add to you its produce" would mean the announcement about reward for a mitzvah,

there would be no difficulty that the words stand at the end of the topic

(as above).

But according to Rashi's explanation,

that this refers

(primarily)

to the intention of the person at the time of fulfilling

(observing)

the mitzvah — it should have stood in proximity to the words that speak about observing the mitzvah

("he shall not eat"

(with the intention)

to add for you its produce)?

Rashi warns of this by that which he changes from the language of the verse "its produce" and says "fruits of the plantings": by placing the words "to add for you its produce" after "and in the fifth year etc." the verse intends to hint at the manner of the blessing: the plain meaning of "to add for you its produce" is not only that the Almighty will give an additional blessing in the <b>growth</b> and <b>development</b> of the fruits,

but that also after the "fruits of the plantings" of the fifth year will have grown

(being ready to "you may eat its fruit"),

in them themselves will apply the blessing of G-d in a manner of addition and increase — "I bless for you <b>the fruits of the plantings</b>"

"even within the intestines there will be in it blessing"].

8.

But it still remains not understood: how is this commandment different from all other commandments that specifically by it,

is: a)

The Torah states outright that one may initially fulfill the commandment in order to "add to you its produce"; b)

The reward itself is different from the reward of other commandments

(in a manner that is incomparable — a blessing in "the fruits of the plantings" as above)?

Therefore Rashi brings the statement of R. Akiva — "The Torah spoke against the <b>evil inclination</b> so that a person should not say etc.": since it is very difficult to fulfill the commandment,

for a person can indeed argue "for four years I labor over it

Chinam" — they made "&lt;b&gt;muttar&lt;/b&gt;"

("against the evil inclination")

to have in mind the reward of the commandment at the time of its fulfillment; and in order to "satisfy" the evil inclination, the Most High promises a reward not in the usual manner.

And based on this it is simply understandable what Rashi then continues "I am the Lord — I am the Lord who promises this and is faithful to keep My promise": here the encouragement "faithful to pay reward" is not sufficient as with other commandments — since here it is about a commandment that the person does from the outset for the sake of its reward,

and were it not for this, the evil inclination would have prevailed,

not allow to fulfill the commandment —

Therefore, here is the explanation of "I am Hashem" — "the One Who promises about this and is faithful to keep My promise": knowing that this is a promise from the Almighty and He is "faithful to keep My promise",

this is enough that also the evil inclination must agree to the fulfillment of the commandment²⁸.

9.

By a sharp student, however, a question can arise: how is it that regarding this commandment one should be so different from all commandments — to permit observing for the sake of reward,

and in addition even to promise a reward that is unnatural and not at all ordinary — and all this for one who is in such a lowly state that the only way to affect him is to secure "against the evil inclination"?

Rashi says that this is said by R. Akiva — the one who said "You shall love your fellow

as yourself ..

this is a great principle in the Torah"²⁹

; also R. Akiva was the one who "was accustomed to acquit Israel"³⁰.

And according to the view of R. Akiva,

that one finds a merit for every Jew and tries to help him etc.,

is a <b>great principle in the Torah</b> — it is understood why the <b>Torah</b> occupies itself with every Jew and also protects such a one who needs to come to "the Torah spoke against the evil inclination".

Thereby Rashi is precise "&lt;b&gt;was &lt;/b&gt;R. Akiva saying",

that he would repeat the teaching consecutively,

which proves that in the preservation of "the Torah spoke against the evil inclination" there "expressed itself" a thing,

which is specifically connected with the essence and greatness of R. Akiva&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

— and therefore specifically R. Akiva repeated about the great benefit thereof:

R. Akiva the first forty years of his life did not learn any Torah&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;.

Only then,

when they promised him reward if he would go learn Torah,

he went to learn&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;.

It turns out,

that by R. Akiva there was something like the state of "Behold, for forty years I have been suffering in vain": his going to learn Torah was connected with "casting away" the first &lt;b&gt;forty &lt;/b&gt;years of his life; by going to learn Torah he emphasizes that the previous years are "suffering in vain"

(they are wasted years)

And — he went to learn Torah for the sake of a reward&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

— and nevertheless he succeeded in the study of Torah with such extraordinary success and such very lofty elevation&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;,

until that "all are in accordance with R. Akiva"&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;.

And therefore "Rabbi Akiva said: The Torah spoke etc." — because a similar situation was with <b>him</b>: through the promise of reward he began to learn Torah and eventually — came to his level of the virtue of Rabbi Akiva.

Yud.

But it is still not smooth

(in the inwardness of the matters)

: After all, the necessity of "the Torah spoke against the evil inclination" is only for a few individuals of Jews who are very low in status — why was <b>the mitzvah </b>set forth in such a manner for all Jews,

in a way that emphasizes "the Torah spoke against the evil inclination"?

Is the explanation in this: the inner interpretation in "the Torah spoke against the evil inclination" is,

that the mitzvah is its content,

that the Torah wants thereby to <b>transform</b> the evil inclination

(in the manner of "And you shall love etc. with all your heart <b>with both</b> your inclinations³⁷),

that the evil inclination from <b>itself</b> should want to do a mitzvah³⁸.

And therefore the reward of the mitzvah is "to add for you its produce",

because specifically through the clarification

(and transformation)

of the evil inclination and the animal soul becomes the true "addition" in holiness,

as known the interpretation³⁹

in "and abundant produce in the strength of an ox"⁴⁰,

that the "<b>and abundant</b> produce"

(addition and great elevation in holiness)

comes "in the strength of <b>an ox</b>" specifically,

through the clarification of the <b>animal</b> soul.

And the reasons for this are,

because the service is connected with <b>pain</b>: the service of the soul from its essence is out of delight,

but the service of clarifying the animal soul requires effort to break through the concealment and hiding of the animal soul,

through <b>subjugation</b>.

And therefore must first be the pain of four years that the animal soul has no pleasure⁴¹

from the grain,

And through the subjugation,

becomes afterwards <b>transformation</b>,

until it becomes "to add to you its grain" — and much grain by the strength of an ox.

Shabbos Parshas Kedoshim 5736)