English translation — בהר א

A.

On the verse¹

"And the land shall rest a sabbath to the Lord" — that in the seventh year the "earth" must rest and one may not do any work of the field and the vineyard etc.²

— brings the Zohar³

the verse⁴

"When you buy a Hebrew slave, six years he shall serve

(and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing)

and says "that every Jew ..

has rest in the Sabbatical year ..

in that rest of the land, the slaves need rest

(in the "rest" of the <b>earth</b>,

the slaves also must rest)

and therefore 'and in the seventh' etc."

Simply it appears,

that the Zohar learns the plain meaning in "<b>and in the seventh</b> he shall go out free for nothing",

that this means

(<b>not</b> the seventh year from when he became a slave,

"the year of <b>the Sabbatical</b>".

It is known the Tamim&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;

: It is a law established in several places in Chazal,

that a slave goes out to freedom

(&lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; in the Shemittah year,

but)

but)

in "Shevi'is &lt;b&gt;for sale&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;

; so how does the Zohar say "&lt;b&gt;In that&lt;/b&gt; rest of the land, the slaves needed rest"?

And it is not plausible to say,

that the Zohar disagrees with all these statements of Chazal

(in the revealed part of Torah).

2.

will one understand this with an introduction to what one finds regarding the mitzvah,

that

there is a fulfillment of the mitzvah in a manner of "le-chatchilah",

and there is a fulfillment of the mitzvah

(only)

in a manner of b'dieved.

And as explained in the later authorities⁷,

that this distinction

(of initially and after the fact)

exists even in matters of <b>Torah law</b>.

And moreover: not only regarding such details of the commandment that are merely a <b>peripheral</b> condition — so that then one can understand that even when this condition is lacking,

one has fulfilled the commandment

(at least after the fact)

— rather there are cases,

where the detail is in the essence of the matter of the commandment,

and nevertheless it is not an absolute condition,

and one fulfills the commandment

(after the fact)

also without that detail.

And as one brings on this several examples,

and the father of them all — the principle⁸

(in matters of holy things)

: the Scripture specified it to be an impediment.

3.

According to this principle,

will also be answered several perplexing matters

(some of which will be brought and explained further here),

For example

(from a matter of these days)

: regarding the Counting of the Omer the verse says⁹

"And you shall count for yourselves from the morrow of the <b>Sabbath</b>",

which simply means the day of the Sabbath

(Boethusians)

say,

that "the assembly after the Sabbath"¹⁰,

that one begins to count the Omer

from the "morrow of

(day)

the Sabbath"]

; but the Oral Torah explains that "from the morrow of the Sabbath" means "from the morrow of the <b>Festival</b>",

and as our Sages bring upon this several proofs and teachings¹¹.

Is seemingly perplexing¹²

: Since the Torah wants that one should begin counting the Omer from the morrow of the festival

(of Passover)

— why does the Torah say "from the morrow of the Shabbat"

(which gives a place for error),

and does not say from the outset "from the morrow of Passover"¹³

(and the like)?

According to the above, one can explain this,

And with an introduction: just as there is a difference of "from the outset" and "after the fact" from the perspective of the fulfillment of the person

(that when <b>he fails </b>to do a detail

(that is not essential)

he fulfills the commandment after the fact)

— so too is there here

(sometimes)

a difference from the perspective of the commandment itself,

that in certain situations the commandment is with more perfection,

and there is a situation where the commandment is <b>from the outset set up </b>in a manner,

that in <b>that </b>situation one does the commandment not in perfection — there are missing by it some details.

from the simplest examples of this: when the Holy Temple existed, Yom Tov was connected with the offering of sacrifices

(the communal sacrifices of Yom Tov,

and of an individual — burnt-offerings

appearance-offerings and peace-offerings of the festival),

and after the Temple was destroyed, one has Yom Tov from the Torah,

but <b>without </b>the sacrifices

(and consequently also — from the aforementioned individual sacrifices),

even though he has Yom Tov from the Torah].

And as understood,

are the festival offerings

not a side matter in the festival,

and moreover it can be said: the offerings are not a &lt;b&gt;result &lt;/b&gt;of the festival but they are a part

(at least — an addition)

in the completeness¹⁵

of the matter of the festival itself.

Nevertheless,

when there is a situation that one cannot

(according to Torah)

bring the offerings,

there is the festival and the sanctity of the festival etc. from the Torah.

Further one finds — that there are mitzvos which were &lt;b&gt;from the outset given&lt;/b&gt; in a manner,

that there is in the mitzvah two times: at one time it exists in its completeness,

in all the details,

and at a second time it does not have the completeness.

For example — Yom Tov and its Chol HaMoed.

Chol HaMoed is a part of Yom Tov,

it is included in the Moed for joy and from this aspect obligated in joy from the Torah&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;,

Nevertheless it does not reach the days of Yom Tov itself,

when then it is a Yom Tov day

with the entire completeness,

in all the details.

4.

and this will be understood regarding the mitzvah of Sefirah:

That which the Torah says "And you shall count for yourselves from the morrow of &lt;b&gt;the Shabbos&lt;/b&gt;" — although the mitzvah of Sefirah is to count "from the morrow of &lt;b&gt;the Yom Tov&lt;/b&gt;" — it is because in a fixed calendar when Yom Tov falls on the day of Shabbos and one begins to count Sefirah

(also)

"from the morrow of

(the day)

the Shabbos",

this is according to Chazal — a greater completeness in the matter of the Sefirah

(as below section 5 at length).

That is,

that the mitzvah of Sefirah was initially given in two manners: the &lt;b&gt;essence&lt;/b&gt; of the mitzvah of Sefirah

(which is indispensable post facto,

and must be in every Sefirah,

in whatever fixed calendar it may be)

— is to count "from the morrow of &lt;b&gt;the Yom Tov&lt;/b&gt;"; and there is a fixed calendar

(when Pesach falls on the day of Shabbos)

when the mitzvah of Sefirah is with more completeness.

And what is written in the Written Torah — "from the morrow of &lt;b&gt;the Shabbos&lt;/b&gt;",

because this is the commandment &lt;b&gt;in its entirety&lt;/b&gt;.

H.

The proof and explanation of this will be understood from a puzzling midrash on the verse "And you shall count for yourselves from the morrow of the Shabbos",

And the language of the midrash&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;

"It is written: seven complete weeks shall there be; when

(they are complete)

at a time when there is no salvation

and its neighbors among them",

and commentators¹⁸

explain,

that this means: at the time when they count from the morrow of <b>the Sabbath</b> literally,

from Sunday onward.

And the Midrash gives a sign regarding the determination when Passover falls on Shabbat

— that the watches "Yeshua and Shekhanya" did not perform any service in the Temple between Passover and Shavuot,

that one begins counting the Omer on the night after Shabbat

("the morrow of the Shabbat" according to its plain meaning)

— "for then the Shabbats are complete like the six days of creation ..

And if Yeshua comes ..

they will not be complete."

Is puzzling: the obligation

(matter)

of "temimut" is in every year and year,

at each fixed calendar

(because when one has the power to count he does not recite a blessing again,

counting of the omer is from evening)²⁰

— why does the midrash say that the matter of "temimut" is specifically when Passover falls on Shabbat?

Even more: seemingly this gives a place to the view of the Boethusians, heaven forbid — that counting begins <b>always</b> from "the morrow of the Shabbat."

So the explanation in this: At the time that one has "complete Sabbaths like the six days of creation" is this "completeness" in perfection&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;.

Only this &lt;b&gt;the &lt;/b&gt;perfection is not a hindrance after the fact&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

— completeness as a hindrance is the 49 days —

But perfection in the matter of completeness is when it is "completeness like the six days of creation"

(Passover that fell on Shabbat).

6.

And if the words are true — that Torah speaks

(sometimes)

about a mitzvah as it is in its completeness in all the details

(even though not all are disqualifying after the fact)

— it also gives an explanation in a perplexing matter regarding the conclusion of the Counting of the Omer — the holiday of Shavuot:

Regarding the determination of the holiday of Shavuot, Chazal say²³

"Sometimes five, sometimes six, sometimes seven."

That is,

that the holiday of Shavuot does not always have to be

(at the time when they sanctify based on sighting²⁴)

on the day of the giving of our Torah

(which is on the sixth²⁵

(or on the seventh²⁶)

of Sivan).

is known the wonder in this²⁷

: one finds that Chazal connect the day of Shavuos with the day of the giving of the Torah,

as he says in the Yerushalmi²⁸

that the reason that by the offerings of Atzeres it does not stand in the verse the term "sin"

(as by offerings of the other festivals)

is

"since you have accepted upon yourselves the yoke of Torah I consider it upon you as if you have never sinned from your days."

D.

H.

<b>Atzeres </b>is connected with

(the day of)

the receiving of the Torah.

Then the explanation in this: the content of the commandment of counting the Omer is — the preparation for receiving the Torah.

as explained in the early authorities²⁹

(in the name of the midrash),

that because of the great anticipation and desire of Jews for receiving the Torah,

they

(going out of Egypt)

counted — by how many days one became closer to receiving the Torah.

The forty-nine days of the counting are the preparation for the giving of the Torah

: through the counting of forty-nine days which are corresponding to the forty-nine gates of understanding,

one reaches the fiftieth day — the fiftieth gate — which <b>that </b>is the concept of the giving of the Torah].

It comes out,

that although the concept of the counting was established in a manner that the fiftieth day does not necessarily fall on the day of receiving the Torah specifically — it can be <b>before </b>receiving the Torah — nevertheless,

when Atzeret

(the fiftieth day)

(the fiftieth day)

does fall on the day of receiving the Torah,

this is

(not an additional thing,

a side matter,

but)

a perfection in <b>Atzeret itself </b>

And since that Atzeret in its completeness is when it falls on the day of receiving

the Torah,

therefore

(says the Yerushalmi)

— it does not stand in the Written Torah by Atzeret the term "chet".

7.

Just as this is regarding one and the same mitzvah — so too we find in two separate mitzvos which have a common content,

that in one mitzvah the content of the mitzvah is in its completeness,

and in the second mitzvah it is not in its completeness.

For example — the remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt,

which consists of two

(separate)

mitzvos: the obligation to relate the Exodus from Egypt on the night of the 15th of Nissan³¹,

and the obligation of remembering the Exodus from Egypt throughout the entire year³².

Although both have the <b>same</b> content — remembering the Exodus from Egypt,

there are several differences in the fulfillment of the commandment: the remembrance during the entire year is not with all the details and not in a pronounced manner like the obligation to remember the Exodus from Egypt on the night of Passover³³.

And the reason for the matter is understood simply: the <b>time</b> of the Exodus from Egypt

(as its simple meaning)

is on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan,

and therefore the remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt on this night is in a manner of

(ultimate)

completeness;

but not so

(the obligation)

the remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt throughout the entire year is only a <b>result</b> of

(the obligation b)

the night of Passover: since the

the matter of the Exodus from Egypt is a "continuous action"³⁴,

therefore there is an obligation of remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt throughout the entire year.

so it is understood,

that <b>the</b> remembrance is not with

(such a)

completeness like the remembrance of the night of Passover.

8.

A kind of example to the above

(not in a matter of a commandment)

— one finds in a Mishnah,

which at first glance appears most puzzling:

It states in the Mishnah³⁵

: "These are the appointees who were in the Temple",

and the Mishnah enumerates the names of the appointees and for what kind of service and matter in the Temple each of them was appointed

("Yochanan ben Pinchas over the seals etc.").

in this two interpretations: a)

"The fit ones of each and every generation came to count."

b)

"Whoever was in that generation counted what was in his generation"].

It is seemingly perplexing: what is the practical difference to count in the &lt;b&gt;Mishnah&lt;/b&gt;

(whose content — &lt;b&gt;Halachah&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;)

the names of the appointees in previous generations,

(and in the language of the Talmud&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;)

"What happened happened"?

It will be understood according to the explanation of the Ra'av&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;,

that "the first appointees who were appointed over this, such was their name,

therefore those who came after them were called by their name."

Why were "those who came after them called by their name"?

And one can explain this: every name expresses the qualities and nature of the one who bears the name,

and as the Sages said⁴⁰

"Rabbi Meir would be precise in [interpreting] names."

In our matter: that which they selected the people to be the appointees over the specific matters in the Temple,

is because the matters in the Temple require people who have these very qualities,

and they are hinted at "precise in [interpreting] names,"

in their names⁴¹

— and in every generation when one needs to appoint a new appointee over that matter — one must seek a person who is worthy to have that name.

But from this very fact that the appointees after him had a different name

(only after they were appointed they were called "by the name of" the first ones)

— it is understood,

that by them there was only a "semblance" of these qualities,

but not with the perfection as the appointees who were originally called by those names.

9.

As discussed earlier regarding the remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt,

so too is the explanation in the words of the Zohar regarding the year

of the Sabbatical:

There is the seventh year of the entirety of Israel,

the year of shemittah,

and there is the "seventh year" of an individual — the seventh year of the sale of a slave.

Since both are a matter of "seventh"⁴²,

it is understood,

that both have a common aspect⁴³

And in particular in our subject, the individual is indeed a part of the collective of Israel.

But the difference between them is: in the seventh year of the collective of Israel,

the content of "Shabbat to Hashem" is in completeness,

and therefore it brings with it all the laws of Shemittah; but not so in the seventh year of an individual — there is only a "semblance" of the "Shabbat to Hashem" of the year of Shemittah,

and therefore this is only in his going out "to freedom gratis".

And this the Zohar says: "In that rest of the land, the servants need rest": a servant must go out to freedom in the seventh [year] of his sale,

because he is a part of the collective and he has

(a "part" of)

"That rest of the land" is <b>his</b> seventh [year] <b>of his sale</b> — a <b>kind</b> of the seventh [year] of the collective of Israel

(which brings about "rest of the land").

And according to this, a novelty emerges

(and needs further examination and search in books)

: at the time of the seventh year of the servant, which falls in the year of the Sabbatical year,

the Sabbatical year brings about

("rest

of the earth"),

that <b>his </b>going out to freedom

("my servant, rest")

should be in

(the purpose of the)

perfection⁴⁴.

And it is unclear what the practical difference is.

And elsewhere, see there.

And based on this, it will be sweetened what the Zohar says in an unspecified manner "in that rest of the earth

איצטריכו עבדי נייחא",

from which it is understood that the Zohar speaks about the year

of the Shemittah literally — because the Zohar brings here the case of "and in the seventh [year] he shall go out free for nothing" as it is &lt;b&gt;in its completeness&lt;/b&gt;

(Section 4)

That the Torah says "And you shall count for yourselves from the day after the Sabbath" because this is the case when the mitzvah of counting is in its completeness],

Which is when the seventh year for sale

(of the slave)

is in a year of shemittah — "in that rest of the land".

(and Hisvaaduyos after that)

5740,

Chag HaShavuos 5741)