English translation — עקב ב

A.

On the verse¹

"For Hashem your G-d is the G-d of gods etc. Who does not show favor and does not take a bribe" — Rashi says: "Does not show favor — if you cast off His yoke"; "And does not take a bribe — to appease Him with money."

One must understand: What does Rashi innovate by saying that "does not show favor" is "if you cast off His yoke" — when then should the Supreme One not show favor — at a time when one fulfills Torah and mitzvos?

And what does this teach us!

say the commentators

that Rashi comes to protect that which stands here "He will not lift up a face" and earlier

(in the Priestly Blessing)

stands

"May the Lord lift up His face to you"

; Rashi explains,

that here it is different,

because it speaks of "if you cast off His yoke."

It is, however, still not understood — what is this coming to teach us,

it is,

at first glance,

understood by itself,

that "He will not lift up a face" is "if you cast off His yoke"; and especially after the lengthiness about this earlier in Parshat Bechukotai.

And further: "Yisa Hashem panav elecha" — Rashi translates "yichbos ka'aso",

it comes out,

that there it speaks in a case where there is "ka'aso" and consequently the reason for "ka'aso",

conduct contrary to the will of Hashem,

and nevertheless—

therefore "Yisa Hashem panav" — remains again the aforementioned contradiction?

2.

Also one must understand in the second explanation of Rashi: "And he shall not take a bribe" — "to appease him with money."

It is understandable that which Rashi adds to the word "to appease him" — although in the verse it speaks about "bribe" — is,

as the Ra"am explains and is understood simply,

that bribe in every place

(by a human judge)

can mean "to acquit the guilty"

<b>perversion </b>of the law

or "<b>to waive </b>his punishment",

"and the Holy One, blessed be He, does not fall into [the category of] acquitting the guilty,

only waiving the punishment",

therefore Rashi emphasizes that the verse speaks about such a bribe whose content is "to appease",

4.

5.

<b>Waiving </b>the punishment

(and not — "to acquit the guilty",

because that one does not need to exclude).

It remains, however, not understood the "b'mamon" in Rashi,

And as the question of the Ra'am: "I do not know what 'mamon' applies to the Holy One, blessed be He.

And why did he not explain 'and he shall not take a bribe' [as] the commandment for the transgression?"

Also: Why does Rashi quote from the verse also the words "v'lo yikach"?

His commentary here is only regarding the word "shochad" —

(a)

That this is "piyus",

And

(b)

That the appeasement consists through "mamon".

3.

On the aforementioned question of the Ra"am, one finds in the commentaries⁵

several answers:

a)

With "money" here is meant the bringing of a sacrifice to the Most High,

And the verse lets us hear thereby,

that "the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination"⁶

— as long as he has not done repentance, his offering is not accepted.

b)

The matter of "to appease him with money" means,

as the language of the verse earlier "And they shall take <b>for Me </b>a portion"⁷,

every money that one dedicates for Me for My name,

for the needs of the Mishkan,

the Temple and the like — and the verse says that with giving money to the Most High one cannot remove the punishment for a transgression

(except through doing repentance).

3)

"Mammon" means any mitzvah that is connected with giving money,

such as charity and the like

(and as above,

that this is not sufficient).

But: the answers only satisfy the part <b>secondary </b>of the question of the Ra'am,

how <b>can </b>there be a reality of receiving money from the Most High,

but the main question remains in its place:

Since the reason that

(It could be a ks"d that)

the money can have an effect of "bribe" as it were by the Supernal One is &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;like money by a human judge

(that the judge has a benefit from the money itself),

but because with it is done a &lt;b&gt;mitzvah&lt;/b&gt;,

brought a &lt;b&gt;offering &lt;/b&gt;or the like,

why does Rashi distinguish

(mitzvah)

"with money" — what is different about a mitzvah through giving money from all other mitzvos?

And in particular according to the explanation that it speaks about an offering

(which is "nichoach" — satisfaction before&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;,

opposite of "His anger"),

Rashi certainly should have said clearly

"to appease him <b>with a sacrifice</b>" and not <b>to hint</b> at this with the word "with money",

Furthermore — according to this explanation, it is altogether "the main point is missing from the book"

(that although a sacrifice atones,

nevertheless there must also be repentance alongside it)

And further: in the simple meaning of the verse — how is it hinted

(at least)

in "do not take a bribe" that a sacrifice atones only with repentance?

Also — one cannot say that Rashi says "in money" — because "bribe" in relation to people usually means that one bribes with "money"⁹

— because: a)

Also among people there exists "bribe of words"¹⁰

and the like.

b)

And mainly: the question remains on the <b>verse</b> — why does the verse say "bribe"

(which means "in money")

and not an expression that means "in commandments" and the like?

4.

The explanation in this:

The intention in Rashi's commentary here is precise in his language — "if <b>you break off his yoke</b>"

(not one of the expressions of Parsha Bechukotai and the like)

Here it is not speaking about simply not fulfilling commandments,

committing transgressions G-d forbid

In such a case one asks the Almighty and the priests bless that "May Hashem lift His face to you",

He will <b>suppress</b> His anger and not punish —

But here it speaks about &lt;b&gt;casting off the yoke&lt;/b&gt;— about one who throws off the entire yoke of the Above, G-d forbid,

he

becomes a servant of G-d, and on the contrary&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;

he feels free to do what he wants,

he says "I will go in the stubbornness of my heart"&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;

— about this the verse says "&lt;b&gt;He does not&lt;/b&gt; show favor": the Above conducts Himself with him with exactitude,

is not forgiving.

And the <b>necessity</b> for this explanation is from the general content of the portion:

The portion begins¹³

with "And now, Israel, what does the L-rd your G-d ask of you <b>but to fear</b> etc."

Rashi explains: "Even though you have done all this, still His mercy and love are upon you,

and of all that you have sinned before Him, He asks of you nothing but to fear etc."

Already at the beginning of the portion it is emphasized,

that the Almighty is &lt;b&gt;no&lt;/b&gt; respecter of persons towards Jews,

even though you have done etc.,

but He demands only — "to fear etc."

And therefore,

when the verse says in continuation of this "He will not lift up faces",

one must say,

that here it speaks about the opposite of &lt;b&gt;the matter &lt;/b&gt;— if it is the opposite,

it cannot be "to fear etc."

Therefore Rashi explains "He will not show favor — if you cast off His yoke",

as above.

5.

Based on this it is understood why Rashi cannot learn,

like other commentators¹⁴,

that "and he shall not take a bribe" means "a bribe of mitzvos" — because as Rashi learns the verse

(that the subject is about one who lacks the "yirah" —

"They cast off His yoke")

already has no place to explain

(the "And he shall not take a bribe")

that the Almighty does not accept any "bribe of mitzvos" from a "one who casts off the yoke,"

because such a possibility is already refuted from "He shall not show favor" which stands <b>earlier</b>.

Rashi must find a matter regarding which there can be a possibility that he can introduce a matter of appeasement and atonement also for a one who casts off the yoke — and therefore Rashi says "to appease him with money."

Why would one have thought that "money" could atone for the matter of "you will throw off His yoke" — Rashi need not explain,

because we have already learned this &lt;b&gt;earlier&lt;/b&gt;: on "And you shall not take a ransom"&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

(which is stated regarding a murderer)

Rashi says "he will not be exempted with money"

(and likewise regarding an ox that killed a person it says "and he shall give the ransom of his soul"&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;)

— from which it is understood,

that the "bribe" of "money" has in itself a dual nature and effect: in addition to that which the &lt;b&gt;recipient of the money&lt;/b&gt; becomes "bribed"

(because of his benefit and advantage from the money),

the money also serves as a "ransom",

redemption and replacement of the &lt;b&gt;giver&lt;/b&gt;,

so that instead of him giving himself

(to death and the like),

he gives away his money&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;

; until that Rashi&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

brings an opinion regarding the ransom of an ox that killed a person — that this "ransom of his soul" means "the value of the &lt;b&gt;damager&lt;/b&gt;".

as it is written&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

: In the matter which they devised against them.

And as the Alter Rebbe is

Explains in detail in Tanya¹⁹

Regarding the commandment of charity,

That since through this money "he could have purchased the life of his soul,"

Therefore "behold he gives the life of his soul to G‑d."

And in the manner that Rashi brings a few verses later²⁰,

On "the substance which is at their feet" — "this is a person's money that stands him on his feet."]

And &lt;b&gt;this &lt;/b&gt;is the verse negating: regarding the Most High it is not applicable "to appease Him with money": certainly it does not mean to argue that one cannot &lt;b&gt;the Most High &lt;/b&gt; "bribe" G‑d forbid with money; here it speaks only about the effect of the money for the &lt;b&gt;giver&lt;/b&gt;: he might think,

that although he is a thrower-off of the yoke and is &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;surrendered to the Most High,

he can

(instead of himself)

give his money,

and the Most High will accept it as "a ransom for his soul".

To this the verse says: "And he shall not take a bribe."

The Most High will &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;take a ransom,

something else,

unless he himself surrenders to the Most High,

and only then does it have an effect when he gives his money to the Holy One, blessed be He; but while he is a "thrower-off of the yoke" — it is "he shall not take a bribe".

According to this, it is also understood the reason that the verse emphasizes

(and Rashi cites)

"He shall not take": since the giving of money is a thing that has in it from the content of giving itself

(life of his soul),

acceptance of yoke; only the deficiency is that being a thrower-off of yoke, the giving of money cannot replace him — therefore there is the emphasis of the verse

Not in the being negated the

(giving of)

money,

but in the not being accepted as "pious" and "bribe".

The verse emphasizes "And he shall not take a bribe".

6.

Every matter — and especially matters of Torah and mitzvos — is with Divine Providence.

One sees,

that this matter

(that the Above "does not show favoritism and does not take a bribe")

also stands at the end of the fourth chapter of Mishnah Avos: "for before Him there is no... nor favoritism nor taking of a bribe,"

Which according to the order of the "Yesh Nohagim"²¹

to study Pirkei Avos "every Shabbos of the summer"; it turns out

(in some years)

that the fourth chapter is studied on Shabbos Parshas Eikev.

And here one sees,

that specifically according to Rashi's commentary in the plain sense of the verse,

the question is explained and resolved: What does the Mishnah do on the verse <b>explained in the Torah</b>?

The difference is understood based on the above:

In the Torah the verse is stated in the context

(and condition)

"And now, Israel, what does the L-rd your G-d ask of you etc.",

which compels one to learn

(as above),

that the "and He will not take a bribe" here comes as a continuation to the entirety of the matter of acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven; and therefore Rashi — whose commentary is according to the plain meaning of Scripture — explains "He will not show favor — if you cast off His yoke,

and He will not take a bribe — to appease Him with money".

However, in

(the mishnayos of)

Pirkei Avos,

which contain "matters of piety"²²,

one must learn that that which is stated there regarding the Most High "for before Him there is no etc. and no favoritism and no taking of a bribe",

comes to bring out a different matter,

regarding a keeper of Torah and mitzvos,

rather one demands from him also "matters of piety" —

And as the Rambam says in his commentary on the Mishnah²³

: "He will not take a bribe of good deeds, like a person who does a thousand good deeds and one evil deed, that the Holy One, blessed be He, will not forgive that transgression because of his many good deeds, and He will deduct from his thousand good deeds one good deed or more, but He will punish him for that one evil deed and reward him for all those good deeds²⁴.

And this is the meaning of 'He will not take a bribe.'

And it is like 'He will not show favor,' that the great one will be punished for a small matter, as Moshe Rabbeinu, peace be upon him, was punished...

And the reward of the wicked Esau for honoring father and mother, and Nebuchadnezzar for honoring the Holy One, blessed be He...

And this is the meaning of 'And He does not show partiality.'"

D.

E.

That the accounting of commandments and transgressions is not in a manner of commerce and exchange of commandments and transgressions, and the reward for one commandment is deducted and thereby the punishment for a transgression is forgiven — rather, each commandment and each transgression have a separate reward and punishment for themselves.

And it can be said from the reasons for this: the definition of commandments and transgressions does not consist

(only)

in their effect and action regarding the person who fulfills them — rather the definition of a commandment is — fulfillment of the Supreme Will,

and the definition of a transgression is — going against the Supreme Will; and consequently each commandment is a matter in itself

(and likewise its opposite).

But in this very thing there are two matters: "and no favoritism and no bribe": the difference <b>simply</b> between "favoritism" and "bribe" is — "favoritism" means the concession that comes from the virtue of <b>the person</b>,

and "bribe" comes from the importance of the <b>thing given</b>;

And it can be explained,

that likewise is also in their effect on the judge: "favoritism" indicates,

that the person's virtue is not diminished by the transgression; <b>he</b> is not a sinner

(a defect)

; and "bribe" indicates,

that his <b>deed</b> undesirable is "bought off" and erased.

And this is the novel teaching: man's connection²⁵

with the Above is not "balanced out" by a mitzvah against a transgression,

and the transgression is not erased by a mitzvah.

With this one will also understand*²⁵

what the midrash²⁶

says that teshuvah is a matter of "bribery"

("You take bribery from the wicked in this world,

teshuvah and good deeds and prayer

(and concludes)

do prayer²⁷

and teshuvah")

— because the act of teshuvah,

is <b>incomparably </b>higher than mitzvos,

and in our matter

(not only in that which one forgoes — the <b>person </b>has become a baal teshuvah,

but)

that it also transforms the <b>deed </b>that is not good:

it turns intentional sins — into unintentional sins²⁸

; further

More — intentional sins as merits²⁹

; even more — intentional sins as merits <b>literally</b>³⁰.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Eikev 5740)