English translation — ויצא א

A.

In the laws of hiring¹

the Rambam rules: Just as the employer is warned not to steal the wage of the poor man and not to delay it, so the poor man is warned not to steal the work of the employer and waste a little here and a little there and spend the whole day in deceit, but he is obligated to be precise with himself regarding the time ..

And likewise he is obligated to work with all his strength, for the righteous Jacob said²

for with all my strength I served your father.

Therefore he received reward for this even in this world, as it is said³

And the man broke forth exceedingly exceedingly.

The aforementioned law is also brought down in the Shulchan Aruch of the old Rebbe⁴,

And this is its language: "And just as the employer is warned not to steal the wage of the poor man and not to delay it, so the poor man is warned not to waste the work of the employer and waste a little here and a little there and spend the whole day in deceit, but he is obligated to be precise with himself regarding the time ..

And likewise he is obligated to work with all his strength, for the righteous Jacob said, for with all my strength I served your father; therefore he received his reward even in this world, as it is said, 'And the man broke forth exceedingly exceedingly.'"

At first glance it appears,

that the Alter Rebbe is merely quoting the language of the Rambam

(with minor changes).

But upon careful examination one sees a fundamental change⁵

in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe:

After bringing the lesson from Yaakov,

the Alter Rebbe continues: "Therefore a worker is not permitted to work at night and hire himself out by day, and likewise a person is not permitted to work his animal at night⁶

and hire it out by day, and a worker is not permitted to starve and afflict himself⁷

for he weakens his strength and will not be able to do the employer's work with strength."

The laws

("A worker is not entitled, etc.")

are brought also in Rambam<sup>8</sup>

; but there they come in the <b>earlier</b> <b>halacha</b><sup>9</sup>,

<b>before<sup>10</sup></b>

he says "in the manner that the householder is warned not to steal, etc."

B.

At first glance one could say,

that the change is

(not a change in content,

Only)

Just in the order of things,

According to the distinction of the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch HaRav:

May etc.' are a continuation to the matters of "deceit"

(seemingly)

Which a worker may do that the Rambam says before that¹⁵

— "And workers are permitted to immerse" etc. in conjunction etc.",

And upon this the Rambam adds and continues: "<b>But</b> <b>the worker is not</b> permitted etc."¹⁸].

But this is not a sufficient explanation in our matter¹⁹.

Because from that which the

The Rambam¹¹

wrote his book "Laws Laws"¹²

— without the reasons of the laws¹³,

But not so the Alter Rebbe wrote his Shulchan "Laws with their reasons"¹⁴

specifically.

And therefore: the Alter Rebbe presents the halachos in a manner that brings out the taste and definition of the halachos,

and therefore he brings all these laws in the same section,

after the general introduction and to all of them: "And just as the homeowner is warned etc., so is the worker warned not to neglect the homeowner's work" — which is the boundary of all these laws.

And in this itself,

he presents first the warning and obligation "to be precise with himself regarding the time ..

and after that,

the prohibition resulting from this,

which emerges from this also regarding the time of work — "the worker is not permitted to do work at night etc."

Not so the Rambam, who touches primarily on issuing the <b>ruling</b> of <b>halachah</b>,

and therefore he arranges the halachos according to the order of time: first the prohibition that comes <b>before</b> the time of the actual work

("A worker is not permitted, etc."),

and only afterwards the warnings that come <b>at the time</b> of the work itself — "He is obligated to be precise with himself at the time ..

and likewise he is obligated to work with all his strength",

And likewise he is obligated to work with all his strength."

The Rambam begins the last halacha with an introduction: "Just as the homeowner is warned not to steal the wage of a poor person, etc., so the poor person is warned not to steal the work of the homeowner" — even though the Rambam already clearly stated in the previous halacha that there must not be "theft of the work of the homeowner" — it is proven,

that this is not merely an addition due to a change in the time and action of the prohibition,

but rather it is a separate category.

That is: according to the old Rebbe,

that the laws "the worker is not permitted, etc." come immediately in continuation &lt;b&gt;directly&lt;/b&gt; to the obligation "to work with all his strength"

(that "&lt;b&gt;therefore&lt;/b&gt; the worker is not permitted, etc."),

it turns out,

that this is a consequence of the obligation to work with all his strength; unlike according to the Rambam,

who states these laws in a &lt;b&gt;previous&lt;/b&gt; halacha,

this is a separate law and prohibition in itself.

So the matter as it stands in Shulchan Aruch HaRav — that the specific laws "the worker is not permitted etc." are connected with the obligation "to work with all his strength"

(which is learned from Yaakov)

— is explicit in Sefer Mitzvot Gadol²⁰

But it is puzzling and needs explanation: what is the rationale behind the two opinions,

whether the aforementioned laws are a result of the obligation "to work with all his strength",

or a law in itself?

3.

This will be understood with the introduction of the explanation in this study mentioned above

(in the Rambam)

from Yaakov: And so one is obligated to serve with all his strength, for Yaakov the righteous said, "For with all my strength

I served your father."

Therefore he received reward for this even in this world, as it is said, "And the man increased exceedingly exceedingly."

At first glance, there is in this no understanding:

a)

The Rambam is indeed

(as above)

a book of "halachos halachos".

What is relevant to halacha the conclusion "therefore he received reward for this even in this world etc."?

And it is forced to say that the Rambam writes this only in order to conclude

(Laws of Hiring)

with a good thing — because

of the book Yad with a good thing,

there is moreover and mainly]

: the language is brought down also in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch not at the conclusion of these laws.

Furthermore: in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe it comes in the middle of a section!

b)

Furthermore: with this the Rambam&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

himself,

apparently,

contradicts himself: earlier he brings the proof from Yaakov "for Yaakov the righteous said, 'For with all my strength I served your father'",

that it is an &lt;b&gt;obligation&lt;/b&gt; upon a worker to work with all his strength,

but with the words "therefore he received reward for this even in this world etc." he apparently nullifies

(weakens at least)

the proof,

because this brings out that this was not an obligation,

but a conduct

(righteousness)

special to Yaakov, and because of this his reward is .

special "he received reward for this even in this world".

3)

What is the language "שהרי" — and not in the usual language "שנאמר" or "כמו שנאמר" and so forth?

4)

The term "הצדיק",

which is not a usual language

(as a description)

in the Rambam²³,

and at most he should have said in the usual language²⁴

"יעקב אבינו"²⁵.

And especially that this weakens the proof,

because this shows that this is a special conduct of "

(יעקב)

<b>הצדיק</b>".

At first glance, one must say,

So with all these aforementioned expressions, the Rambam intends to answer the question: It is indeed that we do not derive from before the giving of the Torah,

So how can one derive a law in the laws of hiring from the conduct of Yaakov before the giving of the Torah?

Therefore the Rambam does not say in the usual language in general a proof comes "that it is said"

(and the like),

Because one does indeed not <b>derive</b> it from Yaakov,

It is only like a support

(or only a revelation of a matter and the like)

On

To bring out the greatness of the matter,

as one sees that Yaakov the righteous "said, 'For with all my strength I served..

Therefore he took reward for this even in this world."

This is, however, a great difficulty,

for one finds in several places,

also in the Rambam

(in the laws before the giving of the Torah),

that one learns laws also from before the giving of the Torah

(and as one sees it in connection to our parshah itself,

that the Rambam²⁷

learns the law that "even on Chol HaMoed one does not marry women ..

because one does not mix joy with joy <b>as it is said²⁸</b>

Fulfill this week and she will be given to you also this one")

: and it is not a contradiction to the principle of we do not learn from before the giving of the Torah,

as the various answers and definitions that stand by it in the commentaries²⁹.

And it is simple in our case,

where this is not a particular law,

but rather a <b>conduct</b> general,

the way in the work of workers according to conversation and mutual agreement of people,

which one can certainly learn³⁰

from before the giving of the Torah³¹.

Furthermore: we find in our matter itself,

the work of Jacob for Laban,

that one learns from Jacob,

as the Gemara says³²

"Until when a paid watchman is obligated to guard until the extent of I was³³

by day consumed by heat and frost by night"³⁴.

D.

And one can say the reasoning in this:

With the proof "for Yaakov the righteous said, 'For with all my strength I served your father,' therefore he received reward etc.",

the Rambam brings out the definition of the obligation "to work with all his strength".

Earlier the Rambam says "Just as the employer is warned not to steal the wage of the poor etc., so the worker is warned not to steal the work of the employer and waste a little here and a little there and spend the whole day in deceit, but he is obligated to be precise with himself regarding the time etc.",

and afterwards he continues and adds: &lt;b&gt;And similarly&lt;/b&gt; he is obligated to work with all his strength.

One could seemingly learn: The obligation to be precise with himself regarding the time is connected to "that he not steal the work of the employer",

but the obligation "to work with all his strength" is not connected

(to such an extent)

to the work of the employer

(so that one would say that when he does not do it he does not fulfill the "that he not steal the work of the employer"),

rather it is only connected to the person &lt;b&gt;himself&lt;/b&gt;,

of the worker who works,

with his faithfulness,

that he must be devoted to a job until "to work with all his strength".

D.

H.

This is not

(so)

from the category of "between man and his fellow",

between the &lt;b&gt;worker&lt;/b&gt; and the &lt;b&gt;employer&lt;/b&gt;,

rather this is &lt;b&gt;a kind of&lt;/b&gt; category of between man and the Omnipresent.

On this the Rambam brings the proof "for Yaakov the righteous said that with all

my strength I served your father, therefore he received reward for this even in this world, as it is said 'and the man spread out exceedingly exceedingly': the proof is not

(only)

from the beginning of his words that Yaakov "said that with all my strength I served your father"

(And on the contrary,

in this one could say that Yaakov thereby emphasized³⁵

that he conducted himself <b>beyond</b> the letter of the law,

a labor in which he was <b>not</b> obligated³⁶,

and then this is indeed a proof to the contrary — that there is no obligation upon <b>every</b> worker to work with all his strength)

But the

(main)

proof is from the continuation of the wording "therefore he took <b>reward</b> <b>this</b> etc.

(And in the manner of)

<b>and he broke forth</b> etc.":

The point in this is

(Not that Yaakov received a reward from the Above for fulfilling a command of Hashem

(And by other mitzvos this can be a reward

(Rather)

in the World to Come,

but here he received reward of mitzvah also in this world)

— Rather)³⁷

that he received "<b>reward</b> <b>this</b>",

the reward for <b>his</b> <b>work</b>;

D.

H.

The "specify your wage"

(which Lavan spoke with Yaakov)

had

brought into actuality to this that

(although Lavan wanted to deceive him etc.,

nevertheless — since that "with all my strength etc.",

is)

"and the man spread out exceedingly exceedingly" a reward corresponding to his work which was in a manner of "&lt;b&gt;with all&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;my strength&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;I served&lt;/b&gt;".

from this one understands,

that the "to work with all his strength" is connected not only with the person,

with the worker &lt;b&gt;when he is&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;for himself&lt;/b&gt;,

but with &lt;b&gt;his work&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;for the employer&lt;/b&gt;.

And therefore Yaakov received also for that his reward &lt;b&gt;in this world&lt;/b&gt;.

5.

And based on this, the two aforementioned nuances in the language of the Rambam will be sweetened:

A)

He does not say "שנאמר",

but rather "שהרי" — because the proof is not

(only)

from the verse "כי בכל כחי עבדתי את אביכן",

but

(also)

mainly — from the entire subsequent continuation: "לפיכך נטל שכר זאת כו'".

b)

He does not say "Yaakov <b>avinu</b>" but "Yaakov <b>hatzaddik</b>".

And the explanation:

From the Rambam at the beginning of Hilchos Dei'os it is understood,

that the title "tzaddik"

(with which the Rambam uses in his book HaYad)

does not mean one who does a <b>hiddur</b> mitzvah and the like,

but rather one who conducts himself according to the law and the obligation.

As he brings there³⁸

the verses regarding character traits and conduct, that one who goes in "the straight path which is the middle way" becomes

(in the language of the verse³⁹)

called "tzaddik"⁴⁰

(and one who is "meticulous with himself

more so" and does "beyond the line of the law" is called "&lt;b&gt;chassid"&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

And this the Rambam says — that the conduct of Yaakov to work with all his strength was not a matter of the attribute of chassidus like

(a special conduct*&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

as one of the three Patriarchs — Yaakov Avinu),

but this is the &lt;b&gt;manner&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;of obligation&lt;/b&gt; of a worker every worker regarding the work of the homeowner.

6.

This same novelty — that the obligation to work with all his strength is connected

(not only with the general trustworthiness of the worker,

but)

with the work that he does for the employer — can be learned in two ways:

One way is: that this is <b>connected</b> with the essence of the work,

but this is a matter <b>additional</b> to the actual work for the employer; it is a separate obligation of the worker to the employer.

That this is the opinion of the Rambam,

that he separates the laws regarding theft of the employer's work into two distinct laws: in the first

law he states the laws of "the worker is not permitted to do his work at night etc. because of theft of the employer's work, for his strength is weakened etc., and he shall not do work with strength"; and in the following law he begins: "Just as the employer is warned not to steal the wage of the poor person etc., so the poor person is warned not to steal the work of the employer and waste a little here etc.,

but he is obligated to be precise with himself regarding time etc., and likewise he is obligated to work with &lt;b&gt;all&lt;/b&gt; his strength etc.,"

But not according to the old Rebbe,

here there are not two separate halachos — ordinary melacha and melacha with all his strength — rather it is one halacha; melacha with [his] strength and melacha with all his strength are not two definitions

(The definition of melacha in general,

and a second definition — which is connected with the obligation

(and the purchase)

of the worker to the particular employer),

rather it is one definition,

everything is connected with <b>the work of</b> <b>the employer⁴⁴</b>

Because according to the opinion of the Rambam these are two separate definitions: one obligation that the worker must do work <b>with [his] strength</b>,

and a separate obligation — "to be exacting with himself regarding time etc. and likewise he is obligated to work <b>with all</b> his strength".

And the difference between them one can say:

That which he needs to do work with force,

is a matter in the essence of the work — when work with force is lacking, the applicability of the name "work" is lacking.

But the obligation "to work with all his strength" is not because without it the definition of work is absent,

rather this is connected with the particular obligation of the worker

(to the particular employer).

In a slightly different style: "work with force"

(simple)

is connected with the object of work,

and the obligation "to work with all his strength" is related to the person,

between the worker and the employer,

that a worker, his body is acquired⁴²

to the employer⁴³.

And therefore the Alter Rebbe brings the laws of "the worker is not permitted etc." as a continuation of the introduction "And just as the homeowner is warned etc., so the worker is warned not to neglect the work of the homeowner etc., he is obligated to be precise with himself regarding time etc., and likewise he is obligated to work with all his strength etc.

(<b>Therefore</b> the worker is not permitted etc.)

7.

Based on the above, one can also explain several differences

(minor)

in the wording of the Alter Rebbe relative to the wording of the Rambam — which although at first glance they are minor differences,

is, however, based on the known great precision of the golden language of the Alter Rebbe,

and especially since he thereby <b>changes</b> from the wording of the Rambam,

one can say that this is also a change in content:

a)

At the end of the first halacha,

where the Rambam explains the reason for the laws "the worker is not permitted to do his work at night etc. starves himself and afflicts himself etc." — he says: "because of theft of the work of the homeowner⁴⁵,

for his strength is weakened and his mind is weakened and he will not do work with strength": the Alter Rebbe, however,

changes thereby:

(a)

he <b>omits</b> the words "because of theft of the work of the homeowner"⁴⁶.

(b)

Instead of "and he will not do" he says "and he <b>will not be able</b> to do".

(c)

Instead of "work" the Alter Rebbe adds "work of the <b>owner</b> of the house"⁴⁷.

And based on the above, it can be said: According to the Rambam, the deficiency is that "and he shall not do &lt;b&gt;work&lt;/b&gt; with [his] strength" — it lacks in essence

(ibid.)

work.

And therefore, as soon as the person places himself in a situation where "and he shall not do work with [his] strength," this is in the category of "theft of the work of the employer"

(because he is not fit to be a worker — his work is not [considered] work).

However, according to the Alter Rebbe, the deficiency is — "and he will not be able to do the work of the &lt;b&gt;employer&lt;/b&gt; with [his] strength,"

as his obligation

(and acquisition)

to the employer.

It turns out,

that the prohibition "to do work at night, etc."

(and the like)

is not in the category of theft of the work of the employer,

this is only an &lt;b&gt;indirect cause&lt;/b&gt; — "and he will &lt;b&gt;not be able&lt;/b&gt; to do the work of the employer with [his] strength"&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;

when he will do "the work of the employer," it will not be able to be done properly).

b)

In the proof from Yaakov, the language of the Rambam: "Therefore he received the reward of <b>this</b>",

The Alter Rebbe, however, says: "Therefore he received his reward"⁴⁹

— because according to the Rambam,

the reward for serving with all his strength is an additional matter beyond the reward for the actual work for the employer.

The reward is indeed connected with the body of the work

(as above end of section 4),

but nevertheless this is an <b>additional</b> matter beyond the actual work.

And therefore the Rambam is precise "therefore he took <b>this</b> reward" — <b>the</b> <b>special</b> reward for work with all his strength.

But the Alter Rebbe emphasizes "therefore he took his reward" — because according to his view this is not two separate things,

ordinary work and work with all his strength,

rather work with all his strength is one category with the body of the work that he does for the employer,

and therefore the reward for work with all his strength is included in the reward for his work — "he took his reward"

(ordinary).

8.

The lesson from this in the service of man — that Jews are indeed workers,

who must do work for the master,

this is the Holy One, blessed be He⁵⁰

The reason why the obligation to work with all his strength is learned from the work of Jacob in the house of Laban the Aramean in Haran,

is because the work that a Jew must do for the Almighty

(with all his strength)

is similar to the work of Jacob in the house of Laban.

As is known⁵¹,

the service of Yaakov in the house of Lavan was not within the four cubits of the study hall of Shem and Ever,

or even as he was in Eretz Yisrael in the house of his father Yitzchak,

that then his service was entirely in the realm of holiness — rather his service there was in <b>Charan</b> — the burning anger of the Place

(in the world)⁵²,

to make the <b>world</b> a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He.

And correspondingly, the service of every Jew as a worker of the Holy One, blessed be He, consists:

That which a soul serves the Above when it is still in the upper worlds,

before it comes down below into this world and puts itself on in a body,

only when I stood before Him⁵³

— it is a service most elevated,

both in intellect

(understanding in Godliness)

and in emotions

(its love of God and fear of God)

— but this is all <b>its</b> service;

Specifically when the soul comes down into this physical world,

and there itself,

the person does not remain locked always only in the four cubits of Torah and prayer,

rather he engages in the service of clarifications to make from the lower ones "there is no lower beneath him"⁵⁴

a dwelling place for <b>Him</b>, may <b>He</b> be blessed — here he is a maker of <b>the Holy One, blessed be He</b>,

this is the work of the <b>Master of the house⁵⁵</b>

9.

And upon this is the lesson from Yaakov,

that this work must be done "with all his strength":

Not only that "one is obligated to be precise with himself &lt;b&gt;in time&lt;/b&gt;"

— because if "he nullifies a little

(b)

here and a little

(b)

here": one makes a calculation that it does not pay to set aside the work of the householder a little and meanwhile snatch matters that are connected with <b>his</b> perfection

(to fill his hunger etc. to have more understanding in Torah and the like)

— this will cause,

that "and he brings out <b>all</b> <b>the day</b> — the entire "<b>the day</b> <b>to do them</b>" — with cunning";

only more — "obligated to work <b>with all</b> <b>his strength"⁵⁶</b>

with all the powers of the soul*⁵⁶

A Jew can think,

when one is still in the four cubits of Torah and prayer, then his service is connected with his intellectual power,

learning Torah with understanding and comprehension,

and with his attributes,

this is service of the heart, this is prayer⁵⁷,

the service of prayer out of love and fear;

When one however goes out into the outside,

and the work is to make the world a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He,

there it is required primarily to act with his power of action, and the service is connected only with acceptance of the yoke that is in the soul

— On this is the instruction that in the service of making a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He, in the lower realms,

one is obligated to work with all his strength,

not only with his lower faculties,

but also with his inner faculties,

his intellectual faculty,

emotions,

even also with his encompassing faculties,

his will and pleasure.

One could, however, think that this is a matter of beautification of the commandment,

because for the making of the dwelling, it primarily concerns only his faculty of action — on this there is the instruction,

that it is a complete obligation,

without which it is called robbery

(nullification)

of the work of the master of the house.

The "name of work" — of making a dwelling for Him, blessed be He, in the lower realms — can possibly be even when one does only with the power of action,

but all work of the &lt;b&gt;householder*&lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

must the service be &lt;b&gt;with all&lt;/b&gt; his power.

By a Jew it must be felt in his entire being that his entire essence

is to carry out the mission from the Supreme One to make for Him, blessed be He, a dwelling in the lower realms,

and he as the worker is his body &lt;b&gt;acquired&lt;/b&gt; to the householder,

this is the Holy One, blessed be He,

and consequently he does the work of the householder &lt;b&gt;with all&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;his power&lt;/b&gt;.

And through that a Jew conducts his work with all the powers of his soul,

he is "taking his reward even in this world",

until in a manner of "and the man broke forth exceedingly exceedingly",

two times exceedingly,

without the true limit⁵⁸

Specifically through the service in this world,

one takes the true exceedingly⁵⁹.

(From sichos of Shabbos Parshas Vayeitzei 5719)