English translation — בהר ב

1.

On the Shabbats between Passover and Shavuot we learn ¹

Pirkei Avot,

each Shabbat one chapter².

And since all matters of Torah are with utmost precision

(and all the more so from that which even worldly matters are not by chance, G-d forbid,

but with Divine Providence),

it is understood,

that the chapter which we learn on that particular Shabbat,

has a connection also to the Torah portion which we read at that time.

From the mishnayos of today's chapter

(4),

that we find in their content a special connection to today's parshah

(Behar),

is the mishnah ³

: "R' Meir says: Be minimal in business and occupy yourself with Torah, etc. ",

whose conclusion is "And if you have labored in Torah much⁴

there is much reward to give you" — similar to the conclusion of the parshah "I am Hashem

(which means,

as Rashi says.⁵)

— faithful to pay reward".

The promise of reward for Torah study and fulfillment of the commandments in general,

we find in many and many parshiyos of the Torah and in many mishnayos

(also in tractate Avos⁶).

But the novelty that exists in the conclusion of today's

Sedra,

consists in that "<b>faithful</b> to pay reward": the action of the verse is here

(<b>not</b> the promise that reward comes to him for keeping Shabbos and fear of the Temple,

that the Most High is "faithful" to pay,

and not to avoid, G‑d forbid,

the reward that is due to those who fulfill the aforementioned commandments*<sup>6</sup>.

In a similar way is also in the conclusion of the aforementioned Mishnah: R' Meir innovates

(not that for much toil in Torah much reward comes,

but)

but)

that "<b>there is</b> much reward to give to you".

D.

h.,

the person can indeed think: true, indeed, to him comes much reward for the great exertion; it can, however, happen that he should not receive it in full,

because there is not at all available so much reward to give him — therefore R' Meir emphasizes and warns "<b>there is</b> much reward etc.",

that it exists in great measure,

and consequently the person is assured to receive the "much reward"<sup>7</sup>.

One must understand<sup>8</sup>

: What is here the “novelty”

(both in the verse)

that the Almighty is “faithful” to reward the man that which is coming to him,

and

(both in the mishnah)

that the Almighty has the sufficient abundant reward to pay the man as much as is coming to him?

B.

The verse “My Sabbaths you shall keep etc. I am the Lord” also appears in an earlier parshah<sup>9</sup>,

and there Rashi<sup>10</sup>

is <b>not</b> explaining “faithful to pay reward”,

as by the verse in our parshah.

From this it is understood,

that the expla- nation,

that the Almighty is “faithful to pay reward”,

is required only by the verse “My Sabbaths you shall keep etc.” — which comes in continuation to the previous verse “You shall not make for yourselves idols” and that both commandments were said in connection to a Jew “who is sold to a gentile.”

Regarding Jews in general,

is just as regarding them there is no special novelty in the command itself,

so also is there no novelty that the Most High has and will give the entire reward for fulfilling the command.

But not so by one sold to a non-Jew,

whom the Torah must specifically tell "You shall not make for yourselves idols etc. My Sabbaths you shall keep etc." — because were it not for the command,

such a one could think to himself "Since my master worships idolatry, I too am like him,

since my master desecrates the Sabbath, I too am like him"¹¹

It could also be here a place to mean,

that being a "sold to a non-Jew" there is no great reward to give him reward for the commandments; therefore one must say,

that with "I am the L-rd" the verse here means to emphasize,

that also regarding him the Almighty is faithful to pay reward.

And in the same manner is also the meaning of the Mishnah "and if you have labored much in Torah, there is much reward to give you": with "&lt;b&gt;there is&lt;/b&gt; much reward etc." it is not meant regarding labor in Torah in general

(for then it is no novelty),

but in relation to "you have labored much in Torah" of a special type about which it speaks in our Mishnah — of a businessman:

At the beginning of the Mishnah it is said "Be minimal in business and occupy yourself with Torah",

that even a businessman — one for whom, according to law, it <b>may</b> be that*¹¹

his work is permanent and his Torah is temporary¹²

— should minimize in "business"

(one's own occupation)

and occupy himself with Torah.

And regarding this "you have labored much in Torah" of the businessman,

which is indeed done beyond the letter of the law,

it is R. Meir who <b>teaches</b> that "there is great reward to give you".

But it is difficult to understand,

and in both cases one can ask that the opposite is logical: If regarding keeping Shabbat etc. of an ordinary Jew,

of a free man,

and regarding Torah study of one who dwells in a tent

(who are not bound with "labor" — with a special effort — not to deceive oneself,

or to do "in the measure of piety and love of Torah"*¹²)

it is a simple matter that they have and will receive full reward — then all the more so in the case when one sold to a non-Jew keeps Shabbat properly

(despite the fact that he has a reasoning — in Torah — that "since my master desecrates Shabbat, I too may do so")

and when a businessman labors "much in Torah" by minimizing in his "business"

(although he is not obligated to do so according to law),

it must surely be simple that they deserve and they are guaranteed the full reward! How does it come,

that specifically regarding them it is necessary to assure that "He is faithful to pay reward" and that "there is great reward to give you"?

3.

Also one must understand: why should there be a <b>reasoning</b><b>¹³</b>

"Since my master worships idolatry, I too am like him"?

Regarding desecration of Shabbat,

one can explain it: since that according to <b>Torah</b> he is subjugated to his master,

he is <b>obligated</b> to work for him,

and because that by his master there is not the concept of Shabbat and it is a day equal to other days¹⁵,

one can from this consequently derive an erroneous conclusion,

that the obligation to work is for him valid also on Shabbat.

(according to the error)

and must work on Shabbat for his master,

then from him has been entirely nullified the obligation of observing Shabbat*¹⁶

— "I too am like him" — that he may already desecrate Shabbat also in a case when it does not pertain to the work of his master].

Also regarding forbidden relations there can be a similar reasoning: because "to produce offspring" is a part of the slave's service to his master — therefore it is said regarding a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite that "his master gives him a Canaanite maidservant to produce slaves from her"¹⁷

— therefore,

because the Israelite sold to a non-Jew may and must¹⁸

take a Canaanite maidservant to produce slaves from her¹⁹,

it can be argued,

that for him the entire prohibition of forbidden relations is nullified

(the forbidden relations that Jews are distinguished from Noahides²⁰),

and like his master — "I too am like him" — he is not warned about the forbidden relations that are permitted to a Noahide²⁴.

Different, however, is regarding idolatry:

(a)

Because also upon his master the prohibition of serving idolatry applies,

for it is indeed one of the seven Noahide commandments²²,

and

(b)

because this is a matter that has entirely nothing to do with service to his master.

And since this is so,

why should there be any place to think,

that he should also be permitted to serve idolatry?

D.

Will one understand it,

By prefacing what the Zohar says

(At the beginning of today's sedra²³)

Regarding a Hebrew slave sold <b>to Israel</b>,

That slaves are exempt from "the yoke of the kingdom of heaven" and therefore they are also "exempt from the commandments."

And with this the Zohar explains the meaning of "and in the seventh he shall go out free <b>for nothing</b>"²⁴,

That being a slave

(Before the time of "he shall go out free"²⁵),

Is "all that he does is for nothing — without the yoke of the kingdom of heaven."

And analogous to what is said²⁶

"We remember the fish which we ate in Egypt for nothing",

That at the time the Jews were in bondage in Egypt,

Was upon them not the "yoke of the above" — it was in the manner of "for nothing."

In this, however, it is not understood:

That which the Zohar says,

that slaves are exempt from "the yoke of the kingdom of heaven",

one can explain it,

that being subjugated to the yoke of a human being,

it is consequently not within the category that at the same time they themselves should bear upon themselves

(in completeness)

also the yoke of the kingdom of heaven

"An ear that heard etc. 'For the children of Israel are servants to Me, and not servants to servants,' and this one went and acquired a master for himself,"

so by this that he enslaves himself to another "master,"

he becomes a "servant to servants,"

from him is removed

(as it were)

the servitude to the Most High&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;],

When it speaks, however, about the fulfillment of the commandments in actual practice,

a Hebrew slave,

even one who is sold to a <b>non-Jew</b>,

is obligated to fulfill all the commandments — for "since my master etc., I too am like him" is nothing more than a <b>logical deduction</b> that the Torah rejects with "<b>lest</b> he say"; and also that logical deduction is only regarding specific commandments

(forbidden relations,

idolatry and desecration of the Sabbath),

but not in relation to <b>all</b> the commandments&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

— so what is the meaning of that which the Zohar says,

that a Hebrew slave sold to <b>a Jew</b> is exempt from the commandments?

Also one must understand that which in the Zohar is compared the "six years you shall sow your field etc."

(which before the "and the land shall rest" in the seventh year)

to the "six years he shall serve" of a slave

(which before "and in the seventh he shall go out free"),

And apparently,

what kind of similarity is this: true indeed but in the six years,

when one is occupied with work of the land,

one does not have so much time to occupy oneself with study of Torah and service of G-d as in the seventh year,

when then is "and the land shall rest a sabbath to the Lord"&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

; nevertheless, the Jew is also during the six years not subjugated under any yoke of a flesh and blood,

he is then not a "slave to slaves" — so in what can it be compared to the case of "six years he shall serve",

that through "acquiring a master for himself" he becomes

(as it were)

exempt from the yoke of the kingdom of heaven?

5.

it will become understandable,

from that which the Zohar there continues and explains the matter of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven with a parable — and the Alter Rebbe brings it in Tanya ³¹

— "Like that ox upon which they place a yoke at first in order to bring forth from it good to the world..

so too is it necessary for a person to accept upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven³²

at first ..

And if this is not found with him, holiness does not dwell in him".

And at first glance,

what is here raised and explained by giving the parable "like that ox etc." — and especially from that which the Alter Rebbe copies the parable in Tanya

(even though he omits quite a few matters that are in the Zohar there),

it is nevertheless understood,

that thereby is explained a matter <b>fundamental</b> in the matter of acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven?

Is the explanation in this:

The novelty that the Alter Rebbe does in this chapter where he brings the parable from the Zohar — and with which he himself explains it — is indeed

(Not that a Jew needs in general to have acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven — this is a simple thing: because the root of the 365 negative commandments is <b>fear</b> of God³³,

it is therefore understood that a Jew is compelled in fear — acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven — in order that he should be guarded in the 365 negative commandments — rather)

That "although fear is the root to turn from evil and love to do good,

nevertheless it is not enough to arouse love alone to do good, and at least one must first arouse fear etc."³⁴,

that also for the sake of "and do good" acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven is required.

Therefore he also here cites the parable "this ox on which they place a yoke first in order to bring out from it good to the world",

and from this parable it is understood,

that also for the sake of "and do good" there must be acceptance of the yoke of Heaven: just as "this ox" that what "they place a yoke on it first" is it

(not only in order to prevent it from goring and from damaging,

but also)

&lt;b&gt;"in order to bring out from it good to the world"&lt;/b&gt;,

so too is that which "a person must accept upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven first",

is it

(not only in order to protect him that he should be a turner away from evil,

but also)

because "if this is not found with him, holiness does not dwell within him": also the "indwelling of holiness" — the "revelation and drawing down of the Ein Sof, blessed be He, below"&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;,

which comes through positive commandments — can be with him specifically when the fulfillment of the positive commandment is

(also)

from the aspect of acceptance of the yoke&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;.

6.

One can, however, still ask: the Alter Rebbe cites the language of the analogue in the Zohar "and if this is not found with him, holiness does not dwell within him",

and from this itself it is already clear,

that also for the sake of &lt;b&gt;the indwelling&lt;/b&gt; of &lt;b&gt;holiness&lt;/b&gt; which comes through fulfillment of &lt;b&gt;positive&lt;/b&gt; commandments, acceptance of the yoke of Heaven is required — why does he also need to bring the parable "like this ox etc."?

This will become understandable after explaining the statement of the Alter Rebbe "For although fear is the root to turn from evil and love to do good,

nevertheless it is not enough etc.": Apparently, it is only necessary to explain regarding "and do good",

that although the root of "and do good" is love,

nevertheless "it is not enough" with love alone and one must

(even for the sake of "and do good")

arouse also fear.

But what is relevant to the explanation of the words "for although fear is the root to turn from evil"?

Rather, the explanation in this is,

that with these words the Alter Rebbe makes clear to understand what is meant thereby that fear and acceptance of the yoke are necessary also in the service of "and do good":

If he had mentioned here <b>only</b> the detail of love and "and do good",

one could then think,

that here it is about a case where the matter of kabbalas ol and yirah is entirely lacking; and one would consequently learn,

that why is "it is not enough to arouse love alone for doing good" and one must come to kabbalas ol — until that "and if this is not found with him, holiness does not dwell with him" — because the absence of kabbalas ol is <b>contradictory</b> to the indwelling of holiness.

Because³⁷

When someone does <b>not</b> have kabbalas ol,

he is indeed <b>not</b> nullified to the Above,

therefore holiness cannot dwell in him,

because "the Holy One, blessed be He, dwells only on something that is nullified to Him"³⁸.

Therefore he also adds the words "that fear is the root to [turning away from evil and doing good]" that although with him fear is not lacking as a root to turning away from evil; it is only that his service of "and do good" is done from the arousal of love alone and not from kabbalas ol — nevertheless this is not enough and also in his "and do good" is "and if this

(kabbalas ol)

is not found with him, holiness does not dwell with him"³⁹.

And in order to make clearer the explanation of "ואי האי לא אשתכח גבי׳ כו׳ ״ — that this means

(Not only the manner of the absence of the Holy One Blessed be He where it is simply &lt;b&gt;contradictory&lt;/b&gt; to the indwelling of holiness,

but also),

that because of the indwelling of holiness &lt;b&gt;itself&lt;/b&gt; there is a requirement of the Holy One Blessed be He — the Alter Rebbe cites the parable "כהאי תורא כו׳ " in which this very matter is brought out and clearly emphasized,

that that which "יהבין עלי׳ עול בקדמי־ תא" is it "&lt;b&gt;בגין&lt;/b&gt; לאפקא מיני׳ &lt;b&gt;טב&lt;/b&gt; לעלמא".

And with this is also understood what the Zohar says that slaves are exempt from the commandments: the main concept of commandments is as their name,

mitzvah from the word command,

that their fulfillment is from the side of the &lt;b&gt;command&lt;/b&gt;.

And since they are exempt from the performance of the commandments,

they are consequently exempt from "commandments" — the term &lt;b&gt;command&lt;/b&gt;.

7.

The reason that for the indwelling of holiness itself is necessary the acceptance of the yoke of Heaven also in the line of "and do good,"

and when this comes only from love it does not draw down the indwelling of holiness

(although there is by him acceptance of the yoke of Heaven in the line of "turn from evil")

A created being has no value whatsoever relative to the Creator.

And therefore,

when the fulfillment of the commandments is only from love,

which is a feeling that is connected with the existence of the lover⁴⁰,

the existence of the created being,

therefore the fulfillment of the commandments

(with love — its meaning is of the created being)

cannot attain to "revelation and drawing down of the Ein Sof, blessed be He"

(revelation of the Creator)

— because the Creator is incomparably higher than a created being.

Specifically when the fulfillment of the commandments is from acceptance of the yoke of Heaven,

which acceptance of the yoke of Heaven is connected

(not with <b>his</b> existence,

but)

with the existence of the "King"⁴⁰,

then the commandment has in itself,

so to speak,

the power of the "Creator" and can therefore effect "the indwelling of holiness."

And furthermore: the definition of a "servant" is,

that he is entirely acquired to his master⁴¹

; and if he feels in himself something of his own existence,

this is the <b>opposite</b> of servitude.

And therefore,

when his fulfillment of the commandments

(of "and do good")

is "with love alone",

it turns out that the very thing that there is in him a feeling of love

(which is connected with his existence and self-expansion),

it is in contradiction to the matter of self-nullification

(although that in him there is the self-nullification regarding "turn from evil" and he has fear "lest he rebel against His kingship")

and consequently — to the indwelling of holiness.

And therefore also the "and do good" must

(as also the love which is the "root of 'and do good'"),

be permeated with self-nullification

(that also his love of G-d should come from the <b>commandment</b> "and you shall love the L-rd your G-d"⁴²)

— just like a servant who has no existence for himself apart from the existence of the master.

8.

Based on the above one will also understand the comparison of the "six years you shall sow etc."

(in connection with the sabbatical year)

to the "six years he shall serve" of a servant:

From the complete dependence and self-surrender of a servant to his master,

that his entire existence is acquired by his master,

it is just as it is not possible that the servant should have his own desires

(even not even any love for the master as above,

except that with the love itself he carries out a command of the master)

— so too, on the other hand, it is not his matter to worry about his needs: upon the master lies an obligation to feed and provide his servant with all necessities⁴³

— the servant himself need not worry about this because he is a part of the master's possessions.

Therefore the Zohar compares the "six years you shall sow your field" to the "six years he shall serve" of a servant who is exempt from [the commandment of] settling the world: because during the "six years" the Almighty says to a Jew "you shall sow your field" and "you shall prune your vineyard",

that the Jew himself should worry about his livelihood

&lt;b&gt; your God &lt;/b&gt;in all that you do"&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;,

however since the blessing from Above is still clothed and is expressed specifically "in all that you do"

(and in particular,

that from the side of this concealment and hiding there can still be a place for error that "my power and the might of my hand made me this wealth" &lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;)

— not like in the seventh year when the "and I will command My blessing etc." &lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;

is revealed and not clothed in garments of nature

(because from the side of nature, since "&lt;b&gt;we will not&lt;/b&gt; sow &lt;b&gt;and we will not&lt;/b&gt; gather etc.",

the question can arise

(that even &lt;b&gt;Torah&lt;/b&gt; gives a place for the question)

"And if you will say, 'What will we eat?'"&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;)]

It thus turns out,

that in the "six years" analogous to the "six years he shall serve" the Almighty has, as it were, removed His lordship from the Jew and placed him in his own authority,

that he himself must work for his livelihood&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;

— although a master is obligated to feed his servant — because the lordship is not revealed.

9.

Although in the "six years" the "and Hashem your G-d will bless you" is clothed and hidden in the "all that you do",

in garments of nature,

nevertheless,

because about Jews it is said "for the portion of <b>Hashem</b> is His people"^",

that they are a part of Hashem

(was, is, and will be as one⁵⁰)

above nature — therefore for them the garments of nature do not conceal so much, even during the "six years" when <b>Torah</b> says that it must be "you will sow" and "you will prune"; i.e.,

that is,

that also in nature Jews perceive the above nature.

And this is the difference between the influence from above to Jews,

and the influence to the nations of the world,

to distinguish: the nations of the world,

because they receive their influence from the constellations and stars

(and from the seventy princes)

"which Hashem apportioned etc. to all the peoples"⁵¹

— regarding them, nature is indeed a true concealment and hiding.

— although the constellations and stars are before the Most High only "like an <b>axe</b> in the hand of the hewer" — because due to that which "<b>Hashem apportioned</b> to them",

it gives a place that regarding the Noahides, the constellations and stars

(and princes)

should appear at least as partners who have

(as it were)

an opinion in the divine influence⁵³].

Not so Jews are <b>warned</b> about partnership.

Because although also the influence to Jews comes in a manner of "from the choice produce of the sun etc." ⁵⁴

— it is heard however by them <b>openly</b> that the sun and moon etc. are only like an axe in the hand of the hewer,

and that the influence comes from the Most High.

Yud.

Based on this one will also understand how it can be a side of reasoning "since the master worships idolatry, I too am like him":

Since the flow of sustenance to the servant comes entirely through his master — and as above that he is obligated &lt;b&gt;according to Torah&lt;/b&gt; to feed his servant

(Because if the servant himself does it for himself,

it is entirely contrary to the concept of servitude,

as above)

— and consequently there could arise in him a reasoning "since my master worships idolatry": Since there are matters of idolatry in which "the master" is permitted

(as above the concept of partnership regarding which his master is not warned,

because regarding him the celestial powers are indeed as if partners),

and since his influence comes through his master — "I am also like him",

that also the influence to him comes

(through his master and)

as if through the partnership of the celestial powers — idolatry.

And this is the point in the Torah's statement "Do not make for yourselves idols etc.",

that a Jew,

in whatever situation he may stand — he is "the portion of Hashem": the difference is only regarding concealment and revelation,

that in the seventh year "I will command My blessing" is in utmost revelation; in the "six years" "Hashem your God will bless you" is clothed and concealed in "in all that you do"; and with one sold to a gentile the blessing of Hashem is clothed in an even coarser garment,

so that his sustenance

(in revelation)

comes through work for a gentile

(and even lower than that — a "sold to an idol" — through becoming a hewer of wood and drawer of water for idolatry &lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;).

This is however only an external &lt;b&gt;garment&lt;/b&gt;,

but in its inwardness the influence is from Hashem&lt;sup&gt;56&lt;/sup&gt;

above nature&lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;.

11.

According to the above it will also become understandable,

why specifically regarding the fulfillment of the command of "You shall not make for yourselves idols etc." and "You shall observe My Sabbaths etc.",

where it speaks about a "sold to a gentile",

the verse must state anew "I am the Lord — faithful to pay reward":

The reward of the commandments is

(not a separate thing,

with which one rewards the person for the commandment that he has done,

but)

a direct result of the commandment itself⁵⁸.

And as the Alter Rebbe says⁵⁹

"For the cause of the reward of the commandment is the commandment itself".

But in the reward of the commandments themselves there are two matters: a)

The coming into being of the <b>existence</b> of the reward,

which is created through the performance of the commandment.

And b)

The <b>payment</b> of the reward,

the recompense that is paid and arrives to the person.

Regarding <b>all</b> commandments it is a simple thing,

that: a)

Through the fulfillment of the commandment is effected

(above)

the reward of the commandment.

b)

The reward arrives to the person who fulfills the commandment.

When it speaks, however, about the command "You shall not make for yourselves idols etc. My Sabbaths you shall keep" which was said to one sold to a non-Jew; to such a one who <b>openly</b> stands in a state of "I am like him",

that he receives his influence through his master

(and not from Havayah who is above nature)

He can therefore think to himself: Since the Torah tells me "Do not make for yourselves idols etc. My Sabbaths you shall keep,"

it is indeed a &lt;b&gt;gre&lt;/b&gt;at &lt;b&gt;mat&lt;/b&gt;ter that through my fulfilling this mitzvah,

the matter of reward will come about; but there is a place to assume,

that this reward should not be "paid" to &lt;b&gt;me&lt;/b&gt;,

should not &lt;b&gt;reach me&lt;/b&gt;.

For since according to my state "I am like him,"

then how is it possible that the reward that comes about through not serving idolatry and keeping Shabbat

(which is the revelation of Havayah above nature which pertains specifically to Jews)

should come to &lt;b&gt;me&lt;/b&gt;,

and moreover in revelation?

To this the verse says "I am Havayah — faithful to pay reward": from the aspect of the level of Havayah Himself,

that also Havayah is merely a name

(although among the names themselves it is the essential name,

the explicit name&lt;sup&gt;60&lt;/sup&gt;,

the unique name etc.&lt;sup&gt;61&lt;/sup&gt;),

He indeed cannot be drawn down in revelation to such a Jew who is sold to a non-Jew.

And therefore from the aspect of &lt;b&gt;Torah&lt;/b&gt; there is a place for the reasoning "since my master etc. I too am like him" — even though "the portion of Havayah is His people" — because by this Jew who is sold to a non-Jew,

the name Havayah does not shine in revelation.

But through that which he fulfills the &lt;b&gt;command&lt;/b&gt;

(which the mitzvah reaches into [the] essence)

“You shall not do etc. My Sabbaths you shall guard,”

this touches upon “&lt;b&gt;I&lt;/b&gt; Hashem.”

And since that from the aspect of the “I,”

from [the] aspect of [the] essence,

there are no limitations — therefore the reward comes also to the one sold to a non-Jew.

12.

Similarly, it is also regarding the promise “there is much reward to give to you” which R. Meir says to the Jew who is “diminishing in business” and instead of that he is engaging in Torah — that since he stands on such a level that from his station and his situation according to &lt;b&gt;Shulchan Aruch&lt;/b&gt; he is a businessman&lt;sup&gt;62&lt;/sup&gt;

(and also the instruction of the Mishnah is not that he should stop being a businessman and become a dweller of the tent,

rather he should only diminish in business)

; he does not stand on the level of those “who do the will of the Place” about which the Gemara in Berachot speaks,

whose service is “with all your might,”

who are entirely given over to Torah and their livelihood is drawn to them in a manner above nature&lt;sup&gt;64&lt;/sup&gt;

(like “and strangers will stand and shepherd your flocks” which will be in the future)

He can think to himself,

that the "one who is occupied <b>in Torah</b>": a)

has no "reward" — a <b>cause</b> in the category of <b>reward</b> — because it is higher than that⁶⁵,

b)

it cannot reach him in his standing and situation,

because this is entirely hi— higher than that,

higher than "time and place"⁶⁶.

Says Rabbi <b>Meir</b>: a)

<b>"There is great reward</b>" b)

"to give to you",

Because from the aspect of Essence,

that He is not defined by any definitions, G‑d forbid,

not in the category of boundary and also not in the category of the Unlimited,

there exists the "great reward" and it is also "to give to you."

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Behar-Bechukotai 5724 and Shabbat Parshat Eikev 5728)