English translation — בחוקותי א

A.

In the verse "And I will remove evil beasts from the land"¹

the Toras Kohanim brings a dispute between R. Yehuda and R. Shimon: "R. Yehuda says: He removes them from the world.

R. Shimon says: He causes them to cease so that they do not harm."

Then the Toras Kohanim brings a proof to the view of R. Shimon: "And so it says²

A psalm, a song for the Shabbos day — to cause harmful beings to cease from the world,

to cause them to cease so that they do not harm.

And so it says³

And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb ..

And a little child shall lead them ..

And the nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp ..

teaching that a child from Israel will in the future extend his hand into the pupil of the eye of a viper, etc."

Then in this it is not understood:

a)

What is the proof from the verse "Mizmor shir l'yom haShabbat" that "mashbit mazikin"

(which will be in the future)

means "that they should not harm"?

The word "haShabbat" is indeed from the language of "shvita" exactly like the word "v'hishbati".

Then what is "l'yom haShabbat" more proof that it means "that they should not harm" than "v'hishbati chayah ra'ah": just as Rashi explains that "v'hishbati" means "removes them from the world",

can he then also learn thus in the verse "l'yom haShabbat"?

On the other hand: The verse "And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, etc." is indeed <b>explicit</b> that also in the future <b>will be</b> all these harmful animals — wolf,

bear,

lion and snake; it is only that "they shall not harm nor destroy"⁴.

Now how can R. Yishmael learn "He removes them from the world"⁵?

2)

2.

The reasoning of R. Yishmael, that he learns that "And I will remove evil beasts" means "He removes them from the world",

is explained by the Rogatchover⁶,

that R. Yishmael follows his own system in the law of destroying leaven:

In the manner that one must burn the chametz,

there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages⁷

: "Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no removal of chametz except by burning.

And the Sages say: Even crumbling and scattering to the wind or casting into the sea."

What is the essence of their dispute?

When one throws the chametz into the sea

(and even when one scatters it to the wind,

only the connection of its parts becomes nullified etc. but it)

the existence of the chametz remains as it was.

And since regarding chametz it is written ⁸

"<b>You shall eliminate</b> leaven from your houses",

Rabbi Yehuda holds that by crumbling the chametz and scattering it in the wind or by throwing it into the sea one does not fulfill the commandment "You shall eliminate".

Because according to R. Yehuda the explanation of "elimination" is — nullification of existence.

And therefore he holds "there is no removal of chametz except by burning" — because specifically by burning the chametz its existence becomes nullified

(And although even after burning there remains ash from it — but ash is a new existence*⁸.

The previous existence is gone).

The Sages

(and among them R. Shimon)

hold however,

that also the nullification of form and quality — in the broad sense of <b>form</b> and <b>quality</b>,

including also the possibility of eating

(and benefit in general),

the definition of "it is seen to you"⁹

etc. — is called "elimination",

and therefore they hold that also through "crumbling and scattering to the wind or throwing into the sea" one fulfills the commandment "You shall eliminate"*⁹.

And this,

says the Rogatchover,

is also the reason for the dispute between R. Y. and R. Sh. in the interpretation of "And I will remove evil beasts from the land": When an evil beast ceases to cause harm,

only its form is nullified,

but its existence remains as before,

it would also be understandable that the nullification of this nature is only the nullification of the form¹⁰

; all the more so,

that during the six days of creation the beasts did not cause harm,

and the nature to harm came into them only after the sin of the Tree of Knowledge¹¹

— it is certainly understandable that this nature is only an external form,

and through the nullification of this nature the existence of the beast is not nullified].

So Rabbi Yehuda,

who teaches that "shvita" means the nullification of existence,

must hold that "vehishbati chaya ra'ah etc." means "removes them from the world".

But Rabbi Shimon,

who in his opinion also the nullification of form can be called "shvita", teaches "mashbitan shelo yaziku",

because also that is called "<b>vehishbati</b>".

3.

The term shvita is also found regarding Shabbat — "and on the seventh day <b>tishbot</b>"¹².

One indeed sees,

that also regarding the prohibition of work on Shabbat

(which is also connected to "and on the seventh day tishbot"¹³)

there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon,

in two matters:

a)

Regarding "work that is not needed for its own sake"

e.

When someone does a work intentionally,

but his reason for it is for the sake of another thing.

For example,

"one who extinguishes a lamp because he is afraid of gentiles etc." or "because of a sick person who should sleep",

that his reason for extinguishing is not in the lamp itself,

because he needs the coal,

but for another thing¹⁴],

R. Yehuda holds that he is liable and R. Shimon holds that he is exempt¹⁵.

b)

Regarding "an unintended act"

a work without intention.

For example, when one pours cold water into a hot metal vessel in order to warm the water,

then although through this he strengthens the vessel,

which is "the completion of the work of the smiths",

he is, however, not at all intending that work],

R. Yehuda holds that this is forbidden and R. Shimon holds that it is permitted¹⁶.

The explanation in their disputes: By Shabbos, "the Torah prohibited only <b>intentional</b> labor"¹⁷,

and when the intention is lacking

but even in a case of "a labor that is not needed for its own sake",

since his reason and intention is for the sake of another matter,

it is therefore considered that regarding the labor, intention is lacking],

the form of the labor is nullified.

And since by Shabbos it says "and on the seventh day you shall <b>rest</b>",

that there must be <b>rest</b> from labor,

so Rabbi Yehuda,

who learns that rest is specifically when the entire existence is nullified,

holds that also when one does a labor that is not needed for its own sake and even an unintentional act — one does not fulfill the "you shall rest",

because the essence of the labor exists even when the intention is lacking; but Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that also nullification of the form is called rest,

holds¹⁸

that also a labor that is not needed for its own sake and an unintentional act — since there is not present the form of the labor,

it is already included in the category of "you shall rest"¹⁹.

4.

Since the explanation of “cessation”

is — the nullification of the very existence,

it thus emerges that in the verse “<b>And I will cause to cease</b> evil beast from the land” it states <b>explicitly</b> that in the future the <b>existence</b> of evil beasts will be nullified.

And therefore he cannot learn “that they cease so that they will not harm”

(despite that which it states “and the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, etc.”)

and must learn “He removes them from the world.”

And that which in the verse it still states <b>explicitly</b> “and the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, etc.” — that there will <b>be</b> evil beasts in the future

(only they will not be harmful),

one must learn

(according to Rabbi Yehudah)

(according to Rabbi Yehudah)

that the two verses speak about two separate times: first there will be “and the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, etc.”,

and afterwards there will be a higher elevation,

that the existence of the evil beasts will be nullified completely — He removes them from the world*¹⁹.

5.

Based on the above, one will also understand the proof that the Toras Kohanim brings to the opinion of Rebbe Shimon from the verse "A psalm, a song for the Sabbath day":

In Maseches Tamid he always enumerates "the song that the Levites would say in the Temple" on each day of the days of the week: "On the first day they would say 'The earth is the Lord's and its fullness, the world and those who dwell in it.'

On the second they would say 'Great is the Lord and highly praised, etc.' On the Sabbath they would say 'A psalm, a song for the Sabbath day.'"

And he explains "A psalm, a song for the future to come, for a day that is entirely Sabbath and rest²⁰

for the life of the worlds."

Thus it stands in the Mishnah.

But in the Baraitha²¹

there is a dispute about this: "R. Yehuda says in the name of R. Akiva ..

On the seventh they would say 'A psalm, a song for the Sabbath day,'

for the day that is entirely Sabbath.

Said R. Nechemya: 'What did the Sages see to distinguish between these chapters?'"

(Rashi explains: "that all six days these chapters are said about the past and that of the Sabbath about the future"),

and therefore R. Nechemya teaches "on the seventh about that He rested,"

that also on the Sabbath day they said about the past — because the meaning of "A psalm, a song for the Sabbath day" is

(<b>not</b> "for the day that is entirely Sabbath" which will be in the future,

but)

about that He rested,

that the Most High rested on the Sabbath of Creation.

Afterwards the Gemara says "And they disagree about the statement of Rav Ketina,

for Rav Ketina said: The world exists for six thousand years and one [thousand] is desolate*²¹..

Abaye said: two [thousand] desolate" — so the dispute of

R. Akiva and R. Nechemya depends on the dispute of Rav Ketina and Abaye: according to the opinion of Rav Ketina that in the future there will be "<b>one</b> desolate",

one can learn that "A psalm, a song for the Sabbath day" means "for the day that is entirely Sabbath".

But not according to the opinion of Abaye,

that there will be "<b>two</b> desolate",

one cannot say that "A psalm, a song for the Sabbath day" refers to the future,

because "for the Sabbath day" is a singular expression and in the future there will be "<b>two</b> desolate".

And accordingly, one must say that "for the <b>Sabbath</b> day" means — "about that He rested".

It is not understood: R. Nachman himself says explicitly that his reason is because he disagrees with

(R. Yehuda in the name of)

R. Akiva is because "What did the Sages see to divide between these chapters."

Now why does the Gemara give another reason?

The question is even greater: from the words of R. Nachman "What did the Sages see to divide" it is apparently understood,

that even if one were to accept like Rav Ketina,

that it will be "one destroyed",

he must also say "on account of the name that it rests".

Now why does the Gemara say "and they disagree in the matter of Rav Ketina etc.",

that the reason of R. Nachman is because he holds like Abaye,

but when he would hold like Rav Ketina — he would agree with the opinion

(R. Yosi the son of)

R. Akiva in the explanation of "to a day that is entirely Shabbat"?

One must say,

that with "And they disagree in the path of Ketina etc." the Gemara means

(<b>not</b> to say another reason for the dispute between R. Akiva and R. Neḥunya,

but)

to explain the rationales of R. Akiva and R. Neḥunya that stand in the baraita: that that which R. Neḥunya compels from the question "What did the Sages see to divide etc." that "A psalm, a song for the Sabbath day" means <b>not</b> for the day that is entirely Shabbat, and

(R. Yosi the son of)

(R. Yishmael because)

R. Akiva does not hold of this question,

it is because R. Akiva holds one destroyed and R. Neḥunya holds two destroyed.

6.

It will be understood with the introduction of the known²⁵,

that every thousand years of the "six thousand years that the world exists",

is a distinct conduct.

And although the Gemara²³

divides the six thousand years into three types — two thousand years of chaos,

two thousand years of Torah and two thousand years of the days of the Messiah — this is in general.

But in particular,

is <b>each</b> thousand years

(also in each one of the two thousand years themselves — chaos,

Torah and the days of the Messiah²⁴)

different from the other thousand years.

What from this is understood also regarding the "two destructions"

(according to the opinion of Abaye),

that although in both millennia there will be "destruction",

nevertheless the seventh millennium is not like the eighth millennium.

And based on this we can say,

that Rav Ketina and Abaye disagree according to the two opinions of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon

(in Torat Kohanim)

: according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that the explanation of "And I will remove evil beasts from the land" is "that they will cease so that they will not harm" — and this is the <b>only</b> cessation that will be in the future

(that <b>always</b><b>²⁵</b>

will be the existence of evil beasts and they will not cause harm),

it is logical that there will be only "<b>one</b> destruction"; but according to Rabbi Yishmael that there are two periods as above — first there will be "And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb"

(there will be evil beasts,

only they will not harm)

and afterwards "He will remove them from the world",

it has a place to say and on the contrary it is logical²⁶

— that there will be <b>two</b> destructions: in the first millennium there will be the destruction of the form,

they will exist but they will not cause harm,

and in the second millennium "He will remove them from the world"²⁷.

7.

Based on this, one will also understand that the question "What did the Sages see to divide between these chapters" is specifically if one will learn "&lt;b&gt;two&lt;/b&gt; destroyed":

As mentioned above

(section 2),

before the sin of the Tree of Knowledge, the animals were not harmful.

From which it is understood,

that also on the Shabbat of Creation — although it was already after the sin,

since however the sin had then not yet had any effect &lt;b&gt;in practice&lt;/b&gt; in the world — and as our Sages of blessed memory said&lt;sup&gt;28 &lt;/sup&gt;

"Although the luminaries were cursed from Friday, they were not stricken until the conclusion of Shabbat",

the animals also were then not yet harmful.

And consequently it turns out,

that the cessation "so that they should not harm" for the future, for the day that is entirely Shabbat,

is not a <b>new</b> matter that will only arise in the future,

because also in the past,

on the first Shabbat of Creation it was so,

as above.

But the cessation "removing them from the world" — is a new matter <b>entirely</b>,

which will only arise <b>in the future</b>.

And based on this it is understood what the Gemara says "and they disagree regarding the statement of Rav Ketina etc.":

According to Rav Ketina, when it will be only "one destruction",

it means then that "for the day of Shabbat" means "because they rested so that they would not harm",

one can therefore not ask "what did the Sages see to divide etc."

(that the song of the six days is "about the past" and of Shabbat — "about the future")

— because the matter of "because they rested so that they would not harm" which will be in the future was also in the past,

on Shabbat Bereishit²⁹

But according to Abaye that "two destructions",

it means then that he accepts according to Rabbi Yehuda "He removes them from the world",

it becomes automatically a difficulty "what did the Sages see to divide" *²⁹

— since the matter of "He removes them from the world" is entirely a new matter,

which is connected <b>only</b> with "the future" and has no connection with "

(about the p)

ast"³⁰.

8.

According to the above, it will also become understandable what the Toras Kohanim brings a proof from the verse "Mizmor shir l'yom haShabbos" to the opinion of R' Shimon that "their resting so that they not harm":

Since from the verse "Mizmor shir l'yom haShabbos" it is proven

(according to the explanation that it refers to the future)

like the opinion of Rav Ketina,

that it will be "one desolate" — and the dispute of Rav Ketina and Abaye is indeed dependent,

as above,

on the dispute of R' Yishmael and R' Shimon — it therefore follows,

that from this verse "Mizmor shir l'yom haShabbos"

(from which it is proven that the "desolation" will be in one thousand years),

from it is also proven that "their resting so that they not harm"³¹.

9.

Already spoken many times,

that every sedra has a connection to the time in which it is read³².

And based on this it is understood,

that the verse "And I will cause evil beasts to cease from the land",

which is in Parshas Bechukosai which is always read during the days of the Omer

(and close to their conclusion — the month of Sivan)

has a connection to the matter of the Giving of the Torah³³

— when the days of the Omer are <b>completed</b> — "you shall count fifty days".

It will be understood based on what is known³⁴

in the matter of chametz

(for also by chametz it is written indeed "<b>you shall cause to cease</b> leaven from your houses"⁸

— which is analogous to "<b>And I will cause to cease</b> evil beasts from the land" — as above),

that <b>on Pesach</b> chametz is <b>forbidden</b>,

and <b>on Shavuos</b> — not only is chametz permitted,

but on the contrary,

by the two loaves that are offered on Shavuos it <b>must</b> specifically be "<b>chametz</b> they shall bake".

It is known in this the explanation,

that "chametz" indicates haughtiness and self-elevation,

from which come forth all kinds of evil.

And therefore,

on Pesach — when one is still at "Yetzias Mitzrayim",

one must "flee" from "chametz",

until "lo yira'eh"³⁵

and "lo yimatzei"³⁶.

But not so on Shavuos which comes after the work of Sefiras HaOmer — when one refines all seven middos of the animal soul,

then not only is the chametz no contradiction to avodas Hashem,

but on the contrary: one even makes from it a <b>mitzvah</b>.

<b>And accordingly</b>: "And his heart was lifted up in the ways of Hashem"³⁷.

And since after Sefiras HaOmer one stands in such a state that one <b>can</b> make from the chametz a mitzvah,

therefore one must make from it a mitzvah.

Because the ultimate elevation is "the transformation of darkness into light",

that the darkness itself one should transform into light.

And therefore on Shavuos — it <b>must</b> be "chametz te'afenah".

And this is also the connection³⁸

of the days of the Sefirah to "And I will remove evil beasts from the land" according to Rabbi Shimon

(that the halacha is like him,

as below section ten)

"that they be subdued so that they do not harm" — because in "that they be subdued so that they do not harm" is expressed the greatness of the elevation of "the transformation of darkness to light."

And as he says in Torat Kohanim "Rabbi Shimon said,

When is the praise of the Omnipresent? At a time when there are no harmful beings, or at a time when there are harmful beings and they do not harm" — that the ultimate elevation and praise is

(<b>not</b> the <b>nullification</b> of the "harmful beings",

but rather)

that the harmful beings themselves will be transformed for good.

10.

In the dispute between Rav Ketina and Abaye

(whether it will be "one destruction" or "two destructions"),

the Gemara says²³

"A baraitha supports Rav Ketina etc."

From which it is implied³⁹

that the halacha is like Rav Ketina that it will be <b>one</b> destruction.

And since the dispute between Rav Ketina and Abaye is dependent on the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon

(as above section 7),

it follows automatically that the halacha is like Rabbi Shimon "that they be subdued so that they do not harm."

What from this is understood also regarding the service of man now — that all revelations of the future are dependent on our deeds and our service now⁴⁰

And it must surely be an arousal from below corresponding to an arousal from above — that the essence and completeness of the service must be

(<b>Not</b> in "fleeing" and separating oneself from the world — world language of concealment⁴¹

— Rather,

(After preparation)

— Making the world itself,

Which it is indeed full of husks and sitra achra⁴²

— Into a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He⁴³.

And through this one will merit the fulfillment of the prophecy "And I will remove evil beasts from the land",

To the "day that is entirely Shabbat and rest for life everlasting".

(From the talks of 19 Kislev and the regular weekly portion Vayeishev 5730)