The Two Sabbaths
We read in this week’s parashah (23:10-12), “Six years you shall sow your
land and gather in its produce. And in the seventh, you shall leave it
untended and unharvested, and the destitute of your people shall eat, and
the wildlife of the field shall eat what is left; so you shall do to your
vineyard and your olive grove. Six days you shall accomplish your
activities, and on the seventh day you shall desist, so that your ox and
donkey may be content and your maidservant’s son and the sojourner may be
refreshed.” Rashi z”l explains: “Even in the shemittah / sabbatical year you
shall not abrogate the weekly Shabbat; you shall not say, ‘Since the whole
year bears the name of “Shabbat,” the weekly Shabbat need not be observed’.”
Why, indeed, is it necessary to observe Shabbat during the shemittah year?
R’ Aryeh Finkel shlita (rosh yeshiva of the Mir Yeshiva in Modi’in Ilit,
It is true that the same message of emunah / faith is reflected in both
Shabbat and the shemittah, i.e., that by resting from working in the fields
we testify that G-d is the Creator and that He sustains all living things;
therefore, we recognize Him as the Master of everything and we should listen
to His laws and decrees. However, Shabbat has another aspect which is not
found in the shemittah, i.e., that Shabbat is an ‘ot’ / sign of the brit /
covenant between Hashem and the Jewish People, as we read (Shmot 31:17),
“Between Me and Bnei Yisrael it is a sign forever that in a six-day period
Hashem made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was
refreshed.” Moreover, Shabbat is a taste of Olam Ha’ba. This is why
Shabbat must be observed even during the shemittah year. (Yavo Shiloh p.448)
“And these are the ordinances that you shall place before them . . .”
Rashi writes: “Wherever it says, ‘These are,’ it introduces a new subject.
Where, however, it says, ‘*And* these are,’ it adds something to the
previous subject. Thus, here, ‘*And* these are the ordinances,’ means: Just
as the former commandments--the Aseret Ha’dibrot in last week’s
parashah--were given at Sinai, so these civil laws were given at Sinai.”
R’ Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook z”l (1865-1935; Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of
Eretz Yisrael) writes regarding the Divine origin of our civil laws: The
essence of the soul of the Jewish People originates in holiness. We do not
have values that exist in isolation; rather, unity dwells within us, and the
light of the One G-d lives within us. Our laws, the laws of the Torah of
the Living G-d, distinguish us from every other nation and tongue.
Holiness operates within us, and all the aspirations of our broader
existence lead to it. Certainly, there are inklings of holiness in every
nation and tongue; however, their value system does not originate from it.
Not so Yisrael! “In all your ways, know Him” (Mishlei 3:6) is referred to
by the Gemara (Berachot 63a) as “the short verse which encompasses the key
rules of the Torah.” While only unique individuals succeed in putting this
verse into practice, it is, in fact, the inheritance of the whole nation.
Therefore, the civil laws are the holy of holies of Yisrael. Moshe Rabbeinu
taught that seeking G-d and inquiring about civil law are one and the same,
as we read (in last week’s parashah -- 18:15-16), “The people come to me to
seek Elokim. When they have a matter, they come to me, and I judge between
a man and his fellow, and I make known the decrees of G-d and His teachings.”
He continues: A spirit of heresy in the world has caused justice to be
free-for-all. This heresy has declared itself to be full of compassion and
imagined kindness, but it actually takes the foundation of the world and
destroys it. By separating the foundation of civil justice from its Divine
content, it delivers justice into the hands of the basest evil until nations
kill over supposed justice. Rather, all eyes must look to the light of the
world, the light of Hashem, which will be revealed by the anointed one of
the Elokim of Yaakov, “And he will judge the world in righteousness, he will
judge regimes with fairness” (Tehilim 9:9). (Orot Yisrael U’techiyato No.3)
A related thought:
R’ Kook writes: There are those who, due to their evil thoughts, say that we
must keep the spirit of the Torah, but that its practical aspects must be
brought in tune with the times. To rebut this false notion, the Aseret
Ha’dibrot, which are the symbol of the entire covenant of the Torah, were
given to us engraved in stone, a hard material impervious to change. Some
people misinterpret the Oral Law as a deviation from the Written Torah. In
reality, it is all from Sinai. (Ein Ayah: Berachot ch.1, no.27)
“He took the Book of the Covenant and read it in earshot of the people,
and they said, ‘Everything that Hashem has said, we will do and we will
The Gemara (Nedarim 8a) states that Bnei Yisrael are bound by an oath to
keep the Torah which they received at Har Sinai.
R’ Avraham Bornstein z”l (1838-1910; rabbi, rosh yeshiva and chassidic rebbe
in Sochatchov, Poland) asks: What weight is there to such an oath? If one
were not obligated to keep the Torah, why would he be obligated to honor his
oath, which is one of the Torah's mitzvot?
He explains: The commandment (Devarim 23:24), “You shall observe and carry
out what emerges from your lips,” is not the source of the obligation to
honor an oath made to another person or to G-d. That obligation arises from
common sense and basic decency. Rather, what the Torah adds by stating,
“You shall observe and carry out what emerges from your lips,” is an
obligation to honor oaths made *to oneself* [e.g., an oath to learn Daf Yomi
or not to eat cake], which is not dictated by common sense.
Because the obligation to honor an oath made to another person or to G-d is
an element of basic decency, it is independent of, and precedes, the Giving
of the Torah. Thus, Bnei Yisrael are obligated by the oath which they made
to keep the Torah—an oath that was made to G-d. This explains, as well, why
the oaths of the Patriarchs—for example, Avraham Avinu’s and Yitzchak
Avinu’s oaths to Avimelech--were binding even though the Torah had not been
This also explains, continues R' Bornstein, why the Gemara (Bava Metzia 44a)
imposes a curse on a person who goes back on his word in a business deal
even where no kinyan / legally binding act has taken place. True, a
person’s word alone is not legally binding. However, since that person has
acted inconsistently with basic decency, he is deserving of a curse.
(She’eilot U’teshuvot Avnei Nezer: YD 306:15-18)
R’ Nachum Borowsky shlita (Rosh Kollel, Halichos Yerushalayim) adds: In
light of the above, we can understand why the formula of that curse is, “He
who exacted retribution from the Generation of the Flood and the Generation
of the Dispersion [i.e., the builders of the Tower of Bavel] will exact
retribution from one who does not keep his word.” Our Sages say that, of
all of the sins of the Generation of the Flood, the one that sealed their
fate was theft. Ramban z”l explains that the severity of the sin of theft
is due to its being a violation of common sense and basic decency. It
follows, writes R’ Borowsky, that a person who does not keep his word is no
different that the Generation of the Flood.
Likewise, Ramban writes that the Generation of the Dispersion did not commit
any specific sin; rather, they were dispersed because they defied Hashem’s
desire that mankind spread out across the earth and settle it. Similarly, a
person who goes back on his word has not committed any specific sin, but he
has defied Hashem’s desire that man behave with decency. [Like the
Generation of the Dispersion, he has acted in a manner that does not promote
establishment of a healthy society.] (Shalmei Nachum p.158)
Letters from Our Sages
This letter was written by R’ Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin z”l (the
“Netziv”; 1816-1893), rabbi of Volozhin, Russia and rosh yeshiva of the
yeshiva there, as well as the author of many Torah works.
The verse (Mishlei 3:18), “It is a tree of life to those who grasp it, and
its supporters are praiseworthy,” contains two separate expressions
describing support for Torah study. The explanation would seem to be there
are two ways to support Torah study. Some support Torah scholars out of
love, just as they support themselves. Others support Torah study because
they recognize it as a necessity, so that the Torah will not be forgotten,
but not because the want to.
In this world, both types of donors are praiseworthy, for no one knows what
is in someone’s heart. However, their reward in Olam Ha’ba is not equal.
The one who supports Torah with joy will take pleasure in his reward in the
World-to-Come as well. The other one, however, will have a place in Olam
Ha’ba, but he will take no pleasure from it. He will appear to others to be
enjoying his reward, but actually will not be doing so. (Igrot Ha’Netziv
The editors hope these brief 'snippets' will engender further study
and discussion of Torah topics ('lehagdil Torah u'leha'adirah'), and
your letters are appreciated. Web archives at Torah.org start with 5758 (1997) and
may be retrieved from the Hamaayan page.
Hamaayan needs your support! Please consider sponsoring Hamaayan in honor of a happy occasion or in memory of a loved one. The low cost of sponsorship is $36. Donations to HaMaayan are tax-deductible.
Such a Rebbe!
Rabbi Label Lam - 5770
Rabbi Raymond Beyda - 5766
Why was Balak Worried?
Rabbi Yaakov Menken - 5757
A Generation Repents
Rabbi Aron Tendler - 5761
Was G-d Bilaam's Agent?
Rabbi Yissocher Frand - 5761
Bilam's Big Appetite
Shlomo Katz - 5760
Bilaam Lost His Shock Value
Rabbi Yissocher Frand - 5764
Bilaam: A Hard Act to Swallow
Rabbi Pinchas Winston - 5757
A Good Kind of Cover-up
Rabbi Pinchas Winston - 5765
Rabbi Label Lam - 5761
Rabbi Yisroel Ciner - 5759
Why Didn't Moshe Enter Canaan?
Shlomo Katz - 5759
The Good Tents
Rabbi Yaakov Menken - 5761
Rabbi Label Lam - 5771
Don't Take it Personally!
Rabbi Eliyahu Hoffmann - 5761
Three Differences Between Bilaam and Rabbi Yosi ben Kisma
Rabbi Yissocher Frand - 5771