Parshas Vayeitzei
1. At the end of Hilchos Sechirus1 the Rambam rules: "Just as the employer is warned not to steal the wage of the poor man and not to withhold it, so the poor man is warned not to steal the work of the employer and idle a little here and a little there and spend the whole day in deceit; rather he is obligated to be exacting with himself regarding time … And likewise he is obligated to work with all his strength, for Yaakov the righteous said, 'for with all my strength I served your father.'2 Therefore he took reward for this even in this world, as it is said,3 'and the man increased exceedingly, exceedingly.'"
The above law is brought down also in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe,4 and these are his words: "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 neglect the work of the employer and idle a little here and a little there and spend the whole day in deceit; rather he is obligated to be exacting with himself regarding time … And likewise he is obligated to work with all his strength, for Yaakov the righteous said, 'for with all my strength I served your father.' Therefore he took his reward even in this world, as it is said, 'and the man increased exceedingly, exceedingly.'"
At first glance it appears that the Alter Rebbe is merely copying the language of the Rambam (with slight changes). But when one examines it closely, one sees an essential difference5 in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch:
After bringing the lesson from Yaakov, the Alter Rebbe continues: "Therefore a worker is not permitted to do work at night and hire himself out by day; and likewise a person is not permitted to do work with his animal at night6 and hire it out by day; and a worker is not permitted to starve and afflict himself,7 for he weakens his strength and will not be able to do the work of the employer with strength."8
These laws ("a worker is not permitted," and so forth) are brought also in the Rambam;9 but there they come in the preceding halachah, before10 he says "just as the employer is warned not to steal," and so forth.
2. Seemingly one could say that the difference is (not a difference in content, but) only in the order of the matters, in accordance with the distinction between the Rambam's work and the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch:
The Rambam11 wrote his work as "halachos, halachos"12 — without the reasons for the halachos13 — whereas the Alter Rebbe wrote his Shulchan Aruch specifically as "halachos with their reasons."14
And therefore the Alter Rebbe arranges the halachos in a manner that brings out the reason and the definition of the halachos, and therefore he brings all these laws in the same se'if, after the general introduction that applies to them all: "And just as the employer is warned … so the poor man is warned not to neglect the work of the employer" — which is the defining category of all these laws.
And within that itself, he places first the warning and obligation "to be exacting with himself regarding time … and likewise he is obligated to work with all his strength," and afterwards the prohibition that results from this, which follows also with regard to the time of the work — "a worker is not permitted to do work at night," and so forth.
The Rambam, by contrast, is concerned primarily with setting out the ruling, and therefore he arranges the halachos according to the order of time: first the prohibition that comes before the time of the work in practice ("a worker is not permitted," and so forth), and only afterwards the warnings that apply during the time of the work itself — "he is obligated to be exacting with himself regarding time … and likewise he is obligated to work with all his strength."
[And in addition to this: the laws "a worker is not permitted," and so forth, are a continuation of the matters of (seeming) "deceit" which a worker is permitted to do, which the Rambam states before them15 — "and workers16 are permitted to dip17 their bread in brine," and so forth — and to this the Rambam adds and continues: "but a worker is not permitted," and so forth.18]
But this is not a sufficient explanation in our case,19 because from the fact that the Rambam begins the last halachah with an introduction — "just as the employer is warned not to steal the wage of the poor man … so the poor man is warned not to steal the work of the employer" — even though the Rambam already said clearly in the preceding halachah that there must not be "theft of the work of the employer" — it is proven that this is not merely an addition on account of a difference in the time and the act of the prohibition, but that it is a separate category.
That is to say: according to the Alter Rebbe, since the laws "a worker is not permitted," and so forth, come immediately and directly in continuation of the obligation "to work with all his strength" (that "therefore a worker is not permitted," and so forth), it emerges that this is a consequence of the obligation to work with all his strength; whereas according to the Rambam, who states these laws in an earlier halachah, it is a separate law and prohibition in its own right.
This very matter as it stands in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch — that the particular laws "a worker is not permitted," and so forth, are bound up with the obligation "to work with all his strength" (which is learned from Yaakov) — is explicit in the Semag.20
But it requires examination and explanation: what is the reasoning in these two approaches — whether the above laws are a consequence of the obligation "to work with all his strength," or a law in their own right?
3. This will be understood by first explaining the above lesson (in the Rambam) from Yaakov: "And likewise he is obligated to work with all his strength, for Yaakov the righteous said, 'for with all my strength I served your father.' Therefore he took reward for this even in this world, as it is said, 'and the man increased exceedingly, exceedingly.'"
For seemingly in this there are several things that are not understood:
(a) The Rambam's work is (as above) a work of "halachos, halachos." What is relevant to halachah in the conclusion "therefore he took reward for this even in this world," and so forth?
And it is forced to say that the Rambam writes this only in order to conclude (Hilchos Sechirus) with something good — because [in addition to the fact that the Rambam does not conclude all eighty-three sets of halachos21 in the Yad with something good, there is a further and more essential point]: this wording is brought down also in the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, not at the conclusion of these laws. And moreover: in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch it comes in the middle of a se'if!
(b) Moreover: with this the Rambam22 seemingly contradicts himself from within his own words: first he brings the proof from Yaakov, "for Yaakov the righteous said, 'for with all my strength I served your father,'" that there is an obligation upon a worker to work with all his strength; but with the words "therefore he took reward for this even in this world," and so forth, he seemingly nullifies (or at least weakens) the proof, because this brings out that this was not an obligation but a special (righteous) conduct of Yaakov, on account of which his reward was special — "he took reward for this even in this world."
(c) Why the expression "for indeed" — and not the more usual form "as it is said" or "as it is written" and the like?
(d) The expression "the righteous," which is not the usual form (as a title) in the Rambam,23 and at most he should have said, in the usual form,24 "Yaakov Avinu."25 And particularly since this weakens the proof, for it indicates that this was a special conduct of (Yaakov) "the righteous."
Seemingly one may say that with all these expressions the Rambam intends to guard against the question: one does not derive laws from before the Giving of the Torah,26 so how can one derive a halachah in Hilchos Sechirus from the conduct of Yaakov before the Giving of the Torah?
Therefore the Rambam does not say, in the form generally usual for a proof, "as it is said" (and the like), because one does not in fact derive it from Yaakov; it is only like a supporting allusion (or merely a revealing of the matter and the like) to bring out the greatness of the thing, 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."
But this is very forced, because we find in many places, also in the Rambam (in the halachos before these), that laws are derived also from before the Giving of the Torah (and as one sees in connection with our parsha itself, that the Rambam27 derives the law that "even on Chol HaMoed one does not marry … because one does not mix one joy with another, as it is said,28 'fulfill the week of this one and we shall give you also that one'"); and it is no contradiction to the rule that one does not derive from before the Giving of the Torah, as per the various answers and definitions given on this by the commentators.29 And this is obvious in our case, where it is not a particular law but a general mode of conduct, the way of the labor of workers according to the mutual agreement and understanding of people, which can certainly be derived30 from before the Giving of the Torah.31
Moreover: we find in this very matter, Yaakov's service to Lavan, that one does derive from Yaakov, as the Gemara says:32 "Until when is a paid watchman obligated to watch? Until 'I was33 by day consumed by heat, and by frost at night.'"34
4. And this is the explanation of the matter:
With the proof "for Yaakov the righteous said, 'for with all my strength I served your father,' therefore he took reward," and so forth, the Rambam brings out the definition of the obligation "to work with all his strength." First the Rambam says "just as the employer is warned not to steal the wage of the poor man … so the poor man is warned not to steal the work of the employer and idle a little here and a little there and spend the whole day in deceit; rather he is obligated to be exacting with himself regarding time," and so forth; and afterwards he continues and adds: and likewise he is obligated to work with all his strength.
Seemingly one could have understood: the obligation to be exacting with himself regarding time is bound up with "not stealing the work of the employer," but the obligation "to work with all his strength" is not bound up (to such a degree) with the work of the employer (such that one should say that when he fails to do it he is not fulfilling "not stealing the work of the employer"), but is bound up only with the person himself, with the worker as he is in his own right, with his trustworthiness — that he must be devoted to a task to the point of "working with all his strength." That is to say, this is not (so much) from the side of the category of "between man and his fellow," between the worker and the employer, but is akin to a category of "between man and the Omnipresent."
To this the Rambam brings the proof "for Yaakov the righteous said, 'for with all my strength I served your father.' Therefore he took reward for this even in this world, as it is said, 'and the man increased exceedingly, exceedingly'": the proof is not (only) from the beginning of his words, that Yaakov "said, 'for with all my strength I served your father'"
(and on the contrary, in this one could say that Yaakov was thereby emphasizing35 that he conducted himself beyond the letter of the law, a service to which he was not obligated,36 and then this is a proof to the contrary — that there is no obligation upon every worker to work with all his strength)
rather the (essential) proof is from the continuation of the wording, "therefore he took reward for this," and so forth (and in a manner of) "and he increased":
The accomplishment here is (not so much that Yaakov received a reward from the Almighty for fulfilling a command of G‑d — and with other mitzvos that could be a reward (only) in the World to Come, whereas here he received the reward of a mitzvah also in this world — but rather)37 that he received "reward for this," the wage for his labor;
that is to say, the "name your wage" (which Lavan had agreed upon with Yaakov) brought it about in practice that (although Lavan wished to deceive him and so forth, nevertheless — since "with all my strength," and so forth) "and the man increased exceedingly, exceedingly," a reward in accordance with his labor, which was in the manner of "with all my strength I served."
From this one understands that "working with all his strength" is bound up not only with the person, with the worker as he is in himself, but with his work for the employer. Which is why Yaakov received for this too his reward in this world.
5. And according to this the two precise expressions mentioned above in the language of the Rambam are sweetened:
(a) He does not say "as it is said" but "for indeed" — because the proof is not (only) from the verse "for with all my strength I served your father," but (also and) chiefly from the entire continuation: "therefore he took reward for this," and so forth.
(b) He does not say "Yaakov Avinu" but "Yaakov the righteous." And the explanation:
From the Rambam at the beginning of Hilchos Dei'os38 it is understood that the title "righteous" (which the Rambam uses in his Yad) does not mean one who performs an embellishment of a mitzvah and the like, but one who conducts himself according to the law and the obligation. As he brings there39 the verses concerning traits and conduct,40 that one who goes in "the straight way, which is the middle measure," is called (in the language of the verses) "righteous" (and one who is "exceedingly exacting with himself" and acts "beyond the letter of the law" is called "pious").41
And this is what the Rambam is saying — that Yaakov's conduct of working with all his strength was not a matter of the measure of piety and the like (a special conduct*41 as one of the three Patriarchs — Yaakov Avinu), but rather this is the manner of the obligation of a worker: every worker with regard to the work of the employer.
6. This novelty itself — that the obligation to work with all his strength is bound up (not only with the general trustworthiness of a worker, but) with the work he does for the employer — can be understood in two ways:
One way is: that it is bound up with the body of the work, but it is a matter additional to the essential work for the employer: it is a separate obligation of the worker toward the employer.
And this is the approach of the Rambam, who divides the halachos relating to the theft of the employer's work into two separate halachos: in the first halachah he states the laws of "a worker is not permitted to do his work at night … because of theft of the work of the employer, for his strength becomes weak … and he will not do work with strength"; and in the halachah after it he begins: "just as the employer is warned not to steal the wage of the poor man … so the poor man is warned not to steal the work of the employer and idle a little here," and so forth, "rather he is obligated to be exacting with himself regarding time … and likewise he is obligated to work with all his strength," and so forth.
For according to the Rambam's approach these are two separate categories: one obligation, that the worker must do work with strength; and a separate obligation — "to be exacting with himself regarding time … and likewise he is obligated to work with all his strength." And the difference between them may be said to be:
That he must do work with strength is a matter in the essence of the work — when work with strength is lacking, there is a lack in the very applicability of the designation "work." Whereas the obligation "to work with all his strength" is not because without it the category of work is absent; rather it is bound up with the particular undertaking of the worker (toward that particular employer).
In a somewhat different formulation: "work with strength" (plain) is bound up with the object of the work, and the obligation "to work with all his strength" relates to the person, between the worker and the employer, since a worker's body is acquired42 to the employer.43
Whereas according to the Alter Rebbe there are not two separate halachos here — plain work and work with all his strength — but it is one halachah; work with strength and work with all his strength are not two categories (the category of work in general, and a second category bound up with the undertaking (and the acquisition) of the worker to that particular employer), but it is one category: all of it is bound up with the work of the employer.44
And therefore the Alter Rebbe brings the laws of "a worker is not permitted," and so forth, as a continuation of the introduction "and just as the employer is warned … so the poor man is warned not to neglect the work of the employer … he is obligated to be exacting with himself regarding time … and likewise he is obligated to work with all his strength … (therefore a worker is not permitted," and so forth)."
7. According to the above one may also explain several (slight) changes in the Alter Rebbe's wording relative to the wording of the Rambam — for although they seemingly are slight changes, nevertheless, given the known great precision of the Alter Rebbe's golden language, and particularly since in doing so he departs from the wording of the Rambam, one may say that this too is a change in substance:
(a) At the end of the first halachah, where the Rambam explains the reason for the laws "a worker is not permitted to do his work at night … starving and afflicting himself," and so forth — he says: "because of theft of the work of the employer, for his strength becomes weak and his mind becomes enfeebled and he will not do work with strength."45 The Alter Rebbe, however, departs from this: (a) he omits the words "because of theft of the work of the employer";46 (b) instead of "he will not do" he says "he will not be able to do"; (c) instead of "work" the Alter Rebbe adds "the work of the employer."47
And according to the above one may say: according to the Rambam the defect here is that "he will not do work with strength" — there is a lack in the very (designation of) work. And therefore as soon as the person places himself in a state of "he will not do work with strength," this is within the category of "theft of the work of the employer" (because he is not fit to be a worker — his work is not work).
Whereas according to the Alter Rebbe the defect is "he will not be able to do the work of the employer with strength," as his undertaking (and acquisition) to the employer. It emerges that the prohibition of "doing work at night," and so forth (and the like), is not within the category of theft of the work of the employer; it is only a cause — "he will not be able to do the work of the employer with strength"48 (so that afterwards, when he comes to do "the work of the employer," it will not be able to be done as it ought).
(b) In the proof from Yaakov the Rambam's wording is "therefore he took reward for this"; the Alter Rebbe, however, says: "therefore he took his reward."49
— Because according to the Rambam, the reward for his having served with all his strength is a matter additional to the reward for the essential work for the employer. The reward is indeed bound up with the body of the work (as above, end of section 4), but even so it is a matter additional to the essential work. And therefore the Rambam is precise: "therefore he took reward for this" — the special reward for working with all his strength.
Whereas the Alter Rebbe emphasizes "therefore he took his reward" — because according to his approach these are not two separate things, plain labor and labor with all his strength; rather labor with all his strength is one category together with the body of the work that he does for the employer, and therefore the reward for labor with all his strength is included within the reward for his labor — "he took his reward" (plain).
8. The lesson from this in the service of man — for the Jewish people are workers who must do work for the Employer, this being the Holy One blessed be He:50
The reason the obligation to work with all his strength is learned specifically from Yaakov's service in the house of Lavan the Aramean in Charan is because the work that a Jew must do for the Almighty (with all his strength) resembles Yaakov's service in Lavan's house.
As is known,51 Yaakov's service in Lavan's house was not within the four cubits of the study hall of Shem and Ever, nor even as he had been in Eretz Yisrael in the house of his father Yitzchak, when his service was all within the world of holiness — rather his service there was in Charan, "the wrath of the Omnipresent" (in the world),52 to make the world a dwelling for Him, may He be blessed.
And in the same manner is the service of every Jew as a worker of the Holy One blessed be He:
That a soul serves the Almighty while it is still in the upper worlds, before it descends below into this world and clothes itself in a body, when "I stood before Him"53 — this is a most lofty service, both in intellect (understanding in G‑dliness) and in emotion (its love of G‑d and fear of G‑d) — but all of that is its own service:
9. Specifically when the soul descends into this physical world, and there itself the person does not remain forever shut within the four cubits of Torah and prayer, but occupies himself with the service of refinement, to make of the lower realms "below which there is none lower"54 a dwelling for Him, may He be blessed — here he is a worker of the Holy One blessed be He; this is "the work of the employer."
And upon this is the lesson from Yaakov, that this very work must be done "with all his strength":
Not only that "he is obligated to be exacting with himself regarding time" —
for if "he idles a little here and a little there": one makes a calculation that it does not matter to postpone the work of the employer a little and meanwhile to snatch matters bound up with his own perfection (to fill his belly and so forth, to have more understanding in Torah and the like) — this will cause that "he spends the whole day" — the entire "today to do them"55 — "in deceit";
but more than that — "he is obligated to work with all his strength,"56 with all the powers of the soul:*56
A Jew might think that while one is still within the four cubits of Torah and prayer, his service there is bound up with his power of intellect — learning Torah with comprehension and grasp — and with his emotions, "which is the service of the heart? This is prayer,"57 the service of prayer out of love and fear;
but when one goes out to the outside, and the work is to make the world a dwelling for Him, there what is primarily required is to act with his power of deed, and the service is bound up only with the acceptance of the yoke within the soul —
upon this is the lesson that in the service of making a dwelling for Him in the lower realms, one is obligated to work with all his strength: not only with his lower powers, but also with his inner powers, his power of intellect and his emotions, and even with his encompassing powers, his will and his delight.
But one might think that this is a matter of the embellishment of a mitzvah, since for the making of the dwelling what is primarily relevant is only his power of deed — upon this one has the lesson that this is an absolute obligation, without which it is called theft (neglect) of the work of the employer.
The "designation of work" — of making a dwelling for Him in the lower realms — can perhaps exist even when one acts only with the power of deed; but as the work of the employer*57 the service must be with all his strength. By a Jew it must be felt in his entire being that his whole purpose is to carry out the mission of the Almighty to make for Him, may He be blessed, a dwelling in the lower realms, and that he, as a worker, is bodily acquired to the Employer, this being the Holy One blessed be He, and consequently he does the work of the employer with all his strength.
And through a Jew carrying out his work with all the powers of his soul, he "takes his reward even in this world," to the point of a manner of "and the man increased exceedingly, exceedingly," twice "exceedingly," the true58 infinity59 —
specifically through the service in this world does one take hold of the true "exceedingly."
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Vayeitzei, 5719)
Notes
1) Ch. 13, halachah 7.
2) Our parsha 31:6.
3) There 30:43.
4) Choshen Mishpat, Hilchos She'eilah uSechirus vaChasimah, se'if 20.
5) The difference that in the Rambam the halachah begins "just as," and in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch "and just as" — one may say is because in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch it comes in continuation of the adjacent halachos before it (in the same siman), in which the warning "not to steal the wage of the poor man and not to delay it" is discussed; whereas the Rambam wrote this not in this chapter but before it — in ch. 1 there, and the beginning of the halachah (halachah 6), "just as he is warned," comes as the conclusion of all of Hilchos Sechirus.
6) In the Rambam (there, halachah 6) "or to thresh with his cow in the evening and hire her out in the morning" — and similarly in the Semag cited below, note 20 (and in the Tosefta in note 8, "to plough" (and so it is in the Rif, Bava Metzia ch. 7 (89a) and in the Rosh there, siman 3)). And in the Yerushalmi (cited in note 8) "a person shall not plough with his cow at night and hire her out by day." And seemingly this is a difference in law, whether the prohibition is specifically when he works at night or only in the evening — see Chasdei David on the Tosefta there.
7) In the Rambam there he adds: "and feed his food to his children." And likewise it is in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch cited in note 10. And so it is in the Tosefta there. But in the Yerushalmi there these words are absent.
8) And their source is in Tosefta Bava Metzia 8:2; Yerushalmi Demai 7:3 — as noted in the Maggid Mishneh and the Hagahos Maimoniyos on the Rambam there.
9) Halachah 7.
10) And so it is in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch (and Levush), Choshen Mishpat, end of siman 337 — (a) that they are in two halachos; (b) "a worker is not permitted," and so forth, is (se'if 19) before (se'if 20) "the worker is warned not to neglect," and so forth.
11) And likewise the Shulchan Aruch of the Mechaber.
12) Rambam in his introduction to the Sefer HaYad.
13) See Kuntres Acharon in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Hilchos Talmud Torah, beginning of siman 2.
14) "The introduction of the rabbis, the sons of the author of blessed memory," to the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch.
15) And this itself comes in continuation of the beginning of the halachah, "the owner of the cow is permitted to starve his cow and afflict her so that she should eat much of the threshing, and the hirer is permitted to feed her bundles of sheaves," and so forth, which is the continuation and conclusion of the chapter in which the laws of "you shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing" are discussed. Whereas in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch this se'if comes in continuation of the particulars of the laws of "you shall not withhold overnight," and so forth, concerning a worker (and the like); and the laws of "you shall not muzzle," as well as the laws that a worker eats during his work, he wrote afterwards (se'if 22 ff.). And in the Shulchan Aruch of the Mechaber these laws concerning a worker are the conclusion of the siman (336), "the law of a worker's eating during work, of what he eats and when he eats," and the siman after it (338) — "the law of an animal's eating during work and the prohibition of muzzling it," and the siman after that (339) — "to give the wage of a person and an animal and vessels in its time, and when its time is." And this is not the place for it.
16) So it is in the printings before us in the Rambam and in the Tosefta there. Bava Metzia 89a (Rashi there; Rosh there, siman 3). But in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch (there, se'if 24) "the worker is permitted to dip his bread" (and in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch there, se'if 16). And the same change (between the singular and the plural) exists in what precedes it in the Rambam: in the Rambam there, "the employer is permitted to give the workers to drink" (and so it is in the other sources mentioned above), and in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch there, "to give him to drink" (as in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch there, "to give the worker to drink").
17) So it is in the Gemara there. Rosh there. Tur and Shulchan Aruch (and the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch) there. But in the Tosefta there, "to eat."
18) And to note that in the Tosefta there they come in a single halachah, but in the reverse order — it begins with the prohibition "a worker is not permitted," and so forth, and afterwards "workers are permitted to eat their bread in brine so that they may eat," and so forth.
19) With regard to the difference between the Rambam and the Alter Rebbe. — But one may say so with regard to the Shulchan Aruch of the Mechaber, who does not begin the halachah "just as the employer is warned," and so forth, as the Rambam does. And particularly since the Mechaber's Shulchan Aruch is essentially the practical application of the laws, unlike the Rambam, whose work is essentially (also) a book for the knowledge of the halachos — see Likkutei Sichos vol. 16, p. 374. And elsewhere.
20) Positive commandments, end of mitzvah 91. And there: "We learn in the Yerushalmi of tractate Demai and in the Tosefta of Bava Metzia, a worker is not," and so forth (and he concludes) "because of theft of the work of the employer, for his strength will fail and his mind will weaken and he will not do work with strength; and indeed Yaakov Avinu said, 'for with all my strength I served,' and so forth."
21) And more than this: that even at the conclusion of the (fourteen) books the Rambam is not particular to conclude specifically with something good (see the conclusion of Sefer Nashim; but there only the last word is not something good — see the sichah of Shabbos Parshas Mikeitz 5744 concerning the conclusion of Sefer Nashim and Sefer Taharah in the Rambam).
22) And consequently in its transcription in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch there.
23) And to note that in the Tur there — although he prefaces "the Rambam wrote," and so forth — he transcribes the wording "for so Yaakov said," and so forth (and omits "the righteous").
24) See for example Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 1:19 (regarding Moshe); 4:3 (Avraham); 7:3 (Yaakov); there 7:6, ch. 8, 9:1 and 9:5, 10:1 and 10:5 (Moshe); Hilchos Avodah Zarah 1:2 ff. (Avraham, Yaakov and Moshe), and elsewhere.
*) There, 5:10, "Yosef the righteous" — but there the reason is understood.
25) And so is the wording in the Semag there; the Levush there. And to note from the Rambam at the end of Hilchos Milah, "come and see how severe circumcision is, that it was not suspended for Moshe Rabbeinu," where he departs from the wording of the Mishnah (Nedarim 31b) "for Moshe the righteous." And see above, p. 58, note 40.
26) See Sdei Chemed, Klalim, Maareches HaAleph, klal 321. Pe'as HaSadeh, Klalim, Maareches Aleph, siman 135, subsection 10. Encyclopedia Talmudis, entry "one does not derive from before the Giving of the Torah," and sources cited there.
27) Hilchos Ishus 10:14 (from the Yerushalmi, Moed Katan 1:7).
28) 29:27. And see Rashi there — from the Yerushalmi. And in the Ramban there.
29) See at length in the sources mentioned above, note 26, and sources cited there.
30) Among the ways in which one can derive from before the Giving of the Torah (see the sources noted in the above note): the modes of fulfilling a mitzvah; a matter that has a reason and logic; where there is no logic to distinguish; derivations that are in the nature of a revealing of the matter. And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 1 on our parsha (p. 65 ff.) concerning the derivation that one does not mix one joy with another, which is derived from our parsha.
31) To note from the words of the Ramban on the Torah (Vayishlach 34:13): "and in my opinion the laws that were counted among the seven mitzvos of the children of Noach … in the laws of theft and overreaching and oppression and the wage of a hired man and the laws of bailees," and so forth, "and the laws of buying and selling." That is, that the substance of the laws of Parshas Mishpatim were included in the seven Noachide mitzvos.
32) Bava Metzia 93b.
33) Our parsha 31:40.
34) And see She'iltos on our parsha, she'ilta 20.
35) And as the Meiri writes, Bava Metzia there (according to Rabbah) — concerning the verse "I was by day consumed by heat," and so forth.
36) And see also Midrash HaGadol on our parsha 31:39. The commentary of Rabbi Avraham son of the Rambam there. And elsewhere.
37) And as the Rambam writes in his Commentary on the Mishnah, beginning of Pe'ah, that this is the difference between the mitzvos that are particular to a person in his own soul in what is "between him and the Holy One blessed be He," regarding which "it is reckoned to him as righteousness and the Holy One blessed be He will requite him for it in the World to Come," and the mitzvos that depend upon "the benefit of people one with another (between man and his fellow)," regarding which "it is reckoned to him as righteousness for the World to Come because he performed the mitzvah, and he finds good in this world because he conducted himself in the good way among people, for when he conducts himself in this way others will conduct themselves after his manner and he will likewise receive reward from that matter." Except that in our case "he took reward for this" not from Lavan the Aramean in a direct manner.
38) 1:4.
39) Even though he himself describes him (there and in halachah 5) as "wise," and that it is "the measure of wisdom."
40) And see there, halachah 7, "so they learned in the explanation of this mitzvah: what is He called? Gracious … righteous and upright," and so forth.
41) There, halachah 5.
*41) There is no contradiction to this from what was explained above, p. 58 (as noted above, note 25) regarding the reason the Rambam departed, at the end of Hilchos Milah, from the wording "righteous" of the Mishnah, in order to emphasize that it is a matter relevant not only to Moshe the righteous; for in Hilchos Dei'os the discussion (of the righteous, the wise, the pious) is of views and traits relevant to the relationship between man and his fellow, and likewise in our case; and this is not (so) relevant to what is discussed in Hilchos Milah, a mitzvah between man and the Omnipresent, where even if the intent is to a righteous person literally (and in the manner of the expression "righteous," "the righteous," in Hilchos Teshuvah 3:14; 7:14; 8:1 and elsewhere). And particularly since he comes to state the severity of the mitzvah of circumcision, "how severe circumcision is, that it was not suspended … for him even one hour," there is no room to write the expression "righteous," for an opponent could argue that only for a righteous person in the literal sense was it not suspended even one hour (and not for one whose conduct is upright, or one who is righteous in his judgment, as at the beginning of Hilchos Teshuvah there).
42) See Ritva, Bava Metzia (10a, and in the earlier printing there), and elsewhere. And such is the view of the Rambam (Hilchos Mechirah 3:16 — see regarding all this Machaneh Efraim, Hilchos Sechirus Poalim, simanim 1-2 and 4 (and see there at the end of siman 1, that from the above Rambam it appears that every worker's body is acquired — not only when he is hired to the employer for all work)).
43) And perhaps one may say that in halachah 7 the discussion is even where there will be no lack in the body of the work (for the employer) when he is not exacting with time and does not work with all his strength [for example, a worker of great strength, who even if he does not work with all his strength (or is not exacting with his time) will be able to complete the work allotted for that day, and the like] — and nevertheless he is obligated to be exacting with his time and to work with all his strength, on account of the worker's undertaking to the employer, since his body is acquired to him. And according to this the following are also resolved: (a) why he needed the proof that one may not idle "a little here and a little there" from the fact that "they were particular about the fourth blessing," and so forth — for seemingly this is theft! (b) the introduction "just as the employer is warned not to steal the wage of the poor man and not to withhold it, so the poor man," and so forth — what practical difference does it make? — for the precision in this is (not only that he should not steal, and so forth, but also) "and not withhold it," in which there is no theft (for he pays him afterwards), and nevertheless it is (a kind of) robbing of the poor man because he is bound to him to pay him immediately (and "so the poor man" — his body is acquired to the employer to be exacting with his time and to work with all his strength even when there is no loss to the employer).
*) Unlike in halachah 6, where through "he will not do work with strength" there is a lack in the body of the work and there is a loss to the employer from this work.
44) That is, that according to the Rambam only the obligation to work with all his strength is because a worker's body is acquired, and according to the Alter Rebbe the work with strength too is because his body is acquired.
*) See the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Hilchos She'eilah uSechirus vaChasimah, se'if 21 (from Rambam, Hilchos Sechirus 10:4; Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 333:3): "a worker who works for an employer, whether for hire for a period or by contract, even if he has already received all his wage, may retract in the middle of his work," and so forth, "as it is said, 'for to Me the children of Israel are servants' — they are My servants and not servants to servants" (and he adds to the Rambam's wording and explains) "that they should work against their will because they have already been hired." That is, that this is how "not servants to servants" is expressed, but "his body is acquired" for their work [and to note from the continuation in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch there (from the Hagahos Mordechai, Bava Metzia, chapter HaUmanin; Rema there): "and therefore there is one who says that a worker or a teacher … should not hire himself out … for more than three years … for in more than three years he has left the category of a hired man and entered the category of a servant, and the Torah said 'for to Me the children of Israel are servants,'" and so forth. And see Machaneh Efraim there]. And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 20, p. 56 ff., that the distinction between a hired man and an agent is similar; see there.
45) And so it is in the Tosefta there. And in the Yerushalmi there, "because he diminishes the work of the employer." And in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch (and Levush) there (se'if 19), "because of the neglect of the work of the employer."
46) And also at the beginning of the se'if he writes "that he should not neglect the work of the employer," departing from the Rambam's wording there, "that he should not steal the work of the employer." But to note that also in the Tur there, although he prefaces "the Rambam wrote," he writes "that he should not neglect," and so forth.
47) And similarly it is in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch (and Levush) there: "for he weakens his strength so that he will not be able to do the work of the employer with strength."
48) And perhaps one may say that this is also the reason for the change in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, "for he weakens his strength" (as in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch there), where the Rambam has "for his strength becomes weak and his mind becomes enfeebled": the Rambam, who holds that it is a law and prohibition in its own right, emphasizes in his wording (not the act of the person but) what has already been brought about then — "for his strength has become weak (and his mind enfeebled)," so that when he performs these acts he is not within the category of a good worker and consequently this is within the category of "theft of the work of the employer" even before the time of the work in practice; whereas the Alter Rebbe, who holds that it is not a prohibition in its own right (but only a consequence of the obligation "to work with all his strength"), and that when he works at night and so forth it is only a cause, and so forth — emphasizes the act of the person: for he weakens his strength (and causes that) he will not be able to do the work of the employer with strength.
49) In the Tur, "he took reward in this world for this," and in the Shulchan Aruch, "he took his reward in this world" — and in both with the omission of "even." And in the Levush, "he merits and takes his reward in this world and in the World to Come."
50) As in the saying of the Mishnah — Avos 2:16. And see at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 7 (p. 387 ff.) for a number of particulars in the service of the Jewish people and the reward for their work, which are like those of a worker. And see also Likkutei Sichos vol. 29, p. 138 ff.; vol. 34, p. 132 ff.
51) As explained in the discourses of Chassidus on our parsha, on the verse "and Yaakov went out from Be'er Sheva and went toward Charan."
52) Rashi, end of Parshas Noach.
53) I Melachim 17:1; 18:15. II Melachim 3:14; 5:16. Zohar vol. 1, 233b; vol. 3, 68b. — And to note that in the discourses of Chassidus (Torah Or, end of Parshas Vayeishev (30a); Shoresh Mitzvas HaTefillah ch. 42 (140a); Or HaTorah, Bereishis 1645b; and elsewhere) the verse cited is "as the L‑rd lives before whom I stood" (as mentioned in Zohar vol. 1 and vol. 3 there), which is the verse in II Melachim 5 said concerning Elisha. But in Likkutei Torah, Chukas (64d) it is "as Eliyahu said, as the L‑rd lives before whom I stood" (and similarly in the discourse "Kedoshim" 5562 (Derech Mitzvosecha 153b); Maamarei Admur HaZaken (Parshiyos vol. 2, end of p. 687; 5565 vol. 2, p. 790); Siddur 263b; Sefer HaMaamarim 5657 p. 177; and elsewhere). And in Sefer HaMaamarim 5700 p. 13: "this is what Eliyahu said, as the L‑rd G‑d of Israel lives before whom I stood" (and see the note there) — and similarly in Sefer HaMaamarim 5708 p. 211 (and see there p. 210); 5709 p. 7 and p. 185. In many of the above the intent is to the soul above in general, and in many of them the discussion is of the level of the soul of Eliyahu (in particular) above (as in Sefer HaMaamarim Parshiyos, the Siddur there, Sefer HaMaamarim 5657 and elsewhere). And in all the above there are several particulars in "those who stand" (above). And this is not the place for it.
54) Tanya ch. 36.
55) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 15, p. 244 ff.; p. 254 ff., and sources cited there. And in many places.
56) See Likkutei Torah, Chukas 65d, and sources cited there.
*56) And see Tzavaas HaRivash at its beginning, siman 3 (Kesser Shem Tov siman 220; Or Torah of the Maggid 67a): "a person must serve the Blessed Name with all his strength, for everything is a need on high, because the Blessed Name desires that He be served in all manners."
57) Taanis 2a. Rambam, beginning of Hilchos Tefillah.
*57) To note from the wording in the above teaching of the Baal Shem Tov (note *56), "because the Blessed Name desires," and so forth. And see there the continuation of the discourse.
58) See Torah Or on our parsha 23c. Toras Chaim, Vayishlach 39d. And see the following note.
59) In the manner of what is explained in Likkutei Torah, Shelach (36a; 38c — cited in Torah Or there; and see there, 38d) in the explanation of "the land is very, very good" (twice "very").
Key Lesson
Yaakov's "with all my strength I served your father" is not recorded as the piety of a great man going beyond what was asked — the Rambam calls him "the righteous," which in his own usage means precisely one who does what the law requires, no more. Working with everything you have is the ordinary obligation of anyone who has taken a job. And since a Jew is a worker whose task is to make this world a dwelling for G‑d, the same standard applies there: it is not enough to serve with the hands while reserving the mind, the heart, the will and the delight for the hours inside. Holding part of yourself back is not a missed embellishment; it is withholding what was already bought and paid for.