126 —הידור מצוה, פרעון מהקב"ה, ואכילת פירות בעולם הזה

B"H, the 24th of Teves, 5704.

Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to your letter dated the 20th of Teves.

a) Regarding your comment from Bava Kama (9b) that perhaps hiddur mitzvah up to a third is like "mehadrin," while more than a third is like "mehadrin min ha-mehadrin," and therefore a special reward is set for it—namely, repayment from Hashem: In my humble opinion, this is not so. As I wrote in my previous letter, since the Gemara does not distinguish within hiddur itself between different types—such as "hiddur" and "hiddur min ha-mehadrin"—as stated in Nefesh HaChaim, we have no basis or necessity to divide it into categories. Especially since both up to a third and more than a third are obligated by the same verse (This is my G‑d... beautify before Him). Just as it is not said regarding oil for meal offerings—which must be beautiful and select—that there are levels of mehadrin and mehadrin min ha-mehadrin up to five times corresponding to the five qualities of oil (Menachos 86b), so too with other mitzvos I referenced in my previous letter. And just as it says in Menachos that because of the obligation to bring from the best, one must immediately use the finest oil available if he has it at hand—so too with Bava Kama: if one wishes to fulfill 'beautify before Him' in mitzvos, he is immediately obligated—according to Ma'arava in the name of Rav Zeira—in the most beautiful he can find, even if it exceeds a third (unlike Nefesh HaChaim, who says that if one wants to beautify further he is not required to do so specifically like mehadrin min ha-mehadrin since it's a different category among those who fulfill mitzvos). For the plain language in Bava Kama suggests that Ma'arava in Rav Zeira's name distinguishes between up to a third and more than a third only regarding whether repayment occurs during one's lifetime or not—but not regarding obligation. This also appears from the language of Rashba as cited in Shitah Mekubetzet. However, there is some indication from R' Chananel's commentary that he does distinguish regarding obligation. And although R' Chananel on Bava Kama brings a beraisa from Nefesh HaChaim, there is no proof that his view on Bava Kama involves mehadrin min ha-mehadrin (just as we cannot say this according to his second explanation which interprets 'from Hashem's own' as meaning if Hashem expands his wealth). Rather, his intent is simply to bring further support from another place in Shas about hiddur mitzvah. For now, I do not know of any other place in Bavli where the phrase 'hiddur mitzvah' appears besides those mentioned above (even though according to Rashi they are one with 'beautify before Him' in Shabbos 133b).

b) Regarding your doubt whether with gemilus chesed (acts of kindness), when it says one eats its fruits in this world etc., this applies only when done with hiddur: see Kiddushin (40a), which proves like your first assumption.

c) Regarding your statement that eating fruits in this world is identical with 'from Hashem's own' (and apparently you were compelled by Tosafos s.v. 'mishal' on Bava Kama): It seems clear that this is not so; there are differences: 1) Eating fruits in this world does not necessarily mean receiving back exactly what was given; for example: if through honoring parents someone lost money, we do not find any promise that Hashem will fill that loss—the reward for honoring parents is simply 'so that it will be good for you,' without specification. The story of Dama ben Netina (Kiddushin 31a), where he received money he had lost only happened once; since the verse states 'so that it will be good for you' without detail. But with hiddur mitzvah where repayment comes from Hashem's own funds—it means his monetary outlay will be reimbursed (similar to expenses for Yom Tov or Torah study for one's children—Beitzah 16a), as plainly stated by the Gemara. 2) Furthermore, 'from Hashem's own' implies only reimbursement during one's lifetime equal to what was spent—a filling of loss; whereas eating fruits as stated regarding Peah or gemilus chesed means abundant fruits far beyond what was spent. If one insists on interpreting both phrases identically—that eating fruits and repayment from Hashem are equivalent—then Tosafos must be read less literally: Tosafos does not mean that eating from Hashem's own refers exactly to Peah; rather they mean reimbursement counts as 'fruits,' but the principal remains for Olam Haba—or perhaps Tosafos intends only to reject R' Chananel's second explanation that 'from Hashem's own' refers only if one is wealthy and thus does not receive reward for fulfilling mitzvos. Tosafos uses Mishnah language just as Mishnah sometimes uses scriptural language (Peah 2:2). As brought in Sefer Klalei HaShas.

It should be noted that by interpreting Tosafos this way two difficulties are resolved: A) In Kiddushin (40a) it says there are no 'fruits' except for mitzvos beneficial to people; but hiddur mitzvah such as with an etrog benefits only Heaven. B) Only those specific things listed are included among those whose fruits are eaten—as stated in Shabbos (127a) and Kiddushin there—and hiddur mitzvah beyond a third is not included at all.

Summary

The Rebbe clarifies distinctions between levels of beautifying mitzvos and their rewards. He explains that repayment from Hashem differs fundamentally from general rewards described as "eating fruits"—each has its own parameters and implications according to Torah sources.