Midrash su Ezechiele 14:32

GEMARA: I find our Mishnah in conflict with the following Mishnah: These are the things in wiiich a man enjoys the interest in this world, while the principal remaineth for him in the word to come. They are: Honoring one's father and mother, the practice of loving kindness, hospitality to the stranger, making peace between a man and his neighbor, and above all, the study of the Torah. [Hence we see that only these meritorious deeds are such which yield fruit in this world and none others]? Said R. Juda: "Our Mishnah means thus: "Whoever performs one commandment more, through which addition his merits are counter-balanced, good will be done to him in this world and it is considered as if he has fulfilled the entire Torah." How can you possibly state that the other Mishnah means that even with one good action the performer receives his reward in this world? Thereupon said R. Sh'maya: "Our Mishnah refers to one whose balance of both meritorious and evil deeds was struck even; and if one of the above-mentioned commandments was among his [meritorious] account, it would counterbalance the scale; and another thing, if one performs one [extra] meritorious deed through which he counterbalances the scale, good will be done to him." Another objection was raised from the following: Whose meritorious acts are more than his sins, evil will be done to him; and such a man is considered as if he burnt the entire Torah, of which not even one letter escaped; and whose iniquities are more than his meritorious deeds, good will be done to him and he will be treated like one who fulfilled the entire Torah and did not miss even one letter of it. [Hence we see that counter-balancing the sin is not sufficient?] Said Abaye: "Our Mishnah means that they [cause to] prepare for him [in the future] a good day, and a bad day." Raba said: "The last Mishnah will be in accordance with R. Jacob, who claims that the reward for commandments is not to be obtained in this world; for we are taught in a Baraitha, R. Jacob says: "There is no commandment for which the Torah mentions its reward right next to it, upon which resurrection does not depend. Concerning the honoring of father and mother, it is written (Deut. 5, 16) In order that thy days may be prolonged, and in order that it may go well tilth thee; concerning the sending away of the motlier bird, [if one wants to take the egg or the young from the nest], it is written (Ib. 22, 7) In order that it may he well with thee, and that thou mayest live many days. If a father sent his son to go up a certain building and bring him down the doves, and he did go up the building, sent away the mother, took away the birds, and upon his return fell off the building and died, how can the promise, that it may be well with thee, or that thou mayest live many days, be fulfilled? We must therefore say that the passage it may he well with thee, refers to the world which is entirely good (future world), and that thou mayest live many days refers to the world that may endure for eternity." But how do we know that such a thing as described by R. Jacob does ever happen? R. Jacob spoke from an incident which he himself witnessed. Perhaps the man who was killed after performing this meritorious deed thought of some iniquities and therefore was punished? An evil thought, the Holy One, praised be He, does not consider an act, [as far as punishment is concerned]. Again, perhaps he was thinking about idolatry, concerning which it is written (Ez. 14, 5) In order that I may grasp the house of Israel by their heart. R. Jacob himself, was asking that very question: Should we assume that the rewards for performing commandments is obtained in this world? Then why did it not protect that man from sinning with the thought of idolatry? [We must therefore say that it refers to the future world]. Again how is such an incident possible? Has not R. Elazar said that those who go on a religious mission will not meet with evil neither going to nor coming back from their mission? At the incident of R. Jacob there was a broken ladder which made the danger certain, and where the danger is certain one must not rely upon a miracle, as it is written (I Sam. 16, 2) And Samuel said: How shall I go? If Saul should hear, etc. Said R. Joseph: "Had Elisha (Achar) interpreted this passage as did R. Jacob, his daughter's son, he would have never sinned." What did Achar see? According to some, he saw just such an incident as that witnessed by R. Jacob. And according to others it was because he saw the tongue of R. Chutzphith, the interpreter that was dragged by pigs. He then said: "Oh, that the mouth which gave forth pearls must now lick dust!" He thereupon went forth and sinned.

(Fol. 40) Raba raised the following objection before R. Nachman: "We are taught in a Mishnah, these are the things of which a man enjoys the interest for his reward in this world, while the principal remaineth for him in the world to come. They are: honoring his father and mother, the practice of loving kindness, hospitality, making peace between man and his associates, and above all the study of the Torah. Concerning honoring father and mother, it is written (Deut. 5. 16) In order ihat thy days may be prolonged, and in order that it may go well with thee; concerning loving kindness it is written (Pr. 21, 21) He that pursueth righteousness and kindness will find life, righteousness and honor; and concerning bringing peace, it is written (Ps. 34, 15) Seek peace and pursue it. And R. Abahu explained that we infer this from the similar words R'dipha R'dipha (pursue); it is written here, seek peace and pursue it, (rod-phrhu); and again it is written (Pr. 21, 21) He that pursueth (rodeph) righteousness and kindness will find life, righteousness and honor; [Hence both hare the same merits]. Concerning studying the Torah, it is written (Deut. 30, 20) For it (the Torah) is thy life, and the length of thy days. If so, tlien concerning the sending away of the bird, it is also written (Ib. 22, 7) in order that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live many days. Then why did not the Mishnah count this also? "The Tanna left it out," [was R. Nachman's reply]. Is this then possible, since our Tannah states: "These are the things." How can you say he left something unmentioned?" Therefore said Raba: "R. Idi explained this to me [with the following verse]: (Is. 3, 10) Say it to the righteous, that he has done well; for the fruit of their deeds shall they eat. Is there then a righteous man that is good and a righteous man that is not good? We must therefore say that a righteous man who is good towards heaven and also towards man is a righteous that is good; who is good towards heaven but conducts himself badly towards man is a righteous man that is not good. Similar to this case (Ib., ib. 11) Woe unto the wicked who doth evil; for the recompense of his hands shall be bestowed on him. Are there then wicked who do evil and wicked who do not evil? We must therefore say that the wicked who act wickedly towards heaven and towards man, this is a wicked man who does evil; but a wicked man who acts wickedly towards heaven and not towards man, this is a wicked who doeth not evil." [Hence wherever the passage does not state for the fruit … shall they eat, it yields no fruit in this world]. Meritorious rewards have a capital and also the fruit bearing on the principal, as it is said Say it to the righteous that he hath done well; for the fruit, etc; while iniquities have merely principal but no fruit yielding, as it is said Woe unto the wicked who does evil, etc. If so, then how will the following passage (Pr. 1, 31) Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices, be explained? This means that a crime which bears fruit [if it is carried out] it will also yield fruit [in the punishment], but a crime which bears no fruit [is not carried out] it will yield no fruit in the punishment. The merit of a good intention does the Holy One, praised be He! [in rewarding] add to that of a good deed, as it is said (Mal. 3, 16) Then conversed those that fear the Lord; one with another, and the Lord listened and heard it; and there was written a book of remembrance before Him, over those that feared the Lord and for those who respected His name. Said R. Assi: What does and for those who respected His name, mean? "Even when one intended to observe a commandment, but was incidentally prevented from doing so. Scripture credits him as if he had actually observed it." Bad intentions, the Holy One, praised be He, however, does not add to deeds, as it is said (Ps. 66, 18) If I had looked on wickedness with my heart, the Lord would not have heard. But how will the following passage (Jer. 6, 19) Behold, I will bring evil upon these people, the fruit of their thoughts, be explained? This means that an evil intention which bears fruit (is carried out), the Holy One, praised be He! adds to deeds; but such evil thoughts which bear no fruit, the Holy One, praised be He! does not add to deeds, but is there not a passage (Ez. 14, 5) In order that I may grasp the house of Israel by their heart? Said R. Acha b. Jacob: "The last passage refers to idolatry, for the master said elsewhere: The crime of idolatry is so severe that whoever denies it is as he admits the truthfulness of the entire Torah." Ulla said: "The last passage means as R. Huna explained it, for R. Huna said: 'As soon as a man commits a crime once, and twice, it becomes to him a privileged thing.' How can one think that it is a privilege? We must therefore say that it appears to him like a privileged thing." R. Abahu, in the name of R. Chanina, said: "It is preferable for a man to commit a transgression secretly, but not to profane Heaven's name," etc. [Fully explained in Volume 3, page 29].

1) (Vayikra 22:1-2) ("And the L–rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his sons that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they not profane My holy name, which they make holy to me; I am the L–rd.") "and that they separate themselves ("veyinozru"): "nezirah" connotes separation, as it is written (Ezekiel 14:7) "who separates himself ("veyinazer") from Me and brings up his idols," and (Isaiah 1:4) "They have turned back" ("nazoru acher") (i.e., separated). "from the holy things of the children of Israel": They are liable for piggul [inappropriate intention), nothar (viz. Isaiah 19:6), and uncleanliness in respect to the offerings of the children of Israel, but not in respect to the offerings of gentiles. "the holy things of the children of Israel": This tells me only of the holy things of the children of Israel. Whence do we derive the same for their own holy things? From "which they make holy to Me" — to include all (holy things).

Rabbi Yudan and Rabbi Azarya. Rabbi Yudan said: The congregation of Israel said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘Master of the universe, because You acted with my neighbors with the attribute of justice, and with me with the attribute of mercy, I will run after You,’ as Rabbi Berekhya said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: What was not done to the Generation of the Flood was done to the Ten Tribes. Regarding the Generation of the Flood it is written: “Only evil the entire day” (Genesis 6:5), and regarding the Ten Tribes it is written: “Woe, the devisers of iniquity who perform evil on their beds” (Micah 2:1). That is at night; in the morning, from where is it derived? “In the morning light they perform it, for it is in their power” (Micah 2:1). From them, no remnant remained, but from these, a remnant remained;¹⁶²The Generation of the Flood sinned only during the day and there were no survivors, while the Ten Tribes sinned night and day, and there were survivors. by what merit? Rabbi Yitzḥak interpreted it to their credit, [as] Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] said: It was by the merit of, “behold a remnant remained in it, [who are brought forth]” (Ezekiel 14:22), “who bring forth” is not written here, but rather, “who are brought forth.” [This teaches that a remnant remained] in the merit of the righteous men and the righteous women, the prophets and the prophetesses, who would emerge from them.
Rabbi Ḥanina said: A statement was made regarding the coastal cities that was not stated regarding the Generation of the Flood: “Woe to the inhabitants of the seacoast, the nation of the Keretim” (Zephaniah 2:5)—a nation that is liable to be punished with karet. By whose merit were they rescued? It was by the merit of one God-fearing person whom they produced each and every year. Rabbi Levi interpreted it to their credit: “Woe to the inhabitants of the seacoast, the nation of the Keretim”—a nation that established [karat] a covenant,¹⁶³This is an allusion to the fact that some members of this nation converted and fulfilled the covenant of circumcision. This merit prevented the destruction of the nation at that time, but the punishment was only temporarily averted (Etz Yosef). as it is stated: “He established [vekharot] a covenant with him” (Nehemiah 9:8).
Rabbi Yehoshua bar Nehemiah said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: A statement was made regarding the tribes of Judah and Benjamin that was not stated regarding the Sodomites. Regarding the Sodomites it is written: “Their sin is very weighty” (Genesis 18:20), but regarding the tribes of Judah and Benjamin it is written: “He said to me: The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is very very great” (Ezekiel 9:9). Rabbi Tanḥuma said: We have another verse: “The iniquity of the daughter of my people exceeded [the sin of Sodom, which was overthrown in a moment, and no hands seized it]” (Lamentations 4:6). Rabbi Tanḥuma said: One hand did not seize another, they did not extend their hands to perform mitzvot; but these extended their hands to perform mitzvot.¹⁶⁴Rabbi Tanḥuma explains why Sodom was overthrown in a moment whereas the tribes of Judah and Benjamin were not, despite the fact that their sins were greater than those of Sodom. The Sodomites did not extend their hands to assist one another or perform mitzvot, whereas the tribes of Judah and Benjamin did. “The hands of merciful women [cooked their children, they were food for them]" (Lamentations 4:10). Why [did they act] in such a way? It was because they provided “food [levarot] for them in the disaster of the daughter of my people” (Lamentations 4:10).¹⁶⁵The midrash interprets the verse in Lamentations to mean the starving people of Jerusalem would give the small amount of food they had to others in order to attempt to console [lehavrot] them for the loss of family members. The reference to cooking their children is understood allegorically in the sense that they deprived them of food in order to console others. Thus, the verse states that the merciful women deprived their own children of food. Why did they act in such a way? In order to attempt to console others.

6) (Vayikra 15:31) ("And you shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanliness, and they shall not die in their uncleanliness by defiling My tabernacle which is in their midst.") "And you shall separate (vehizartem) the children of Israel. Nezirah (as in "vehizartem") is nothing other than separation, as it is written (Ezekiel 14:7): "… and he separated (veyinazer) from Me and he brought up his abominations upon his heart," and (Isaiah 1:4): "And they have separated themselves (nazoru), (turning) backwards."

GEMARA: We are taught in a Baraitha, R. Jacob says: "There is no commandment for which the Torah mentions its reward right next to it, upon which resurrection does not depend. Concerning the honoring of father and mother, it is written (Deut. 5, 16) In order that thy days may be prolonged, and in order that it may go well with thee; concerning the sending away of the mother bird [if one wants to take the egg or the young from the rest], it is written (Ib. 22, 7) In order that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live many days. If a father sent his son to go up a certain building and bring him down the doves, and he did go up the building, sent away the mother, took away the birds, and upon his return fell off the building and died, how can the promise, that it may be well with thee, or that thou mayest live many days, be filled? We must therefore say that the passage it may be well with thee, refers to the world which is entirely good (future world), and that thou mayest live many days refers to the world that may endure for eternity." But how do we know that such a thing as described by R. Jacob does ever happen? R. Jacob spoke from an incident which he himself witnessed. Perhaps the man who was killed after performing this meritorious deed thought of some iniquities and therefore was punished? An evil thought, the Holy One, praised be He! does not consider an act, [as far as punishment is concerned]. Again, perhaps he was thinking about idolatry, concerning which it is written (Ez. 14, 5) In order that I may grasp the house of Israel by their heart. R. Jacob himself, was asking that very question: Should we assume that the rewards for performing commandments is obtained in this world? Then why did it not protect that man from sinning with the thought of idolatry? [we must therefore say that it refers to the future world]. Again how is such an incident possible? Has not R. Elazar said that those who go on a religious mission will not meet with evil neither going to nor coming back from their mission? At the incident of R. Jacob there was a broken ladder which made the danger certain, and where the danger is certain one must not rely upon a miracle, as it is written (I Sam. 16, 2) And Samuel said: How shall I go? If Saul should hear, etc. Said R. Joseph: "Had Elisha (Achar) interpreted this passage as did R. Jacob, his daughter's son, he would have never sinned." What did Achar see? According to some, he saw just such an incident as that witnessed by R. Jacob. And according to others it was because he saw the tongue of R. Chutzphith, the interpreter that was dragged by pigs. He then said: "Oh, that the mouth which gave forth pearls must now lick dust!" But he did not know that it may be well with thee, refers to the world which is entirely good (the future world) and that thou mayest live many days, refers to the world that may endure for eternity.

After they sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded his angels: “Go, destroy it.” Then they fulfilled their mission, as it is said: And the two angels came to Sodom. Scripture states elsewhere in allusion to this verse: He sent forth upon them the fierceness of His anger, wrath, and indignation and trouble (Ps. 78:49). What is meant by the fierceness of His anger? R. Simeon the son of Yohai said: Five plagues resulted from His anger, as it is said: How much more when I send My four judgments against Jerusalem, the sword and the famine and the wild beast and the pestilence (Ezek. 14:21). What is the fifth plague? The drought. How do we know this? R. Simeon the son of Yohai explained: It is written: The anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and He shut up the heavens, so that there shall be no rain (Deut. 11:17).

Hence they said: If there be fifty righteous in the world, the world exists through their righteousness. (Abraham) arose and began to beseech (God), and made supplication before Him until he brought (the number down to) ten. Hence (the sages said): (When there are) ten people in a place, the place is delivered by their righteousness, as it is said, "And he said, I will not destroy it for the sake of the ten" (Gen. 18:32).

(Bamidbar 15:37-38) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying … and they shall make for themselves tzitzith": Women, too, are included (in the mitzvah of tzitzith.) R. Shimon exempts women from tzitzith, it being a time-based (only in the daytime) positive commandment, from which women are exempt, this being the principle: R. Shimon said: Women are exempt from all time-based positive commandments. R. Yehudah b. Bava said: Of a certainty, the sages exempted a woman's veil from tzitzith, and they are required in a wrap only because sometimes her husband covers himself with it. "tzitzith": "tzitzith" is something which "protrudes" ("yotzeh") somewhat. And the elders of Beth Shammai and those of Beth Hillel have already entered the upper chamber of Yonathan b. Betheira and declared: Tzitzith have no prescribed size. And they declared, similarly: A lulav has no prescribed size. "and they shall make for themselves tzitzith." I might think that one string suffices; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 22:12) "Fringes (shall you make for yourself.") How many fringes? Not fewer than three. These are the words of Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai say: Three of wool and the fourth of tcheleth (blue linen). And the halachah is in accordance with Beth Shammai. When is this so (that a minimum size is required)? In the beginning (of its attachment). But for what is left over or lopped off any size (is sufficient). (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and they shall make for themselves tzitzith." I might think that all of it shall be tzitzith; it is, therefore, written "fringes." If "fringes," I might think all of it shall be fringes. It is, therefore, written "tzitzith." How is this (to be implemented)? That its fringes protrude from the corner (of the garment), and tzitzith from the fringes. "in the corners of their garments": I might think, even garments that are three-cornered, five-cornered, six-cornered, seven-cornered, and eight-cornered; it is, therefore, written (Devarim, Ibid.) "on the four corners of your garment," to exclude the aforementioned. And whence is it derived that pillows and covers are (also) excluded (from tzitzith)? From (Ibid.) "wherewith you cover yourself." If from there, I would think that night-clothes are also included (as requiring tzitzith). It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 39) "and you shall see it" — in the daytime and not at night. And if it were intended both for day and night, it requires tzitzith. I might think that this excludes both the above and the garment of a blind man; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 39) "And it shall be for you for tzitzith" — in any event (i.e., to include a blind man). (Ibid. 38) "and they shall place on the tzitzith (on) the corner a strand of tcheleth": spun and doubled. This tells me only of the tcheleth, that it is to be spun and doubled. Whence do I derive (the same for) the white (i.e., the wool)? You derive it by induction, viz.: Since the Torah said: "place" tcheleth and "place" white, just as tcheleth is spun and doubled, so, white is spun and doubled. "and they shall place": on the place of the weaving (i.e., the corner of the garment), and not on the place of the "growing" (i.e., the strands at the corner of the garment). If he did place it on the site of the "growing," it is (nonetheless) kasher. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov includes it both on the "growing" and on the very edge of the garment, it being written "on the corners of their garments." "and they shall place on the tzitzith (on) the corner": What is the intent of this? From "and they shall make for themselves tzitzith, I might think that he should weave it (the tzitzith) together with it (the garment; it is, therefore, written "and they shall place." How so? He ties it (the tzitzith) together with it (the garment). (Ibid. 39) "And it shall be to you for tzitzith": The four tzitzith are mutually inclusive (i.e., in the absence of one there is no mitzvah), the four being one mitzvah. R. Yishmael says: They are four mitzvoth. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: Why is it called "tcheleth"? Because the Egyptians were "bereaved" ("nitkelu" [like "tcheleth"]) of their first-born, viz. (Shemot 12:29) "And it was in the middle of the night, that the L-rd smote every first-born, etc." Variantly: Because the Egyptians were "destroyed" ("kalu") in the Red Sea. Why is it called "tzitzith"? Because the L-rd "looked" ("hetzith") over our fathers' houses in Egypt, as it is written (Song of Songs 2:9) "The voice of My Beloved, behold, it is coming … My Beloved is like a gazelle or a young hart … Behold, He stands behind our wall, looking through the windows, peering through the lattices." R. Chanina b. Antignos says: One who fulfills the mitzvah of tzitzith, what is said of him? (Zechariah 8:23) "In these days it will happen that ten men, of all the languages of the nations will take hold of the corner (i.e., of the tzitzith) of a Jewish man, saying 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that G-d is with you!'" And one who nullifies the mitzvah of "the corner," what is said of him? (Iyyov 38:13) "to take hold of the corners of the earth and to shake the wicked from it!" R. Meir says: It is not written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 39) "And you shall see them" (the tzitzith), but "And you shall see Him." Scripture hereby apprises us that if one fulfills the mitzvah of tzitzith, it is reckoned unto him as if he beheld the face of the Shechinah. For tcheleth is reminiscent of (the color of) the sea; the sea, of the firmament; and the firmament, of the Throne of Glory, as it is written (Ezekiel 1:26) "And above the firmament that was over their heads … (28) the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the L-rd." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and you shall see and you shall remember": See this mitzvah and remember another mitzvah, (which is contingent upon it.) Which is that? The recitation of the Shema — But perhaps (the reference is to) one of all the other mitzvoth of the Torah. It is, therefore, written (in the section of tzitzith, Ibid. 41) "I am the L-rd your G-d," which you find to be written only in (the section of) the recitation of the Shema. "and you shall remember": Remember (i.e., recite) the section with your mouth. I might think that the section "vehaya im shamoa" (Devarim 11:13-21) should precede all of the sections. — Would you say that? The section of Shema (Devarim 6:4-9), which contains acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven should precede "vehaya im shamoa," which contains acceptance of the yoke of mitzvoth, and "vehaya im shamoa," which obtains both in the daytime and at night, should precede the section of tzitzith ("vayomer" [Bamidbar 15:37-41]), which obtains only in the daytime. And perhaps he should recite three (sections) in the evening as he does in the daytime. It is, therefore, written (of tzitzith [Bamidbar 15:39]) "and you shall see it" — in the daytime and not at night. R. Shimon b. Yochai says: The section of Shema, which contains (the mitzvah of) learning (Torah), should precede "vehaya im shamoa," which speaks only of teaching. And "vehaya im shamoa" should precede the section of tzitzith, which is only to do (i.e., the final stage). For thus was Torah given: to learn and to teach, to keep and to do: "And you shall see it, and you shall remember (all the mitzvoth of the L-rd, and you shall do them."): Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If one who fulfills the mitzvah of tzitzith, (which is only a sign and a remembrance towards the doing of mitzvoth,) is accounted as one who has fulfilled all of the mitzvoth, how much more so (is this true of) one who (actively) performs (any one of) all the mitzvoth of the Torah! "And you shall not go astray after your hearts": This is heresy, as it is written (Koheleth 7:26) "And I find more bitter than death 'the woman' (heresy), whose heart is snares and nets. Her hands are bonds. The good before G-d shall escape her." "and after your eyes": This is harlotry, as it is written (Judges 14:3) "Take her for me, for she is just in my eyes." "after which you go astray": This is idolatry, as it is written (Ibid. 8:33) "and they went astray after the ba'alim." R. Nathan says: that one not "drink" in this "cup" (i.e., his own wife), and cast his gaze at the "cup" of another. Variantly: "And you shall not go astray after your hearts and after your eyes": This teaches us that the eyes follow the heart. — But perhaps the heart follows the eyes! Would you say that? Are there not blind men who commit all the abominations in the world? What, then, is the intent of "And you shall not go astray after your hearts, etc."? That the eyes follow the heart. R. Yishmael says: "And you shall not go astray after your hearts": What is the intent of this? From (Koheleth 11:9) "Rejoice young man in your youth (… and walk in the ways of your heart"), (I would not know whether) in a way that is straight or in (any) way that you like; it is, therefore, written "And you shall not go astray after your hearts." (Ibid. 40) "So that you remember and you do (all of My mitzvoth): This equates remembering with doing. "and you shall be holy to your G-d": This refers to the holiness of all of the mitzvoth. You say the holiness of (all the) mitzvoth, but perhaps the holiness of tzitzith (is intended). — Would you say that? What is the (general) context? The holiness of all the mitzvoth. Rebbi says: The reference is to the holiness of tzitzith. You say the holiness of tzitzith, but perhaps the holiness of all the mitzvoth is intended. — (Vayikra 19:2) "Holy shall you be" already refers to the holiness of all the mitzvoth. How, then, am I to understand "and you shall be holy to your G-d"? As referring to the holiness of tzitzith — whence it is seen that tzitzith add holiness to Israel. (Ibid. 41) "I am the L-rd your G-d, who took you out of the land of Egypt.": Why is this mentioned here? So that one not say: I will take imitation-dyed threads (and attach them to my garment) as tcheleth, and who will know the difference? If (within the framework of) the measure of punishment, the lesser measure (of the L-rd) — if one sins in secret, He exposes him in public, (as He did in Egypt), then, (within the framework of) the measure of good, the greater measure (of the L-rd) — how much more so (does this hold true)! Variantly: Why is the exodus from Egypt mentioned in connection with every mitzvah? An analogy: The son of a king's loved one was taken captive. When he (the king) redeems him, he redeems him not as a son, but as a servant, so that if he (the son) does not accept his decree, he can say to him "You are my servant!" When they enter the province, he (the king) says to him: Put on my sandals and carry my things before me to the bath-house. The son begins to object, whereupon the king presents him with his writ (of servitude) and says to him: "You are my servant!" Thus, when the Holy One Blessed be He redeemed the seed of His loved one, He did not redeem them as "sons," but as servants, so that if they reject His decree He says to them: "You are My servants!" When they went to the desert, He began to decree upon them some "light" mitzvoth and some formidable ones, such as Shabbath, illicit relations, tzitzith, and tefillin, and Israel began to object — whereupon He said to them: "You are My servants! On that condition I redeemed you; on condition that I decree and you fulfill!" "I am the L-rd your G-d": Why is this stated again? Is it not already written (Shemot 20:2) "I am the L-rd your G-d who took you out of the land of Egypt"? Why state it again? So that Israel not say: Why did the L-rd command us (to do mitzvoth)? Is it not so that we do them and receive reward? We shall not do them and we shall not receive reward! As Israel said (Ezekiel 20:1) "There came to me (Ezekiel) men of the elders of Israel to make inquiry of the L-rd, and they sat before me." They said to him: A servant whose Master has sold him, does he not leave His domain? Ezekiel: Yes. They: Since the L-rd has sold us to the nations, we have left His domain. Ezekiel: A servant whose Master has sold him in order to return, does he leave His domain? (Ibid. 32-33) "And what enters your minds, it shall not be, your saying: We will be like the nations, like the families of the lands, to serve wood and stone. As I live, says the L-rd G-d. I swear to you that I will rule over you with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm and with outpoured wrath!" "with a strong hand": pestilence, as it is written (in that regard, Shemot 9:3) "Behold, the hand of the L-rd is in your cattle, etc." "with an outstretched arm": the sword, as it is written (I Chronicles 21:16) "with his (the angel's) sword drawn in his hand, stretched over Jerusalem." "and with outpoured wrath": famine. After I bring these three calamities upon you, one after the other, I will rule over you perforce!