אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אִישׁ סוֹכוֹ קִבֵּל מִשִּׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אַל תִּהְיוּ כַעֲבָדִים הַמְשַׁמְּשִׁין אֶת הָרַב עַל מְנָת לְקַבֵּל פְּרָס, אֶלָּא הֱווּ כַעֲבָדִים הַמְשַׁמְּשִׁין אֶת הָרַב שֶׁלֹּא עַל מְנָת לְקַבֵּל פְּרָס, וִיהִי מוֹרָא שָׁמַיִם עֲלֵיכֶם:
Antignos Ish Socho lo ricevette da Shimon Hatzaddik: Non voleva dire: non essere come servitori che servono il loro padrone per ricevere pras ["valutazione", come nel targum di (Levitico 5:15): "la tua valutazione" —"bepursaneh", ciò che uno dà a chi lo serve, anche se non gli è richiesto dalla legge di dargli nulla, come ciò che uno dà al suo giovane figlio o sua moglie o al suo servo a causa del piacere che gli dà. Uno non dovrebbe servire il suo Creatore anche nell'aspettativa di tali pras], ma essere come servi che servono il loro padrone non per ricevere pras, [ma solo per amore]. E lascia che la paura del Signore sia su di te. [Anche se Lo servi per amore, servilo anche per paura. Per chi serve per amore è zelante nell'adempimento dei comandamenti positivi, mentre chi serve per paura è attento nell'osservanza dei comandamenti negativi, in modo che il suo servizio sia ritenuto completo. E così i nostri saggi dissero: "Servi per amore e servi per paura. Servi per amore, in modo che se ti commuovi all'odio, sappi che ami e un amante non odia. Servi per paura, quindi che se vieni mosso a "calciare", sappi che hai paura e che un terrore non calcia. "]
Shenei Luchot HaBerit
The common denominator of the concepts of שבת and משכן are that they both are symbols of עולם הבא, the World to Come. There is a baffling story in the Talmud Beytzah 16 describing that Shammai bought and ate only food intended to honour the Sabbath. Should he find a good looking animal, he would purchase it intending to eat it on the Sabbath. Should he find a superior one later, he would abandon the first one and eat it during the week so as to preserve the better one for serving on the Sabbath. The Talmud contrasts Shammai's conduct with that of his colleague Hillel whose every action is described as being לשם שמים, "Heaven oriented." Are we to infer from this that Shammai's actions were not "Heaven oriented?" What then was the difference of opinion between Hillel and Shammai which caused them to have different approaches to their daily routines? They disagreed on whether it was permissible to serve G–d in order to accumulate rewards payable in the World to Come. (This is elaborated on in Midrash Shemuel Avot 1,3.) Shammai considered serving G–d for material rewards in this world as forbidden, whereas he considered serving G–d in order to accumulate reward in the Hereafter as perfectly permissible. His colleague Hillel considered serving G–d in order to receive a reward either in this world or in the next as equally forbidden. This is what the Talmud means when describing Hillel's actions as "Heaven oriented," i.e. without thought of any reward.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Mesilat Yesharim
There is another type of "not for the sake of the mitzva itself" (Shelo Lishma), which is the "for the sake of receiving a reward" (Avot 1:3). On this our sages said: "a man should always occupy himself with Torah and good deeds, even if it is not for their own sake, for doing so will lead to doing them for their own sake" (Pesachim 50b). Nevertheless, he who has not yet reached from "not for their own sake" (shelo lishma) to "for their own sake" (lishma), is still far from reaching his Shelemut (wholeness/perfection).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
