Eikev: A Divine Protective Shield

See the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Mattos-Maasei, 29 Tammuz, and Shabbos Parshas Chazon, 5736, when the Rebbe spoke about this matter at length.

Devarim 11:20.

Ibid., 11:21.

Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 285:1. This concept is also stated in the Tur (loc. cit.), which adds, “And even greater than this, [i.e., meriting long life,] the house is protected as a result of the mezuzah.” Beis Yosef offers two interpretations why protecting a person’s home is considered greater than a long life: Firstly, although lengthening a person’s life is miraculous, it is ongoing, and thus, not overtly apparent. By contrast, protecting the inhabitants of a home from harm “is a revealed miracle.”*

The second interpretation is that instead of a subject guarding the king’s home, the King is guarding the home of his subjects.

* Even according to the second interpretation, this is also true. However, this rationale is mentioned second because it is not sufficient in people’s eyes to explain why protecting a person’s home is greater than lengthening his life.

The Shulchan Aruch’s words are sourced in Shabbos 32b. Some analysis is necessary regarding the intent of Sifsei Kohen (285:2), which quotes the prooftext from the Torah.

See Shmos 20:12; Devarim 5:16.

See Sifri to Devarim 11:19, also cited by Rashi and one opinion in Shabbos, loc. cit., which states that the promise, “So that your days… be lengthened” also applies to Torah study.

Avodah Zarah 11a; Menachos 33b; See Talmud Yerushalmi, Peah 1:1 (cited in sec. 6 of the main text below) and Zohar, Vol. II, p. 36a,* Vol. III, pp. 263b, 266a, et al.

* Likkutei Levi Yitzchak (p. 59) interprets the Zohar’s words in that source, “Write My name and affix it to your entrance,” as referring to G‑d’s name Shaddai ( שד -י ) which is written on the outside of a mezuzah and which serves as protection, as evidenced by the fact that its letters serve as an acronym for the phrase ש ומר ד לתות י שראל , meaning, “Guardian of the doors of Israel.”

Commenting on that passage from the Zohar, Nitzutzei Oros (based on Ramaz) interprets that statement as referring to the מזוזה, mezuzah, as a whole, because the letters of that word share the same numerical equivalent as G‑d’s name א-דני (A-donai). Likkutei Levi Yitzchak, loc. cit., does not negate that interpretation entirely. However, it states that the interpretation that the Zohar is referring to the name Shaddai seems more likely than the explanation of Nitzutzei Oros because “neither the word mezuzah, nor [G‑d’s] name A-donai are written in a mezuzah. How then could [this be what the Zohar is referring to when] saying, ‘Write My name’?” Nevertheless, Likkutei Levi Yitzchak does not entirely negate the interpretation of Nitzutzei Oros.

It could be said that there is also an advantage to the interpretation of Nitzutzei Oros: The straightforward understanding of the directive, “Write My name and affix it to your entrance,” implies that it does not apply only to a specific aspect of the mezuzah – G‑d’s name Shaddai, or even the concept that “[the word] Vihayah ( והיה ) is written inside and [G‑d’s name] Shaddai is written on the outside which together are numerically equivalent to [the word] שם , “name” (Likkutei Levi Yitzchak, loc. cit.). (Concerning the latter concept, Likkutei Levi Yitzchak concludes, “I later found this interpretation in Ramaz.”) Rather, the directive applies to the concept of mezuzah as a whole.

It is possible to connect this idea – that the general concept of a mezuzah is identified with the instruction, “Write My name” (that will lead to G‑d’s protecting the Jews,) – with the concept explained in the Siddur im Dach, p. 275b ff., that the mitzvah of mezuzah includes all the mitzvos and is equivalent to all the mitzvos. The rationale is that it represents an encompassing light of a general nature. As such, it offers protection of an all-encompassing nature, protecting everything a person possesses.

It is well known (Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, p. 41c; Derech Mitzvosecha, p. 152b, the maamar entitled Atah Echad, 5702, ch. 2, et al.) that the manifestation of G‑dliness referred to as a “name” in Scripture is referred to as “light” in the lexicon of the Zohar and the Kabbalists. Now, light is of a general, encompassing nature, without distinction. Instead, such distinction is brought about by the keilim the “conduits” that contain and constrict these lights. Accordingly, the light elicited by the mezuzah – equivalent to the letters of G‑d’s name – is of a collective nature.

Tur (Yoreh Deah 285) based on Menachos, loc. cit.

Bayis Chadash on the Tur, loc. cit.

See other interpretations of the Tur’s words “greater than this…” in the sources cited in Beis Yosef, Perishah, Turei Zahav, and others.

Menachos 44a, s.v. tallis. See Rashi, Pesachim 4a, s.v. chovas.

See Kad HaKemach, erech mezuzah: “For this reason, the Torah established the mitzvah of mezuzah for us … so that we bear in mind this fundamental principle… that [Divine] protection is afforded us and flows over us.” Consult the extensive explanations in that source.

Regarding the standpoint of halachah, see Chulin 110b; Talmud Yerushalmi, Bava Basra, the end of ch. 5. Both sources state that when the Torah explicitly associates the observance of mitzvos with a reward, a mortal court is not obligated to compel people to observe them.

See Rashi, Vayikra 16:1, where he states that mentioning the punishment one receives for failing to observe a mitzvah strengthens a person’s resolve to keep it.

Pesachim 50b. Note the sources cited there.

Rambam, Hilchos Teshuvah 10:5 (and Hilchos Talmud Torah 3:5). Rambam speaks of occupying oneself “in Torah” (as does the Talmud Yerushalmi, Chagigah 1:7). However, Pesachim, loc. cit., increases the scope of that statement and speaks of occupying oneself “in the Torah and [its] mitzvos.” See the Kuntreis Acharon on the Alter Rebbe’s Hilchos Talmud Torah 4:3, which explains that the fundamental new insight is that one may study Torah for the sake of a reward. This point – and not the application of the concept with regard to mitzvos – is primarily necessary to teach. The implication is that it is taken for granted that the concept applies regarding mitzvos.

This “secret” refers to serving G‑d entirely for His sake, as Rambam proceeds to state. See Shabbos 88a, which states, “Who revealed this secret [– that the pledge, ‘We will do’ should precede the pledge, ‘We will listen’ –] to My children?” It can be said that these two secrets – serving G‑d for His sake and stating that “We will do” should precede the pledge, “We will listen” – are dependent one on the other. See Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar 13d.

This is the wording in the standard published editions of the Mishneh Torah. There are other versions that read “their wisdom increases and afterwards this secret should be revealed,” and others that read “their wisdom increases and this secret should be revealed.”

Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, the introduction to Sanhedrin, ch. 10, s.v., vekat hachamishis. See the Kehos edition of Kesser Shem Tov, p. 57a, pp. 239-240 in the later edition. In that source, the Baal Shem Tov explains that serving G‑d for a personal intent is acceptable in the initial stages of a person’s Divine service.

In Hilchos Teshuvah 10:2, Rambam describes Avraham as the paradigm of one who serves G‑d out of love, with no ulterior motive.

This is the wording of Rashi, Pesachim 8b, s.v. harei zeh. See Tosafos on that source, s.v. sheyizkeh.

Pesachim 8a-b.

Rashi’s commentary on Pesachim, loc. cit. Similar wording is found in Rashi, Bava Basra 10b, s.v. harei zeh.

See Iyun Yaakov on Ein Yaakov, Pesachim, loc. cit.

Menachos 33b.

This is also reflected in the fact that, as stated above, G‑d’s name Shaddai, written on the outside of a mezuzah is an acronym for the Hebrew words meaning “Guardian of the doors of Israel” (Siddur HaAriZal, kavanas mezuzah; Mishnas Chassidim, Tractate Mezuzah 39b. Kolbo, Hilchos Mezuzah (cited by Darchei Moshe, Yoreh Deah, the end of sec. 288) states that G‑d’s name Shaddai is an acronym for the Hebrew words meaning, “Guardian of the dwellings of Israel.” The Zohar, Vol. III, p. 266a (see also p. 76b) states, “[G‑d’s name] Shaddai [is written] on the outside, so that a person will be protected from all sides, from the inside and from the outside.” See Rabbeinu Bachya, Devarim 6:9. See also Darchei Moshe (and Rama), Yoreh Deah, the end of sec. 285, which states that whenever a person leaves his home, he should place his hand on the mezuzah and say “G‑d is my protector….” There are many other sources that speak about the writing of the name Shaddai on a mezuzah.

Hilchos Mezuzah 5:4.

Yoreh Deah , the end of sec. 288.

See S’dei Chemed, Klallim, maereches mem, k’lall 114, where Rambam’s words are discussed.

Rambam, Hilchos Mezuzah 5:3. See the end of Rabbeinu Asher’s Hilchos Mezuzah (quoted by the Tur), where he states merely, “Inside [the mezuzah itself], one may not add anything… because it appears as if he intends to make a talisman for protection [by doing so].” (Rabbeinu Asher makes similar statements in his p’sakim on Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi’s Hilchos Mezuzah.)

Rabbeinu Asher, though, does not write that that “he nullifies the mitzvah” by making such additions, because he (and, similarly, the Tur) do not cite Rambam’s ruling, “[If one] adds even one letter inside, [on the parchment of the mezuzah,] it is disqualified.” (This also applies with regard to the rulings of the Shulchan Aruch and Rama, Yoreh Deah 288:15. These sources only state that it is forbidden to add anything on the inside of the mezuzah, but do not state that doing so disqualifies the mezuzah.) This is not the place for further discussion of the matter.

Rambam, Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 11:12.

By contrast, when G‑d’s name Shaddai is written on the outside of the mezuzah, “This does not detract [from the mitzvah], since [the addition is made] on the outside” (Rambam, Hilchos Mezuzah 3:4).

Rabbeinu Asher (loc. cit.) writes in brief – as stated above – “Inside [the mezuzah itself], one may not add anything… because it appears as if he intends to make for himself a talisman for protection.” The fact that he omitted Rambam’s words, that such a person: a) “does not have a portion in the World to Come,” b) is a “fool,” and c) thinks that “this will benefit [him] with regard to the vanities of the world,” implies that intending that a mezuzah serve as protection is – in and of itself (i.e., even if nothing is added) – forbidden according to Rambam.

However, the emphasis implied by the phrase, “a talisman for protection,” indicates that what is forbidden is only having the intent that the mezuzah is not a mitzvah, but a “talisman,” as stated in the main text.

The conclusion of Rabbeinu Asher’s words, “Instead, he should carry out the mitzvah as prescribed with the intent of fulfilling the words of the Creator, blessed be He, and He will protect him and [He is] our shadow* on our right side,” does not mean that the person should not think about the protection at all, but on the contrary, this itself – that the mitzvah affords protection – should be part of the person’s intent: that he is observing a mitzvah that will, as a result, cause G‑d to “protect him.”

Rabbeinu Asher omitted Rambam’s severe words of criticism because he is speaking also about an instance when the person did not intend that the mezuzah serve as a talisman. Even in such an instance, it is forbidden to make any additions inside the mezuzah because “it appears as if he intends… [to make]….”

* The above is the wording of the end of Rabbeinu Asher’s Hilchos Mezuzah. However, in Rabbeinu Asher’s notes to Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi’s Hilchos Mezuzah, the spelling of the word is slightly different and means “will save us.” The Tur states, “He will protect him and He will save him.”

To add a further point: If the person did not add “the names of angels” and the like inside the mezuzah, even if he had the intent that the mezuzah is “a talisman for [his] own benefit… that… will benefit [him] with regard to the vanities of the world,” it is not clear if Rambam would maintain that the mezuzah is disqualified for this reason. It is possible to say that, according to Rambam, although a person who does this is foolish and will not receive a portion in the World to Come, nevertheless, the mezuzah remains kosher. See footnote 30, above.

Kessef Mishneh (Rambam, Hilchos Mezuzah, loc. cit.) addresses the apparent contradiction between Rambam’s statements that appear to negate the concept that a mezuzah affords protection and those of the Talmud that state that it “is made for protection.” In his second resolution, he writes, “When [affixing a mezuzah, one’s] intent should not be to protect the house. Instead, one must intend to fulfill the mitzvah of the Holy One, blessed be He. As a direct consequence, the house will be protected.”

It is possible to say that Kessef Mishneh does not intend to say that, according to Rambam, it is forbidden and foolish to have the intent that a mezuzah affords protection. Rather, Kessef Mishneh attempts to resolve Rambam’s words, “They make a great mitzvah… as if it was a talisman for their own benefit.” On the surface, the implication of Rambam’s words is that the mitzvah does not lead to benefit, i.e., a mezuzah does not afford protection. This seems to contradict the Talmud’s statement that it “is made for protection.” Kessef Mishneh offers two possible explanations in resolution:

a) True, “A mezuzah protects a home when it is written as prescribed; the angels [whose names are] written inside do not;”* i.e., a mezuzah to which the names of angels were added does not afford protection.

b) “Even when [affixing a mezuzah, one’s] intent should not be…. Instead, one must intend to fulfill the mitzvah of the Holy One, blessed be He. As a direct consequence, the house will be protected.” The implication is not that a mezuzah does not offer protection, but that even a kosher mezuzah should not be viewed as a talisman, but rather as a mitzvah. It is only that because of the mitzvah, “as a direct consequence, the house will be protected.” In other words, the fact that “as a direct consequence, the house will be protected” is also an element of the mitzvah, and one should have this in mind when fulfilling it. This understanding parallels the explanation given in footnote 33 regarding Rabbeinu Asher’s interpretation.

* Kessef Mishneh adds “the angels [whose names are] written inside do not,” and does not suffice with stating “a mezuzah protects a home when it is written as prescribed.” (In that instance, Rambam mentions, the mezuzah is not “written as prescribed” because the names of angels were written inside. Therefore, it does not afford protection.

Why is it important to add that also the angels whose names were included in the mezuzah do not afford protection?) Because were the angels to afford protection:

i) The mezuzah would actually be a talisman. This is the opposite of Rambam’s words, that it is only “as if it was a talisman.”

ii) There would be no clear proof that these people intended to treat the mitzvah as a whole, as a a talisman. It is possible that, in their minds only the added names of the angels were the talisman.

See Rambam’s words cited in footnote 32, regarding writing G‑d’s name Shaddai on the outside of a mezuzah, “This does not detract [from the mitzvah],” even though the purpose of writing that name is protection, as mentioned in the sources cited in footnote 26.

Keilim 17:16.

Tosfos Yom Tov’s words “considering it” – which imply that their conception was mistaken – refer to the words “like a mitzvah,” i.e., they erred in thinking that it would afford the protection of a mitzvah. However, see Tosafos Anshei Shem on that mishnah, which negates that conception entirely.

Note that my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, had a mezuzah placed on the desk at which he wrote and studied. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 9, p. 261, which mentions this fact.

Talmud Yerushalmi , Pe’ah 1:1, cited in Bereishis Rabbah, the end of ch. 35.

The gloss P’nei Moshe on Talmud Yerushalmi, loc. cit., states that Artibun was an important Jew. However, see the sources cited in Amudei Yerushalayim on Talmud Yerushalmi, loc. cit., and S’dei Chemed, Vol. 9, Divrei Chachamim, responsum 135, which state that he was a non-Jew.

Moreover, even a house owned in partnership with a non-Jew is exempt from requiring a mezuzah (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 286:1. Note Mordechai, Avodah Zarah, ch. 1, sec. 810).

She’iltos, sec. 146.

See Rambam, Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 11:12 (based on Sh’vuos 15b), cited in sec. 5.

Menachos 32b; Rambam, Hilchos Mezuzah 5:8; Tur, Yoreh Deah, the end of sec. 289.

Menachos, loc. cit.

However, see Tosafos, Menachos, loc. cit., s.v. sakanah, which provides another interpretation.

In general, the commemoration of a mitzvah shares a certain degree of connection to the mitzvah. This is evident in the zeroa used on the Seder plate Pesach night. Since it has some connection to the Pesach sacrifice, certain safeguards are enacted so that it will not actually resemble that sacrifice at all. See Haggadah shel Pesach im Likkutei Taamim UMinhagim (5733 and subsequent printings), p. 6.

When one studies the laws of building the Beis HaMikdash, it is not merely a remembrance of the Beis HaMikdash, instituted because – to paraphrase Rosh HaShanah 30a – “Tziyon requires that concern for her be shown.” Instead, fundamentally, the study of those laws was instituted because as a result of that study, “I will consider it as if you are involved in building the Beis HaMikdash” (Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Tzav, sec. 14; Vayikra Rabbah 7:3). Accordingly, in contrast to other practices instituted as a remembrance, in this instance, one who studies these laws receives a reward as if he were involved in building the Beis HaMikdash. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 18, p. 412ff., where this concept is explained at length.

Sefer HaSichos 5702, p. 82.

See Pischei Teshuvah, Yoreh Deah 286:2, which states that in the Talmudic era, mezuzos were affixed to the entrances of stables. However, at present, such entrances are exempt, because “as is evident, they [contain] excessive filth.”

See Likkutei Dibburim, Vol. 4, p. 626b, and the footnote there. In that source, the Rebbe Rayatz writes:

The maamarim delivered on Rosh HaShanah [of that year,] 5687, mentioned the Baal Shem Tov’s approach to Hashgachah Peratis, that it encompasses not only humans, but all forms of existence – even inanimate objects, plants, and animals – and every detail of their being. Although this concept did not have any [apparent] connection to the maamar, were it not for [mentioning] these points, I do not know whether I would have been able to endure – to bear the suffering of, and survive – that imprisonment.

Yeshayahu 6:3.

See Sefer HaSichos 5702, loc. cit.; Likkutei Dibburim, Vol. 4, pp. 626a, 639b; Sefer HaSichos 5701, p. 138.

Sefer HaSichos 5701, loc. cit.

See Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 26 (p. 144b), which extols the virtue achieved through clarifying halachah on this physical plane, stating, “A thinker will understand the extraordinary matter….”

Note that the interrogation room was exempt from the requirement of a mezuzah because it was not “your house,” the place where a Jew lived. By contrast, a barn is not only exempt from the mitzvah of mezuzah, but it is also forbidden to affix a mezuzah there because of the filth. Nevertheless, the Rebbe Rayatz compared the two. This is not the place for further discussion of the matter.

Menachos 110a, quoted as halachah in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 1:11 (in the mahadura basra, 1:9).

Devarim 6:9. In contrast to the prison where the Rebbe Rayatz was held, there are structures that are fundamentally exempt from having a mezuzah, e.g., a structure that is not four cubits by four cubits or the like (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 285:13).

The above relates to one of the explanations of the verse (Devarim 18:13), “Be of sincere faith with G‑d, your L‑rd.” Beyond the straightforward explanation of the verse, the Alter Rebbe (Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 45c) focuses on the fact that tamim, translated as “of sincere faith,” also means “perfect,” and explains that a person becomes complete (“perfect”) in all 613 limbs of his soul through the fulfillment of the 613 mitzvos. By contrast, if he is lacking one mitzvah, he is lacking one of the limbs of his soul.

On the surface, there is a difficulty. Since the 613 limbs of the soul correspond to the 613 mitzvos (see Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, the beginning of Epistle 29), in a situation where a person is unable to fulfill a given mitzvah – for example, in the era when the Beis HaMikdash is not present or the like – it would appear that it is impossible for a person to be perfect in all the limbs of his soul.

In resolution, it can be explained that firstly, the very fact that a person is found in circumstances where it is impossible for him to fulfill these mitzvos proves that he already fulfilled them in a previous reincarnation – see Iggeres HaKodesh, loc. cit. In addition, it could be said that in such a circumstance, the perfection of the limbs of his soul that are dependent on these mitzvos is achieved by:

a) Studying the laws of these mitzvos, through which it is considered as if one fulfilled those mitzvos,

b) The very fact that one is fulfilling the Torah’s instructions not to fulfill the mitzvah in these circumstances, (for example, not to offer a sacrifice outside the Beis HaMikdash, or the like) is an observance of the laws of the mitzvah. Note Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 5, p. 148, footnote 45. See Mabit’s Kiryas Sefer, ch. 7, of his introduction, regarding all the above.

Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Toldos, sec. 5.

The Rebbe was referring to the terrorist attack in Maalot, Eretz Yisrael, 5736 (1976), where 25 Jews were killed. See the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Mattos-Maasei, 29 Tammuz, and Shabbos Parshas Chazon, 5736, when the Rebbe spoke about this matter at length.

Mishnah, Berachos 20b; Rambam, Hilchos Mezuzah 5:10; Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 291:3.

Kiddushin 34a; Yoma 11b.

See the Miluim to the Ram edition of the Shulchan Aruch (and the marginal note to it), Yoreh Deah, sec. 285, that for this reason – that their lives are dependent on it – the mitzvah of mezuzah takes precedence over other mitzvos in which women are obligated (in contrast to men*). Consult that source.

* For men have other mitzvos, for example, Torah study and tefillin, through which they can attain the blessing of a long life.

Zohar, Vol. III, p. 263b. See Rama, Yoreh Deah 285:2.

Tehillim 121:8.

Sh’vuos 39a.

Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 44a, et al.

וראה כד הקמח מזוזה: "לכך קבעה לנו תורה מצות מזוזה . . כדי שנתכוין אל העיקר הזה . . שהשמירה חלה בנו ושופעת עלינו וכו׳", עיין שם בארוכה.

סנהדרין ריש פרק חלק (סוף ד״ה וכת החמשית). וראה כתר שם טוב (קה״ת) נז, א.

פסחים שם, סוף ע״א ואילך.

סימן קמו.

ספר השיחות תש״ב ע׳ 82.

סה״ש תש״א שם.