The concept explained at the end of the previous section – that the acceptance of the yoke of the observance of the mitzvos is worthy of receiving a crown (i.e., of drawing down G‑d’s encompassing light) only when preceded by the acceptance of the yoke of G‑d’s Kingship –
requires further clarification:וְצָרִיךְ בֵּאוּר,
The overall concept of the acceptance of a yoke,הֲרֵי כְּלָלוּת הָעִנְיָן דְּקַבָּלַת עֹל,
including the yoke of the observance of the mitzvos (nishma),גַּם קַבָּלַת עֹל מִצְוֹת (נִשְׁמָע),
reflects a commitment of bittul,הוּא בִּטּוּל,
for the concept of bittul involves transcending one’s personal identity and becoming subsumed within G‑dliness.דְּעִנְיַן הַבִּטּוּל הוּא שֶׁהָאָדָם יוֹצֵא מִמְּצִיאוּתוֹ,
As such, why then was it explained that the crown corresponding to nishma was granted specifically after having been preceded by naaseh? Seemingly, nishma itself is an act of bittul and is worthy of a crown.וּקְשִׁירַת הַכֶּתֶר שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד נִשְׁמָע הוּא דַּוְקָא כְּשֶׁהַנִּשְׁמָע הוּא לְאַחֲרֵי הַקְּדִימָה דְּנַעֲשֶׂה.
It is possible to offer an explanation based on the well-known concept1וְיֵשׁ לוֹמַר הַבֵּאוּר בָּזֶה עַל פִּי הַיָּדוּעַ
that the encompassing light of Kesser reflects the true concept of an encompassing light,שֶׁהַמַּקִּיף דְּכֶתֶר הוּא אֲמִתִּית הַמַּקִּיף
i.e., a light that is loftier than an encompassing light that relates to a light that can be internalized.שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה מֵהַמַּקִּיף הַשַּׁיָּךְ לַפְּנִימִי.
In Chassidus, it is explained that there are times when a power or light is described as “encompassing,” even though, to a greater or lesser degree, it relates to one’s internalized powers.
This category of encompassing light subdivides into many intermediate levels. To give a basic example: There are times when one begins to understand a concept, but has not fully grasped it. The concept is not totally beyond him, for it in essence is able to be grasped and understood; moreover, he has already attained some degree of comprehension. Nevertheless, in his present state it cannot be said that he has internalized the concept. Thus, such a concept can be described as makif, “encompassing,” for it is presently “above” the person, even though ultimately, it is within his capacity to internalize it.
The difference between this type of encompassing light and a true encompassing light can be illustrated by drawing a comparison
to the difference between a crown and the skull. Both these terms are used in Kabbalah as analogies to our encompassing powers.דְּזֶהוּ הַחִלּוּק בֵּין כֶּתֶר לְגָלְגָּלְתָּא,
The skull is an analogy for an encompassing light or power that relates to a light or power that is p’nimi, “internalized.”דְּגָלְגָּלְתָּא הוּא מַקִּיף הַשַּׁיָּךְ לַפְּנִימִי,
like a person’s skull, which encompasses the person’s brain but which nevertheless relates to it.בְּדֻגְמַת הַגֻּלְגּוֹלֶת שֶׁבָּאָדָם שֶׁמַּקִּיף אֶת הַמֹּחַ אֲבָל שַׁיָּךְ אֵלָיו,
For after all, the skull is part of the person’s body, just as is his brain.שֶׁהֲרֵי הַגֻּלְגּוֹלֶת הִיא מִגּוּפוֹ כְּמוֹ הַמֹּחַ.
By contrast, the encompassing light of Kesser is an encompassing light that transcends any connection to an influence that can be internalized.וְהַמַּקִּיף דְּכֶתֶר הוּא מַקִּיף שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה מִשַּׁיָּכוּת לַפְּנִימִי,
To refer to the analogy of an actual crown:בְּדֻגְמַת כֶּתֶר כִּפְשׁוּטוֹ
it is a diadem worn on the head, above one’s brain and skull,שֶׁהוּא עֲטָרָה עַל הַמֹּחַ וְהַגֻּלְגּוֹלֶת
a separate entity, without any connection to them,וְאֵין לוֹ קֶשֶׁר אֲלֵיהֶם
(for a crown is an inanimate object made of precious stones and not of a part of the human body).(שֶׁהֲרֵי הַכֶּתֶר הוּא מֵאֲבָנִים טוֹבוֹת וְלֹא מִגּוּף הָאָדָם).
Although in certain texts of Kabbalah and Chassidus, the skull is sometimes also identified with Kesser,וַהֲגַם שֶׁגַּם גָּלְגָּלְתָּא נִקְרָא בְּשֵׁם כֶּתֶר,
that is speaking in a general sense.זֶהוּ בִּכְלָלוּת,
Fundamentally, however, Kesser refers to an encompassing light that transcends connection to any degree of influence that is able to be internalizedאֲבָל עִקַּר הַכֶּתֶר הוּא הַמַּקִּיף שֶׁאֵינוֹ שַׁיָּךְ לַפְּנִימִי
(and which thus transcends the encompassing light described by the analogy of the skull).(שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה מֵהַמַּקִּיף דְּגָלְגָּלְתָּא).
To illustrate this concept by drawing a parallel to a person’s faculty of will:וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ הָרָצוֹן שֶׁבָּאָדָם,
The faculty of will affects all the person’s other faculties and limbs in an encompassing manner.דְּרָצוֹן הוּא מַקִּיף עַל כָּל הַכֹּחוֹת וְהָאֵבָרִים,
A person who uses his mind to train his faculties or limbs lowers his thought, causing it to become enclothed within them while interacting with them. For example, if he wishes to gain a specific skill, he learns what must be done to acquire that skill and repeatedly practices the activities necessary to cultivate it; he thinks over how his faculties or limbs are functioning, guiding and directing them to perform in accordance with his intent. In contrast, when he influences these faculties through his will, he commands them, directing their functioning from above.
The power of will itself
comprises two levels:2שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שְׁתֵּי מַדְרֵגוֹת.
a) a person’s desire to perform a particular act using his own abilities;הָרָצוֹן לַעֲשׂוֹת אֵיזֶה דָבָר עַל יְדֵי הַכֹּחוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ,
although this desire rules over all his other facultiesדְּרָצוֹן זֶה עִם הֱיוֹתוֹ שׁוֹלֵט עַל כָּל הַכֹּחוֹת
because it functions as an encompassing light above them,לְפִי שֶׁהוּא מַקִּיף עֲלֵיהֶם,
Unlike a person who functions on the basis of his intellectual powers, a person who is motivated by his will is not training his powers; he orders them to function.
nevertheless, the very fact that he desires for his powers to functionמִכָּל מָקוֹם, זֶה עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהוּא רוֹצֶה בִּפְעֻלַּת הַכֹּחוֹת,
attests to the fact that his will shares a connection with them.הוּא הוֹכָחָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שַׁיָּכוּת אֲלֵיהֶם –
This is the level of the encompassing light of the skull, i.e., an encompassing power that shares some degree of connection with the internalized powers,מַקִּיף דְּגָלְגָּלְתָּא.
and that constitutes a descent in relation toוְהוּא יְרִידָה לְגַבֵּי
b) the faculty of will itself, as it exists above the will to perform any particular action;הָרָצוֹן עַצְמוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא לְמַעְלָה מֵהָרָצוֹן לַעֲשׂוֹת –
this latter level is identified with the encompassing light of Kesser.מַקִּיף דְּכֶתֶר.
On the festival of Shavuos, the rung of Kesser that is drawn down,וְהִנֵּה זֶה שֶׁבְּחַג הַשָּׁבֻעוֹת הוּא הַמְשָׁכַת הַכֶּתֶר,
is the true, innermost dimension of Kesser, the crown, that transcends the golgalta, the skull.3הוּא אֲמִתִּית הַכֶּתֶר שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה מִגָּלְגָּלְתָּא.
Similar concepts apply in regard to the two crowns corresponding to naaseh and nishma that were drawn down on the day before the festival of Shavuos.4וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה הוּא בַּנּוֹגֵעַ לִשְׁנֵי הַכְּתָרִים שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע שֶׁנִּמְשְׁכוּ בְּעֶרֶב חַג הַשָּׁבֻעוֹת,
Both are encompassing lights that transcend any connection to the Divine light that is able to be internalized.5שֶׁהֵם מַקִּיפִים שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה מִשַּׁיָּכוּת לַפְּנִימִי.
On this basis, it can be explained why granting the crown for nishma resulted specifically from the Jews’ having made the commitment of naaseh before that of nishma.6וְעַל פִּי זֶה יֵשׁ לְבָאֵר שֶׁקְּשִׁירַת הַכֶּתֶר שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד נִשְׁמָע הָיְתָה דַּוְקָא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהִקְדִּימוּ נַעֲשֶׂה לְנִשְׁמָע,
The bittul associated with accepting the yoke of the mitzvos (nishma) reflects a bittul to G‑d’s will. The person commits himself to carrying out everything that G‑d commands.כִּי הַבִּטּוּל דְּקַבָּלַת עֹל מִצְוֹת הוּא בִּטּוּל לְהָרָצוֹן,
Since the mitzvos are G‑d’s commandments to man obligating him to carry out specific actions and refrain from performing others,וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהַמִּצְוֹת הֵם צִוּוּיִים לְהָאָדָם,
it follows that G‑d’s desire that man fulfill the mitzvos resembles (man’s) desire to perform an action using his own faculties.הֲרֵי הָרָצוֹן דְּמִצְוֹת הוּא עַל דֶּרֶךְ הָרָצוֹן (דְּהָאָדָם) שֶׁרוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת עַל יְדֵי הַכֹּחוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ,
Man’s ratzon, will, reflects the expression of the soul, the person’s “inner self,” which transcends all connection to performing any specific action. The very fact that a desire is associated with performing an action indicates that the focus is not on the person’s inner self but rather on a level of the soul that relates to the world outside of him. Similarly, in relation to G‑d, the fact that mitzvos involve actions that man performs in the world indicates that His desire for them reflects a level of G‑dliness that takes the world into consideration; it does not reflect G‑d as He exists unto Himself.
This reflects the encompassing light described by the analogy of the skull.מַקִּיף דְּגָלְגָּלְתָּא.
Drawing down the encompassing light described by the analogy of a crown,וְהַמְשָׁכַת הַמַּקִּיף דְּכֶתֶר
(an encompassing light that transcends connection to any influence that can be internalized,)(מַקִּיף שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה מִשַּׁיָּכוּת לַפְּנִימִי)
is brought about by the bittul of the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingship of Heaven,הוּא עַל יְדֵי הַבִּטּוּל דְּקַבָּלַת עֹל מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם,
bittul to the Master of the will.בִּטּוּל לְבַעַל הָרָצוֹן.
By accepting G‑d’s sovereignty, the person subsumes his identity not only to G‑d’s will, but to G‑d Himself. He identifies himself as G‑d’s servant and by doing so bonds himself with G‑d as He is unto Himself, transcending any connection to the worlds.
By having made the commitment of naaseh before that of nishma, the Jews meritedוְעַל יְדֵי שֶׁהִקְדִּימוּ נַעֲשֶׂה לְנִשְׁמָע,
receiving two crowns, one corresponding to naaseh and one corresponding to nishma,קָשְׁרוּ לָהֶם שְׁנֵי כְתָרִים אֶחָד כְּנֶגֶד נַעֲשֶׂה וְאֶחָד כְּנֶגֶד נִשְׁמָע,
for when the commitment of nishma is prefaced by that of naaseh,כִּי עַל יְדֵי הַקְדָּמַת נַעֲשֶׂה לְנִשְׁמָע,
the bittul manifest in the acceptance of the yoke of the mitzvos is expressed in a manner that it is consciously felt asגַּם הַבִּטּוּל דְּקַבָּלַת עֹל מִצְוֹת הוּא בְּאֹפֶן שֶׁנִּרְגָּשׁ בּוֹ בְּגִלּוּי
coming as an outgrowth of the prior acceptance of the yoke of the Kingship of Heaven,שֶׁהוּא בָּא מֵהַבִּטּוּל דְּקַבָּלַת עֹל מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם,
one’s bittul to the Master of the will. בִּטּוּל לְבַעַל הָרָצוֹן.
By making the commitment of naaseh, a person redefines his identity. He is no longer an independent individual who has committed himself to carrying out G‑d’s will; he is now G‑d’s servant. He fulfills G‑d’s will not because he chooses to, but because he must; carrying out His will is an expression of his total commitment and self-subjugation to G‑dliness.
Based on the above, it is possible to explain our Sages’ statement (cited at the beginning of sec. 7): “So that one first accept the yoke of the Kingship of Heaven, and only afterwards accept the yoke of G‑d’s mitzvos.” On the surface, it is impossible to accept upon oneself the yoke of G‑d’s mitzvos without first accepting upon himself the yoke of His sovereignty. [As is true in regard to a mortal king, the yoke of carrying out his decrees seemingly becomes relevant only after having accepted him as king.7 Simply put, one who does not accept a ruler will not feel any obligation to carry out his commands.] Accordingly, the very fact that one has accepted upon himself the yoke of G‑d’s mitzvos seems to imply that he has already accepted His sovereignty. Why, then, did our Sages have to ordain that one must first accept the yoke of the Kingship of Heaven?
In resolution, it is possible to say that the directive to first accept the yoke of the Kingship of Heaven implies that the acceptance of G‑d’s Kingship should be the beginning of the acceptance of His mitzvos, i.e., that the bittul characterizing one’s acceptance of the yoke of the Kingship of Heaven be consciously felt in his acceptance of the yoke of the mitzvos, as stated above.
The explanation of the superior quality endowed to the bittul of nishma by virtue of its having been prefaced by the bittul of naaseh can be understood by first clarifying the following concept:וּבֵאוּר הָעִלּוּי שֶּׁנַעֲשֶׂה בְּהַבִּטּוּל דְּנִשְׁמָע עַל יְדֵי הַקְדָּמַת הַבִּטּוּל דְּנַעֲשֶׂה, יוּבַן בְּהַקְדִּים,
Just as Above, in relation to G‑d, as it were,דִּכְמוֹ שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה,
the bittul expressed in the acceptance of the yoke of G‑d’s mitzvos is to His (revealed) will,הַבִּטּוּל דְּקַבָּלַת עֹל מִצְוֹת הוּא לְהָרָצוֹן (גִּלּוּי)
whereas the bittul expressed in the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingship of Heaven is to G‑d Himself, the Master of the will,וְהַבִּטּוּל דְּקַבָּלַת עוֹל מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם הוּא לְבַעַל הָרָצוֹן,
so too in relation to manעַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה הוּא בַּנּוֹגֵעַ לְהָאָדָם,
the bittul expressed in the acceptance of the yoke of G‑d’s mitzvos involves man’s revealed powers –שֶׁהַבִּטּוּל דְּקַבָּלַת עֹל מִצְוֹת הוּא בְּהַגִּלּוּיִים דְּהָאָדָם,
not only does he commit himself to carrying out everything that he is commanded;שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּצְטַוֶּה
moreover, this (to do what he has been com-manded) becomes his personal desire –וִיתֵירָה מִזּוֹ שֶׁזֶּה (לַעֲשׂוֹת מַה שֶּׁנִּצְטַוָּה) יִהְיֶה הָרָצוֹן שֶׁלּוֹ,
Nevertheless, the person retains his identity; despite having made such an all-encompassing commitment, it is he who consciously decides to commit himself to carrying out G‑d’s will.
By contrast, the bittul expressed in the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingship of Heaven involves the very core of the person.וְהַבִּטּוּל דְּקַבָּלַת עוֹל מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם הוּא בְּהָאָדָם עַצְמוֹ,
His entire existence i.e., his very being, is defined by his being a servant of the King,שֶׁכָּל מְצִיאוּתוֹ הוּא זֶה שֶׁהוּא עַבְדּוֹ שֶׁל הַמֶּלֶךְ,
the Holy One, blessed be He, King of kings. He no longer has any sense of personal identity whatsoever.מֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא.
From the above it is understoodוּמִזֶּה מוּבָן,
that the advantage inherent in the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingship of Heaven over the acceptance of the yoke of G‑d’s mitzvosשֶׁהַמַּעֲלָה דְּקַבָּלַת עֹל מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם לְגַבֵּי קַבָּלַת עֹל מִצְוֹת
is also evident in the extent of the person’s bittul:הִיא גַּם בְּעִנְיַן הַבִּטּוּל.
With regard to the acceptance of the yoke of G‑d’s mitzvos,דּכבְקַבָּלַת עֹל מִצְוֹת,
there remains within the person an element of his being that is not batel to G‑d.נִשְׁאָר אֶצְלוֹ וּבוֹ מְצִיאוּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּטֵלָה,
Indeed, the element that is not batel is not merely a peripheral or external dimension of his being, for example, it is not that one hand is batel and the other hand is not. In this instance, it is the person’s core, his fundamental identity, that is not batel.
Moreover, since the dimension that is not batel is the essence of the person’s being, [which is (also) the essence of his revealed powers,]8 it follows that even the bittul of his revealed powers will not be complete. Even though he has accepted the yoke of G‑d’s mitzvos, there remains within him (at least on a subconscious level, but a subconscious level that relates to his revealed powers) the possibility that at times he will not carry out G‑d’s command. Since he fundamentally remains “his own man,” consequently, in a situation in which it is extremely difficult to carry out G‑d’s will, he might at least consider the possibility of not doing so.
The true expression of bittul comes through one’s acceptance of the yoke of the Kingship of Heaven.וַאֲמִתִּית הַבִּטּוּל הוּא בְּקַבָּלַת עֹל מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם,
In that instance, the person’s entire existence is defined by his being a servant of the King.9שֶׁכָּל מְצִיאוּתוֹ הוּא זֶה שֶׁהוּא עֶבֶד הַמֶּלֶךְ.
[Nevertheless, it is necessary that this essential commitment (also) be complemented by the acceptance of the yoke of His mitzvos[וְזֶה שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִהְיות (גַּם) קַבָּלַת עֹל מִצְוֹת הוּא
in order that his bittul (also) be expressed in relation to the actual observance of the Torah and its mitzvos].בִּכְדֵי שֶׁהַבִּטּוּל יִהְיֶה (גַּם) בַּנּוֹגֵעַ לְקִיּוּם הַתּוֹרָה וּמִצְוֹת בְּפֹעַל].
A specific commitment to the actual observance of mitzvos is necessary because the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingship of Heaven is (in and of itself) characterized by a state of ratzo and yearning to ascend upward to bond with G‑d above the material plane. Thus, it is not necessarily related to the observance of the mitzvos in actual practice.
When the bittul of nishma (the acceptance of the yoke of G‑d’s mitzvos) comesוְכַאֲשֶׁר הַבִּטּוּל דְּנִשְׁמָע (קַבָּלַת עֹל מִצְוֹת) הוּא
after – and through the preface of – the bittul of naaseh (the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingship of Heaven,)לְאַחֲרֵי וְעַל יְדֵי הַקְדָּמַת הַבִּטּוּל דְּנַעֲשֶׂה (קַבָּלַת עוֹל מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם),
that one consciously feels that his commitment to do everything that he has been commandedשֶׁנִּרְגָּשׁ בְּגִלּוּי דְּזֶה שֶׁמְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו לַעֲשׂוֹת כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּצְטַוֶּה
results from his being the servant of the King, i.e., he no longer feels that he is “his own man” but solely G‑d’s servant,הוּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא עַצְמוֹ עַבְדּוֹ שֶׁל הַמֶּלֶךְ,
then the bittul of nishma permeates his entire being,אֲזַי, גַּם הַבִּטּוּל דְּנִשְׁמָע הוּא בְּכָל מְצִיאוּתוֹ
(not only his essence, but also his revealed powers).10 The redefinition of his identity as G‑d’s servant dominates the way he thinks, feels, and acts.(בַּנּוֹגֵעַ לְכֹחוֹת הַגְּלוּיִים שֶׁלּוֹ),
Accordingly, it is utterly inconceivable that he not carry out G‑d’s command. No matter what the difficulty he may encounter, the thought of not fulfilling G‑d’s command will not even cross his mind.וְאֵין שַׁיָּךְ כְּלָל שֶׁלֹּא יְקַיֵּם הַצִּוּוּי.

Summary

This section clarifies a concept explained at the end of the previous section: that only when a Jew’s acceptance of the yoke of the observance of the mitzvos is preceded by his acceptance of the yoke of G‑d’s Kingship is it worthy of a crown, i.e., only then does it elicit G‑d’s encompassing light. That statement appears problematic, for even the yoke of the observance of mitzvos (nishma) reflects a commitment of bittul, a commitment that seemingly should draw down an encompassing light on its own accord.
In resolution, it is explained that there are two levels of encompassing lights: one that transcends the G‑dly lights that are p’nimi, “internalized,” but that nevertheless relates to them, and one that transcends them altogether. The skull is an analogy for an encompassing light that relates to the internalized powers and lights, while Kesser, the crown, is identified with the encompassing light that transcends connection to influence that can be internalized.
The difference between these two rungs can be illustrated by a comparison to two levels within the power of will: a) a person’s desire to perform a particular act via his own powers, and b) the power of will itself as it transcends a desire to perform any action. Kesser is identified with the higher level of will, while the skull relates to the lower level.
To relate these concepts to the two crowns granted to the Jewish people for having made the commitments of naaseh and nishma: Nishma, accepting the yoke of the mitzvos, reflects a bittul to G‑d’s will. Since the mitzvos are commandments obligating man to carry out specific actions, the acceptance of the yoke to observe them reflects the encompassing light described by the analogy of the skull.
Drawing down the type of encompassing light described by the analogy of a crown, an encompassing light that transcends connection to influence that can be internalized, is brought about by the bittul of the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingship of Heaven, bittul to the Master of the will. The person subsumes his identity not only to G‑d’s will but to G‑d Himself, and identifies entirely as G‑d’s servant.
By making the commitment of naaseh before that of nishma, the Jews merited to be granted two crowns, one corresponding to naaseh and one corresponding to nishma, for when the commitment of nishma is prefaced by that of naaseh, the bittul manifest in the acceptance of the yoke of the mitzvos is expressed in a manner that is overtly evident as having come about as an outgrowth of his prior acceptance of the yoke of the Kingship of Heaven, one’s bittul to the Master of the will.
There is a further dimension to the superior quality endowed to the bittul of nishma by virtue of its having been prefaced by the bittul of naaseh: The bittul expressed in the acceptance of the yoke of G‑d’s mitzvos does not eclipse the person’s identity in its entirety. Despite having made such an all-encompassing commitment, the person nevertheless retains his identity. In contrast, the bittul expressed in the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingship of Heaven involves the person’s very core; his entire existence is that he is the servant of the King.
With regard to the acceptance of the yoke of G‑d’s mitzvos, there remains within the person an element of his being that is not batel to G‑d. By contrast, through the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingship of Heaven the person’s entire being becomes redefined by identifying as a servant of the King.
When the bittul of nishma (the acceptance of the yoke of G‑d’s mitzvos) comes after – and through the preface of – the bittul of naaseh (the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingship of Heaven), the person consciously feels that his commitment to carry out G‑d’s will stems from his identifying as the servant of the King. In such an instance, the bittul of nishma permeates his entire being, not only his essence but also his revealed powers.
Extending the essential commitment of naaseh to the acceptance of the yoke of His mitzvos also complements the commitment of naaseh. In this way, one’s bittul is also expressed in relation to the actual observance of the Torah and its mitzvos instead of remaining merely an abstract spiritual desire.