Jax, when are you going to make Tuesday a permanent night?
Alright 72, here is your 1st freebie of the week.
The following is from the Rinas Yitzchak on T’filla.
There is an interesting difference between the 1st paragraph of Krias Shema, and the 2nd Paragraph. The 1st paragraph is written in singular form whilst the second paragraph is in plural form.
Nevertheless, in the 2nd paragraph we say ???????????? ??? ???????? ???????? ??????????????: in singular form!
Additionally, ??????? ??????? is only in the 1st paragraph.
The Meshacha Chachma quotes the Vilna Gaon who states that ??????? ??????? is only in the 1st paragraph since a person can serve Hashem ??????? ???????, however, the second paragraph, which is written in plural, since it discusses how “The Rabbim” serve Hasem (i.e. the entire community as a whole), does not mention ??????? ??????? since we do not find reference to the Rabbim serving Hashem “with all their money”. This is also quoted in the name of the Nefesh HaChaim
Rabbeinu Yona in Sha’arei Teshuva writes that the mitzvos of t’fillin and mezzuza are “b’chlal” “Kaballas Ol Malchus Shamayim” (They fit into the category of the proclamation of Hashem as our Ruler and King) since the Krias Shema is written in them. Rabbeinu Yona writes in Brachos that the t’fillin we wear on the head corresponds to “Kaballas Ol Malchus Shamayim” of our Nefesh. The t’fillin we wear on the arm corresponds to “Kaballas Ol Malchus Shamayim” of our Guf, and that mezzuza corresponds to kabbalas ol malchus shamayim of our money.
Therefore, we can now understand why it is written in singular, despite being in the paragraph which discusses the Kehilla. Since mezzuza corresponds to the service with all our money, which can only be done by “individuals” and not by the “community”
Note from JayMatt: The Rinas Yitachak is NOT saying that everyone cannot attain the level of serving Hashem with all their money. All INDIVIDUALS can do so. There is just an additional entity known as the “Rabbim”, which cannot do so. In this case having every individual do so would NOT constitute having being done so by “The Rabbim”