The Gemara here tells us of two differences between the world as it is now
and as it will be in the future. First, the Gemara cites the verse,
"On that day, Hashem will be One and His name will be One," and asks that
is He not One even in this world? The Gemara answers that the World to Come
is not like this world. In this world, we recite the blessing "ha'Tov
v'ha'Meitiv" when we hear good tidings and "Dayan ha'Emes" when we hear bad
tidings. In the World to Come, we will only recite the blessing "ha'Tov
v'ha'Meitiv" (i.e., there will be no bad tidings -- Rashi).
Second, the Gemara continues and asks that the verse says, "And His name
will be One" -- is His name not One even in this world? The Gemara answers
that the World to Come is not like this world. In this world, Hashem's name
is written one way, but it is pronounced another way. In the World to Come,
the Name will be pronounced the way that it is written.
Another difference between this world and the next is expressed by RASHI.
Rashi, on the verse "Shema Yisrael Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad" (Devarim
6:4) explains, based on the Sifri, that "Hashem Elokeinu" means that the
G-d Who is *presently* our G-d, and not that of the other nations, will *in
the future* be "Hashem Echad," one G-d over all of the nations, as the
verse says, "At that time I shall cause all of the nations to call out in
the name of Hashem" (Tzefanya 3:9). Likewise, it states, "On that day
Hashem will be One, and His name will be One" (Zecharya 14:9).
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 5) tells us that when uttering Hashem's
Name, both meanings -- the meaning of the Name as it is pronounced (that
Hashem is the "Master of the world") and the meaning of the Name as it is
written (that He has always existed and is above time) -- should be borne
in mind. But the Vilna Gaon (ad loc.) dissents. Based on numerous sources,
he contends that it is only necessary to bear in mind the meaning of the
Name as it is pronounced, "Master of the world." The Gaon adds, however,
that the verse "Shema Yisrael" is an exception, and when one utters the
Name in Shema Yisrael, he should bear in mind *both* meanings of the Name.
What is it that makes this verse different from all others? Rav Yitzchak
Hutner (Pachad Yitzchak on Yom Kippur Ch. 5; Pesach Ch. 60; Shavuot 25:9,
see also notes on Pesach 5:2) offers an insightful explanation based on our
Gemara and the words of Rashi.
He explains that the three differences between this world and the next as
described in our Gemara and in Rashi in Devarim are clearly related. Since
we do not perceive things the way they really are in this world, Hashem's
presence is clouded over,and not clearly recognized by all. If we would
always see Hashem's good and perfection, it would be clear to all that
Hashem is One. In the World to Come, since it will be apparent to all that
everything is good, the nations of the world will inevitably proclaim
Hashem's Oneness along with us.
This is also what is meant by the difference between the spelling and the
pronunciation of Hashem's name. The pronunciation that we use today
suggests a Creator that is partially hidden from the world. He is like a
master who lets his slave work and supervises from his distant corner. In
the World to Come, we will pronounce Hashem's name as it is written,
suggesting that He is inseparable from all of existence, and that His
presence is evident to all (see Ramban, beginning of Parshas Va'era, and
Meshech Chochmah, beginning of Parshas Bechukosai).
Thus, all three "Onenesses" stem from one root; the clarity of Hashem's
presence in the World to Come.
Actually, even in this world it is possible, to a certain extent, to
disperse the clouds, and feel the omnipresence of the Divine Will. After
all, no true "bad" or "injustice" is ever done in this world. Everything
that transpires is of Divine design and is ultimately meant to be for our
own good (see Berachos 60b). Although that end is often hidden from our
perception, it is there nonetheless. We can strive to recognize it and
accept it, thereby getting a "glimpse" of our Creator.
There is no time when it is more imperative for us to feel that lucid
presence of Hashem than when reciting the verse "Shema Yisrael" and
proclaiming the Oneness of Hashem. As Rashi says, we are longing, with this
excalamation, for the world in which Hashem's presence will be fully
revealed and He will "truly" be One. When reciting this verse, we attempt
to gain clarity of Hashem's Oneness in this world of inclarity, and we do
that by trying to find that hidden good that exists in everything in this
world. If so, it is certainly appropriate that in this verse we should
preserve the meaning of Hashem's name as it is written, and not just as it
is pronounced.
QUESTION: The Beraisa states that one who works on Erev Shabbos after the
time of Minchah will see no Berachah from his work. Another Beraisa
supports this and says that there is "one who toils and gains, one who
toils and loses, one who is lazy and gains, and one who is lazy and loses.
The one who toils and gains is the one who works all week except for Erev
Shabbos. The one who toils and loses is the one who works all week as well
as Erev Shabbos. The one who is lazy and gains is the one who does not work
all week, and he does not work on Erev Shabbos either. The one who is lazy
and loses is the one who does not work all week but he works on Erev Shabbos."
Rava adds that the women of Mechuza -- even though they do not work on Erev
Shabbos because they are self-indulgent, for they do not work the rest of
the week either -- are nevertheless considered like "one who is lazy and
gains."
What is Rava adding to the Beraisa? (RIF in Ein Yakov)
ANSWER: The RIF explains that the point of the Beraisa is to teach that
even a Mitzvah she'Lo Lishmah is considered a Mitzvah. That is why one who
refrains from work on Erev Shabbos not because of the Mitzvah but because
he is lazy is still considered to have "gained" the Mitzvah. However, we
might have thought that he is only credited with the Mitzvah she'Lo Lishmah
when he has *no* Kavanos at all; he does not intend to fulfill the Mitzvah
when he refrains from work, but he also has no alterior intentions in
refraining from work. However, if he has another motive in refraining from
work, perhaps he is not considered to have done any Mitzvah at all.
Therefore, Rava teaches that even the women of Mechuza, who refrain from
working because they like to indulge in pleasure, and thus they have an
alterior motive in refraining from work, are still credited with the
Mitzvah. Rava is teaching that when the Gemara says that a Mitzvah which is
done she'Lo Lishmah is still considered a Mitzvah, that is true not only
when one simply does not have in mind to fulfill the Mitzvah, but even when
one has in mind to accomplish something else other than the Mitzvah.