Parashat Behar deals almost exclusively with the laws of shemitta and yovel, addressing first the agricultural aspects of these mitzvot and then proceeding to the effects of these institutions on business and employment. The final two verses of the parasha, however, appear to have nothing to do with this discussion (and indeed, the Christian editors who divided the Chumash into chapters began a new chapter with these two verses):
"You shall not make idols for yourselves, or set up for yourselves carved images or pillars, or place figured stones in your land upon which to bow, for I the Lord am your God. You shall keep My Shabbatot and venerate My Mikdash; I am the Lord." (26:1-2)
How do these mitzvot fit into the context? What do these laws – idolatry, forbidden images, Shabbat and the Temple – have to do with the laws discussed throughout the parasha?
Ibn Ezra claims that these verses continue the theme introduced in the immediately preceding verse. Concluding the laws of servants, who must go free on the jubilee year, the Torah declares, "For it is to Me that the Israelites are servants; they are My servants whom I freed from the land of Egypt." The Torah attributes the mitzva of freeing servants to the fact that we may not subjugate ourselves to any master other than the Almighty Himself. Continuing with this theme, Ibn Ezra claims, the Torah repeats the prohibition against idolatrous practices, which involves the acceptance of an authority besides God. And once the Torah mentioned the prohibition against bowing on figured stones, it mentions as well Shabbat and the Mikdash, for the practice was to bow down in the Temple on Shabbat (as implied in Yeshayahu 66:23).
Most other early commentators, however, follow the explanation of the Torat Kohanim, that these verses refer to the situation described several verses earlier, of a Jew who was compelled by financial straits to sell himself into the service of a gentile. After calling for the redemption of the servant by his relatives (see 25:47-54), the Torah now turns its attention to period of servitude itself, and warns the servant not to forsake his tradition despite his current residence in a pagan home. He must not adopt the ritual practices of his master, neither the idolatrous beliefs nor the mode of worship, which involved all types of monuments, statutes, mosaics, and the like.
But why did the Torah add a specific reminder concerning Shabbat observance and reverence for the Temple? Why are these mitzvot singled out in the discussion of the Jewish servant in the non-Jewish home? Particularly difficult to understand is the mention of the Temple. Presumably, a Jew held by a gentile does not have the opportunity to frequent the Bet Ha-mikdash. Why, then, does the Torah remind him to "venerate the Sanctuary"?
The Seforno explains that a Jew in foreign servitude might have thought to no longer observe the Shabbat. After all, Shabbat is about freedom, our emancipation from the shackles of the workweek and the opportunity to rest and engage in loftier pursuits. The Jewish servant might have therefore concluded that this mitzva does not apply to him, who is currently denied his freedom. The Torah therefore reminds him that he, too, must continue observing the Shabbat, even when subjected to foreign rule.
As for the mitzva to "venerate My Sanctuary," the Seforno boldly suggests that "Mikdash" here refers not to the Temple, but rather to the sacred institutions built in exile – the synagogues and study halls. Despite the absence of the Bet Ha-mikdash and our subjugation to foreign rulers, we may not undermine the sanctity of our holy institutions. Chazal famously comment (Megilla 29a) that the Batei Kenesset and Batei Midrash built and sustained in exile constitute a "Mikdash me'at," a minor Temple, as it were, they are, to some extent, infused with the sanctity of the Bet Ha-mikdash.
We might add that in this approach to this verse, the Seforno addresses what we may consider the two primary spiritual challenges in exile. The first is our sense of dignity and existential independence. The observance of Shabbat in exile has helped remind us that come what may, we are, ultimately, never fully subjugated to any force other than God Himself. Every seventh day, we remove our chains and decour exclusive subservience to the Almighty. Secondly, the "hester panim" ("concealment" of God's "face") in exile threatens to call into question our continued relationship with Him. After the destruction of the First Temple, the people turned to the prophets and asked, "A servant sold by his master, and a wife driven away by her husband – do they have any responsibilities one to another?" The people here wrongly presumed that exile meant the end of our covenant with God. The establishment of houses of worship and religious study, and a commitment to make these institutions a national priority, help ensure our ongoing awareness of God's continued presence in our midst, that even in the darkest hours of exile, God has never left His people.
Courtesy of Yeshivat Har Etzion - www.etzion.org.il