Q: Rashi explains they were arguing over 2 worlds. Don’t be misconstrued, it wasn’t that Y wanted the next world and E wanted this world, that’s not an argument, nor is it a compromise, it is an agreement. A: The conflict begins with E wanting to switch olam hazeh and olam haba.
Shabbat – Ikar vs Tefel * Esav asks his father ‘Do we take maaser off salt or wheat’ i.e maser of tafel products. Esav wanted to elevate tafel, physicality. * The entire purpose of the tefel (secondary, subservient) is to aid the ikar, without the tefel, the ikar couldn’t work. The left hand aids the right, if your interest is in the left then both the right and left fail. To accentuate this point, there is a minimum amount you can carry on Shabbat, you can carry it in a kli as heavy as you want as the purpose of the kli is the ikar, and so it becomes one with the ikar, in perfect harmony, the tefel is elevated to become part of you, the reverse is that the ikar is degraded to tafel, when your focus is on the tefel, you fail on both the tefel and ikar. * 2 dimensions: Orange and orange peel, car and destination, body and soul, right and left hand, salt and food, straw (tafel to food) and wheat (shell to wheat). * Torah (spiritual) and mitzvah (tzavta [Aramaic] – together - sevet [Hebrew] – crew, a group of individuals that work together) when you do an action in this world, you connect it to the source, the next world. To do a mitzva when you are commanded is better than spontaneously doing a mitzva (commanding yourself), when I conceive a mitzvah and do it, I simply manifest myself, am restricted to my own potential, but when the idea is conceived by someone else, and I do it, it is an escalation/extension of my action to the source, I express someone else, my potential is a culmination of him and me. Isn’t It funny that of the 613 mitzvot, in such a spiritual system, only