[1] This complete one [Shimon HaTzaddik] was the head of the first generation of the Sages of the Mishnah, as I have already mentioned. And since Shimon HaTzaddik had encompassed the performance of the mitzvot within three supreme categories — Torah, divine service, and acts of lovingkindness — the Sages who came after him saw fit to elaborate upon each of them. Thus, Antigonus of Socho, which was a city within the territory of the land of Yehudah, spoke regarding divine service, and explained in what manner a person ought to serve his Creator. Yosi ben Yo'ezer explained the matter of Torah. And Yosi ben Yochanan spoke in elucidation of acts of lovingkindness, as will be explained.

[2] Indeed, a great difficulty appears in the words of Antigonus, who says that a person should not serve his Creator "in order to receive reward" — but rather so as not to receive it. For behold, the promises of the Torah never cease to call upon people to fulfill the mitzvot on account of the reward stated in the Ten Commandments: "So that it will be good for you and that your days will be lengthened" (Devarim 22:7); "So that your days will be lengthened and so that it will be good for you" (ibid. 5:16). And it says: "You shall observe His statutes and His commandments which I command you today, so that it will be good for you and for your children after you, and so that you will prolong your days" (ibid. 4:40). And similarly in many other places. Moreover, the Holy One, blessed is He, Himself declared: "Would that their heart would always be such, to fear Me and to observe My commandments all the days, so that it will be good for them and for their children" after them (ibid. 5:26). If He, may He be blessed, desires and wishes that our service be directed toward our own benefit and pleasure, how can Antigonus say that such service is invalid and that it is improper to engage in it?

[3] Our Sages, of blessed memory, stated (Makkot 23b): "The Holy One, blessed is He, wished to grant merit to Israel; therefore He multiplied for them Torah and mitzvot." And Dovid said (Tehillim 19:12): "Moreover, Your servant is careful by them; in observing them there is great reward." For if a person does not intend or hope for the reward of his action, there is no doubt that he will not be moved to act, but will rather grow slack in his service. This is because the ultimate purpose of a person's actions and movements is either to draw near to that which is pleasurable or to flee from that which is harmful. The act of Onan proves this — yet he was not punished merely for refraining, but rather for what he actively did, for he wasted his seed upon the ground, as it is written (Bereshit 38:10): "And what he did was evil in the eyes of Hashem." However, if one refrains from performing levirate marriage because he knows the child would not be considered his own offspring, there is no sin in this, for it is in every person's nature to direct his actions toward something that brings him benefit.

[4] The Rambam explained this to mean that a person should not perform the mitzvot for any extraneous purpose, but rather for their own sake alone — not in order that Hashem bestow good upon him. For it is fitting to love truth because it is truth, and to perform virtue for its own sake, seeking no further end beyond it. One who performs his service in hope of reward is, in a sense, conducting a kind of trade — selling his service in exchange for what will be given to him in return. The mitzvot and virtues have their purpose within themselves; their very performance is their end, and this is what constitutes service for its own sake. It is regarding this that the Torah commanded (Devarim 6:5): "And you shall love Hashem your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might" — and Dovid said (Tehillim 112:1): "Praiseworthy is the man who fears Hashem, who greatly desires His mitzvot." As the Sages expounded (Avodah Zarah 19a): "His mitzvot" — and not the reward of His mitzvot — for the performance of the mitzvot is itself their purpose. They further interpreted this in light of the teaching that the reward of a mitzvah is a mitzvah. The Rav [Rambam] explained the concept of reward given through grace and benevolence in a similar vein — as when a man says to his servant or young son: "Do such-and-such for me, and I will give you a dinar." True reward, however, is that which is given in accordance with strict justice. This pious master [Rabbeinu Bachya] taught that one should not serve Hashem on condition that He do good to them, bestow chesed upon them, or with hope for such recompense. Nevertheless, they should not abandon fear entirely — for one who serves out of love will not neglect any of the things he was commanded to do, while one who is fearful will not do any of those things that were mentioned as forbidden. This is the view of the Rav, and how firmly he held to it and how strongly he warned regarding it in a composition toward the end of Sefer HaMadda. All the commentators followed him with one voice. Evidence for their view is also found in what the Sifri stated: One might think that a person could say, "I will study Torah in order to become wealthy," or "in order to be called Rabbi," or "in order to have a share in the World to Come" — therefore the verse teaches: "to love" — do not do so; rather, act out of love for Hashem, for He is the purpose of all purposes. It is not fitting that any other thing be placed as a purpose toward Him.

[5] This idea is, for me, exceedingly difficult to accept. Whether we consider the precise wording of Antigonus or not — the interpretation the Rav offers for the word *peras*, namely that it denotes something given out of grace and mercy rather than by way of strict judgment and obligation, does not seem correct to me, and the Rav brought no proof for it whatsoever. On the contrary, we find that Yonatan translated "and Moav became servants to Dovid, bearing tribute (*minchah*)" as *natli peras* — "those who receive a portion" — and Onkelos renders "your valuation of persons" as *be'orchecha nefashos b'fursanei nafshata*. Moreover, in the language of the Sages ז"ל, the term *peras* appears in reference to a regular, fixed ration, as they stated in Tractate Eruvin (73a): one who has five wives receiving a *peras* and five slaves receiving a *peras*, eating on their own account. It is called *peras* because it is divided (*poresin*) in half — half in the morning and half in the evening. It is well established that all of this has nothing to do with grace and mercy, but rather with a fixed ransom or redemption payment, or with something precisely measured and delimited according to established norm. Furthermore, if Antigonus' intent was to caution against serving in the hope of reward, why would he specify the kind of reward given through grace and mercy while omitting mention of reward given through strict justice? Indeed, the recompense of Hashem is referred to as *sachar*: "your reward is exceedingly great," and "the giving of the reward of the righteous." It would therefore have been more fitting to say: *al menat lekabel tagmul* — "in order to receive recompense" — which is a general term encompassing what is given according to grace as well. A further difficulty arises from the language of the Mishnah itself: what is the relevance of the phrase "like servants who serve their master"? It would have been more appropriate simply to say: serve Hashem out of love, or *lishmah* — for its own sake. What purpose is served by the parable of the servants and their master? For servants do not serve their master *lishmah*, out of love, or for the sake of nobility of purpose — they serve only out of compulsion and coercion, against their will. Can it truly be pleasing to Hashem that His service be of such a kind?

[6] And indeed, from the perspective of the matter itself — since my mind is not at ease with the view which holds that one ought not seek any purpose for the performance of mitzvot, but rather that we should perform them for their own sake, as being inherently perfect acts, and that no purpose is to be sought for an act of virtue and truth insofar as it is true — and those who have established and accepted that this constitutes the avodah lishmah (service for its own sake) of which our Sages, may their memory be blessed, spoke. For in this view there is a great deviation from the ways of the Divine Torah. These men, who are otherwise wholesome with us, have spoken of the Divine mitzvot in the same manner as they speak of the ethical virtues, following the approach of the philosophers and Aristotle at their head, who wrote that virtuous things are chosen for their own sake and that nothing more than the act itself is to be sought from them. They supposed that just as in matters of moral virtue this would be for honor and glory, so too would it be in matters of practical conduct. Heaven forbid that we should think such a thing. For the philosophers — since they did not accept Divine providence over individual human beings, and denied reward and punishment according to one's deeds — found no other benefit in acts of virtue beyond the act itself. But we, who believe in particular Divine providence and in the promises of the Torah's mitzvot regarding reward and punishment, hold that the felicity destined for our souls in the World to Come and for ourselves in this world is not the felicity attained through the performance of moral virtues, nor is it the act of virtue in and of itself. For it is known that the performance of the chukim and the mitzvot of tzitzit, tefillin, and mezuzah is not something chosen for its own sake, nor is it the spiritual reward that accrues to the soul on account of them after its separation from the body. Nor do the practical Torah observances correspond to material reward — for what connection is there between the falling of rain and tzitzit, tefillin, mezuzah, and the other mitzvot? Likewise, transgressions are not things that are repugnant in and of themselves, such that there would be no further purpose in the warning against them beyond distancing oneself from the ugliness of those shameful deeds — this is not so. For these things are not evil and repugnant in themselves; rather, they are so only because the Holy One, blessed is He, warned against performing them, and it is from His side that they constitute transgressions, in that by performing them we transgress His word, may He be blessed. As our Sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Torat Kohanim, Kedoshim 128): "A person should not say, 'I am unable to eat pork' — rather, 'I am able, but what shall I do, since the Holy One, blessed is He, has forbidden it to me.'"

[7] It has thus been clarified that the mitzvot are not praiseworthy acts by virtue of their own intrinsic nature, nor are transgressions evil and contemptible in and of themselves — but rather solely because Hashem commanded them. For this reason, even with regard to mitzvot that reason itself demands, the Sages said (Kiddushin 31a): "Greater is one who is commanded and performs than one who is not commanded and performs." For the greatness and superiority of these acts, and their essential form, lies in their being commandments from Him, may He be blessed. From this perspective, it is not at all objectionable that there should be a purpose in performing the mitzvot — namely, to fulfill His will, may He be blessed, or to receive the reward designated for them. Therefore, the Sages stated in tractate Pesachim (8b): "It was taught: One who says, 'I will give a sela to charity so that my son may live,' or 'so that I may have a share in the World to Come' — he is a completely righteous person." All of this further demonstrates that the perfect Antigonus did not intend his words in the manner of the Rav and his school of interpretation, for that approach is fraught with obstacles and pitfalls, as you can see. And if Tzaddok and Beitus, his disciples, failed to understand his ways and grasp his intention, and veered instead toward rejecting the words of the Sages and casting off from themselves the yoke of Torah and the truth of tradition — and from them emerged the sect of the Karaites, which persists to this day — this is no reason for us to suppose that the perfect Antigonus intended anything other than a wholesome and sound understanding. For the ways of Antigonus are straight: the righteous walk in them, while transgressors stumble upon them.

[8] It is for this reason that I have come to explain his words by means of other approaches:

[9] The first approach is that both peras and sachar refer to reward. However, peras always denotes material reward in this world and is never used in any sense for spiritual reward. Sachar, by contrast, is sometimes used for material reward, as in (Bereshit 30:16): "I have hired you [sachar secharticha] with my son's mandrakes"; and likewise sechar sachir — "on that same day you shall give him his wages [sacharo]" (Devarim 24:15). Yet many times it refers to spiritual reward, as in (Yirmiyahu 31:15): "There is reward [sachar] for your labor," and similarly, "Behold, his reward [sacharo ] is with him" — and in the language of our Sages ז"ל (Avodah Zarah 4b): "Today is for performing them, and today is not for receiving their reward [secharam]"; and "The granting of reward to the righteous is in the time to come" (Eruvin 21a); and "There is no reward for mitzvot in this world [sachar mitzvot b'hai alma leka]" — and many similar passages. Now this perfect sage warned people not to serve Hashem Yitbarach "for the sake of receiving a peras" — that is, the material reward that a person receives immediately after his service, like a fixed wage paid morning and evening to those who receive it. This is so because the material benefits that the Torah promises in connection with the mitzvot are not the true reward of the mitzvot; rather, they are the fruit of that true reward, while the principal of the reward is preserved for a person in the World to Come. As our Sages ז"ל said (Mishnah Pe'ah 1:1): there are "things whose fruits a person enjoys in this world, while the principal endures for the World to Come." And since the mitzvot are truly the activity of the soul — for from it flow the wellsprings of life — those holy ones therefore understood that the reward of the mitzvot could not be something material, as they said (Chullin 142a): "There is no reward for mitzvot in this world," because in their view the true reward is designated exclusively for the soul in the World of Souls.

[10] The Rambam has already written explicitly in his commentary to Perek Chelek that the physical rewards which the Torah promises for the fulfillment of mitzvot are merely the removal of obstacles and a preparation for a person to attain his true perfection — they are not the genuine reward of the mitzvot. And since it is not fitting for a person to sell his birthright for a pot of lentil stew, the Sage therefore said: "Do not be like servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving reward." That is to say, one should not make oneself like degraded and base servants who, on account of their servitude and lowliness, seek no higher purpose than to eat their fill and have old clothing to cover themselves. But you are not thus — for there is a reward for your deeds, a lofty spiritual reward, and it is toward that reward that you ought to direct your service, not toward physical benefits, which will perish while you endure. Moreover, the reward and punishment of this world are not given in their moment like a fixed wage, for at times they are delayed and at times withheld on account of other causes, as the Sages said (below, Chapter 4): "We have no explanation in our hands for the prosperity of the wicked, nor for the suffering of the righteous." How then could the service of the perfect man be directed toward such a purpose — like a servant who longs for shade, or like a laborer who awaits his wages?

[11] This perfect and complete sage, then, cautioned regarding material reward: that no person should place his trust in it or make it the ultimate purpose of his divine service. In this vein, it is fitting to interpret the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer in the first chapter of Avodah Zarah (Avodah Zarah 19a): "He desires His commandments greatly" — but not the reward of His commandments. Rabbi Eliezer was alluding to material reward, which is fleeting and transient, and which it is not fitting to make the ultimate end of our actions and our service.

[12] And indeed, what he said (below, Chapter 4): "the reward of a mitzvah is a mitzvah" — this is to tell us that the divine mitzvot are not a service to Him, may He be blessed, in the sense that He would need them or their performance, for "if you are righteous, what do you give Him... and what does He receive from your hand" (Iyov 35:7). Rather, they exist as an expression of chesed and compassion, to guide human beings toward noble deeds through which they may fulfill His will, may He be blessed — in order to grant them benefit in both kinds of life, the physical and the spiritual — and not by way of exchange or recompense for what He received through their service. For service to Him, may He be blessed, benefits only the one who serves, and it would not have been appropriate to call it "service" in relation to Him; it is rather chesed and love that He wished to bestow merit upon Israel, and therefore He multiplied Torah and mitzvot for them. It is called service only in relation to the one who performs it. The matter is analogous to a compassionate father who accepts from his son, in the form of service, that he listen to wise counsel and walk in the ways of the good, so that it may go well for him, and gives him reward — so too is the matter before Him, may He be blessed. Therefore the sage said: "the reward of a mitzvah is a mitzvah" — for when a person performs one mitzvah, the Holy One, blessed is He, brings another mitzvah to his hand, and this is a great reward for him, since everything is for his own benefit. We may already learn this from the words of our master Moshe, who said (Devarim 10:12): "And now, Yisrael, what does Hashem your God ask of you, but to fear Hashem your God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve Hashem your God with all your heart and with all your soul, to keep the commandments of Hashem" etc. — and the conclusion of the matter was "for your good." It is hereby clarified that Antigonus did not warn that a person should not serve his Creator in hope of the spiritual reward he will receive in the World to Come; rather, his intention was solely that one should not make the goal of his service the prize — that is, the material good which is fleeting and perishable — and that his service should be without any regard for it.

[13] However, what the Sifri states — that a person should not say, "I am studying Torah so that I may merit the life of the World to Come" — when examined carefully, does not contradict the foregoing. For the intent of that teaching was to uproot from people's hearts two false beliefs held by those who walk in the Torah of Hashem. The first is the belief common among the masses, who make the ultimate aim of study and knowledge the acquisition of wealth and honor thereby — in which case the more noble thing, which is wisdom, is being pursued for the sake of something lesser and more contemptible, namely imagined honor. It is regarding this that the Sifri states that a person should not say, "I am studying Torah so that I may become wealthy," or "so that I may be called Rav," as it was likewise taught: "Do not make it a crown to aggrandize yourself, nor a spade to dig with." The second false belief is that of the philosophers, who maintained that nothing of the soul endures except the intellectually acquired concepts — that it is not the worthiness produced by deeds and the performance of mitzvot and the fulfillment of His blessed will that grants a person endurance, but rather the abstract intelligibles themselves, which alone persist. This is a thoroughly erroneous view, and Rabbi Chasdai [Crescas] ז"ל refutes it at length in his work Or Hashem, Part Two, Section Six. In order to repudiate this false view, the Sifri states that a person should not say, "I am studying in order to inherit the World to Come" — as though the study itself constitutes the very substance of eternal existence, in the manner of the philosophers. Rather, one's study of Torah should be for the love of Hashem — that is to say, in order to fulfill His commandments and to bring about His will — for it is from this that one's reward and the inheritance of the World to Come will flow, and not from the act of study in and of itself. As for what is stated in tractate Pesachim, that discussion concerns not Torah study but rather tzedakah, and it is therefore permitted in the context of tzedakah for a person to say, "so that my children may live," or "so that I may have a portion in the World to Come," and it is still counted to him as tzedakah and he is called a complete tzaddik — for it is understood that he said this only in the sense of seeking reward from Him, blessed is He. In contrast, regarding Torah study, the concern was raised specifically on account of the philosopher's view, as I have noted; this is why the Sifri speaks in connection with Torah study in particular, and did not illustrate the matter with any other practical commandment among the mitzvot — precisely in order to draw attention to what I have explained.

[14] The second path is this: love and service toward Him, may He be blessed, are fitting and obligatory upon us, the children of Yaakov His chosen ones, by virtue of the acts of lovingkindness we have received from Him, may He be blessed — in the creation and existence He granted us, in His constant protection from both natural and accidental harm, in His having brought us out of Egypt from the house of bondage, in His having given us His Torah, and in the many other acts of lovingkindness He performed for our forefathers and for us, overturning the natural order on our behalf. It is on account of this great beneficence that He bestowed upon us that we are obligated to love Him and to serve Him, for this is an absolute debt incumbent upon us to repay from this perspective. Likewise fitting is the awe of Him — by which is meant the guarding of oneself and the trembling before causing Him anger and before sinning — toward the One who has shown us lovingkindness, mercy, love, and service. And this form of awe, love, and service — viewed from this perspective — is, in my opinion, truly what our Sages of blessed memory called lishmah ("for its own sake"). Not because it represents the highest possible level, as Rambam held, and not because it stems from contemplation of His greatness and exaltedness, may He be blessed, as the Ran ז"ל understood it — but rather because it derives from the obligation that rests upon us by virtue of the lovingkindness He has done for us. There is, however, another dimension of love, service, and awe — one motivated by hope for the expected reward and fear of possible punishment — and this, in our view, resembles a commercial transaction that a person undertakes in order to profit from it. I have already explained this precious teaching in great completeness in my work Merkevet HaMishneh, in my commentary to the portion beginning "And now, Yisrael, what does Hashem your God ask of you" (Devarim 10:12), where I also explained the passages in tractate Sotah (22b) concerning the seven types, and the question of what distinguishes one who engages in Torah out of love from one who does so out of awe.

[15] Behold, the perfect sage Antigonus cautioned a person that his service should not be of the second type — motivated by hope for future reward or fear of coming punishment — but rather that it should be directed, from the first perspective, toward the obligation incumbent upon him by virtue of what he has already received from Hashem, blessed is He, through His service toward him. Therefore, Antigonus drew in his words a parable of servants with their master, to teach us that we are bondservants — children of the household and purchased possessions of Hashem, blessed is He — Whom performed countless miracles and wonders to acquire us, and that therefore we are fully obligated to serve Him by virtue of our being His servants, in accordance with the good He has already done for us. We should not be like foolish, ungrateful servants who give no thought to the obligation incumbent upon them as servants of their master, and who demand from him reward — peras — for their service, which is a synonym for sachar. (Indeed, peras is Babylonian Aramaic while sachar is the holy tongue, yet their meaning is one.) For if we were to do this, we would be ingrates before Him, blessed is He, and He would deal with us as a person deals with his servants when they demand as an entitlement what he grants only as an act of kindness — he would strike them greatly, and sin would be upon them. Rather, they should regard themselves as servants who are obligated to serve their Creator and attend to Him — "not for the sake of receiving reward" or future recompense — but solely by virtue of their already being His servants from what has passed, and they should have upon them the awe of Heaven; that is, awe of Hashem, blessed is He, Who moves and creates the heavens, lest He punish them severely if they are ungrateful before Him. Antigonus further intended by his words "and let the awe of Heaven be upon you" — that they should serve Hashem with awe and fear as servants before their master, just as the supernal heavens in their movements serve their Creator with great reverence, as it is said (Tehillim 89:8): "God is greatly feared in the assembly of the holy ones, and awesome above all who surround Him." And because their service is carried out with great vigilance and awe, Hashem, blessed is He, will pour upon them an eternal and unceasing abundance and establish them forever. It is as if he said: thus will He do for you, if you serve Him as servants who are obligated with awe of their master — He will pour upon you goodness and eternity as He pours it upon the heavens, and this is the meaning of "and let the awe of Heaven be upon you" — that is to say, may the awe with which the heavens stand in reverence before their Creator be likewise upon you.

[16] Antigonos derived this supreme lesson from the words of Hashem Himself, who sent word to Israel at the gathering at Mount Sinai: "You have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to Me. And now, if you will indeed listen to My voice and keep My covenant, you shall be My treasured possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Shemot 19:4–5). The intent of this passage is that the people had already witnessed the goodness Hashem had shown them — through the plagues He brought upon Egypt on their behalf, and through the benefits He bestowed upon them directly — and this is the meaning of "I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to Me." It is as if He said: because of the good I have already done for you, you are obligated to fulfill My commandments without looking to any other consideration — without an eye toward the reward yet to come. Nevertheless, I inform you that beyond the obligation already incumbent upon you — "if you will indeed listen to My voice and keep My covenant" — I will, of My own accord, bestow yet further goodness upon you, and this is: "And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."

[17] It has thus been clarified that they are rightly obligated to serve Hashem in consideration of the goodness they have already received, and Hashem, in His perfection, seeing that they acknowledge this goodness and are faithful servants, will add upon them further goodness and blessing. So too did Moshe say in Mishneh Torah (Devarim 10:20–22): "Hashem your God shall you fear, Him shall you serve, and to Him shall you cleave, and by His name shall you swear" — and he gave the reason for this by saying: "He is your praise and He is your God, who has done for you these great and awesome things which your eyes have seen, with seventy souls" etc. And from this he derived and demonstrated: "And you shall love Hashem your God and keep His charge, His statutes, His judgments, and His commandments all the days" (Devarim 11:1) — meaning, that on account of the goodness they had already received from Him, they are obligated to serve Him, to love Him, and to observe and fulfill His commandments all their days. And after he mentioned this true aspect of service — that it be performed for its own sake — he went on to mention the second aspect, directed toward the future: fear of punishment and hope of reward. Concerning this he said (ibid. 11:2): "And you shall know today — for it is not your children who did not know and did not see the chastisement of Hashem" etc. And the conclusion of the matter was: "And you shall keep the entire commandment that I command you today, so that you may be strong and come and possess the land to which you are crossing over to inherit it, and so that you may prolong your days" etc. (ibid. 11:8–9) — these being the consequences that flow from the performance of the commandments, even though the true servant does not direct his intention toward them. And this is precisely the teaching of Antigonus here. It is in this manner that the promised rewards of the Torah and the words of Hashem, which point to the reward that awaits, ought to be understood: they are things that Hashem desires to give in return for the observance of the commandments — not that the true servants should direct their intention toward them. For "the Holy One, blessed is He, desired to grant merit to Israel; therefore He gave them Torah and mitzvot in abundance" (Makkot 23b), so that through their performance Israel would come to receive the reward. This too is the meaning of Dovid's statement (Tehillim 19:12): "Moreover, Your servant is scrupulous in them; in observing them there is great consequence" — he did not say that one should intend the act of service for the sake of the "consequence," but rather that in observing them, Hashem, for the sake of His righteousness, grants a great consequent reward. And likewise: "Teach me, Hashem, the way of Your statutes, and I shall observe it to the end" (ibid. 119:33) — the meaning being the consequence that follows from them, even as the observance and performance of the commandments is itself carried out from a sense of obligation and true servitude.

[18] Now, that statement which I cited from tractate Pesachim (Pesachim 8b) — "One who says: I will give a sela to charity so that my son may live, or so that I may have a portion in the World to Come — such a person is a complete tzaddik" — beyond what I have already explained regarding it, it is further worthy of your careful examination. For there, the Sages were not speaking about avodah — that is, the mitzvot between a person and God — as I explained, which is the sole subject of Antigonus's statement here. With respect to that domain, it is not fitting for a person to set any other ultimate aim before himself, other than the obligation incumbent upon him to serve his God, as I have explained. Rather, the Sages there were referring to acts of loving-kindness in what concerns the relations between one person and another, and it is for this reason that they specifically mentioned giving charity to the poor. They taught that one who directs his act of charity toward both physical benefit and spiritual benefit — so as to inherit eternal life in the World to Come — is indeed a complete tzaddik, and his righteousness endures forever. But they said no such thing with regard to avodah. This is the second approach in explaining this statement, and the difficulty is fully resolved at its root by either of the two approaches.