In Parshas Eikev we find the second parshah of Shema. Although the first two parshiyos of Shema both discuss keeping mitzvos, there are several discrepancies. Rashi (Devarim 10:13) quotes the Sifri that says that although the mitzvah of loving Hashem with all one’s heart and soul was already taught in the first parshah of Shema, it is repeated in the second parshah of Shema because the first was said in the singular and the second is written in the plural tense.
However, there is a glaring difference that the meforshim point out between the two parshiyos. In the first parshah the Torah writes that that one must perform this mitzvah with all his heart, all of his life, and with all of his money. In the second parshah of Shema the pasuk says that one must keep these mitzvos with his heart and his soul, and declines to mention that it must be kept with all of one’s money.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin 74a says that the first parshah is discussing the mitzvah of loving Hashem and included in that is not worshiping avoda zara. Avoda zara is one of the aveiros that one must give his life up for and therefore the pasuk there states that one must perform this mitzvah with all of his soul (life), and with all of his money. However, the meforshim wonder why the Torah did not demand in the second parshah of Shema that one keep this mitzvah with all of his money as well.
The Midrash Tanchuma offers an explanation to this discrepancy. The Midrash says that the first parshah of Shema is discussing toiling in Torah Sheba’al peh, and therefore requires that one perform this mitzvah even if it will cost him all of his money. This is because learning Torah sheba’al peh can sometimes require that a person do so under impoverished circumstances. However the second parshah of Shema is referring to keeping the rest of the mitzvos, and there the Torah does not require that one spend all of his money in order to perform the mitzvos. This explanation answers the discrepancy, however it leaves the pashut p’shat unresolved.
The Vilna Gaon (Kol Eliyahu) and his talmid Rav Chaim Valuzhin (Nefesh Hachaim 1:8) answer based on a Gemara in Brachos 35b. The Gemara there brings a dispute between Rabi Shimon Bar Yochai and Rabi Yishmael whether one can only perform mitzvos and learn Torah and not work to support himself, or whether one must actively involve himself in the ways of the world and make a living. Rabi Shimon bar Yochai opined one can learn Torah and perform mitzvos all day and not worry about making a parnasa. The Gemara says that many followed Rabi Shimon’s rule and things did not work out favorably for them. The meforshim explain that Rabi Shimon’s approach is not intended for the public, but for select individuals. The Vilna Gaon therefore explains that the first parshah of Shema, which is written in the singular says that one must give up all of his money. However, in the second parshah, which is written in the plural, the Torah does not include the aspect of giving up all of ones money for this is not a statute intended for the general public.
The Kli Yakar and the Ohr Hachaim suggest an answer based on the Gemara in Brachos (61) that asks why the Torah wrote in the first parsha that one must keep this mitzvah with his soul and his money. If one must keep it with his soul is it not obvious that he should keep it with all of his money? The Gemara answers that there are some people whose money is more important to them than their lives. Therefore, the Torah wrote that one must keep this mitzvah with all of his soul and with all of his money.