קדושים א

B"H Okay, let's break down this Sicha (discourse) from the Rebbe. The goal is to understand the Rebbe's analysis of a specific comment by Rashi, a fundamental commentator on the Torah, regarding the laws of *Orlah*. We'll go step-by-step, explaining the concepts and the Rebbe's line of reasoning. **Introduction: The Concept of Orlah** The Torah portion *Kedoshim* introduces the mitzvah (commandment) of *Orlah*. When a Jew plants a fruit tree in the Land of Israel, the fruit that grows during the first three years after planting is forbidden to eat or derive any benefit from. This forbidden fruit is called *Orlah*. In the fourth year, the fruit has a special status called *Neta Revai* and must be eaten in Jerusalem (or redeemed). From the fifth year on, the fruit is permitted normally. **The Verse and Rashi's Comment** The Sicha begins by quoting the relevant verse (Leviticus 19:23): > "And when you come into the land and plant any food tree, you shall treat its fruit as forbidden (*u'araltem orlato et piryo*); for three years it shall be forbidden (*orlim*) to you, it shall not be eaten." Rashi focuses on the phrase: **"three years it shall be *orlim* to you"**. He comments: > **"From when does one count for it? From the time of its planting."** Rashi is clarifying *when* the three-year countdown begins. Does it start when you plant the sapling, or perhaps later, when the tree actually starts producing fruit? Rashi says it starts from the moment of planting. **The Traditional Understanding and the Rebbe's Questions (Section Aleph - א)** * **Common Explanation:** Many commentators explain that Rashi derives this ruling – counting from planting – from the earlier word in the verse: **"ונטעתם" (and you shall *plant*)**. The verse mentions planting, implying the count is linked to that action. * **The Rebbe's Questions:** The Rebbe finds this explanation insufficient and raises several sharp questions about Rashi's specific wording and approach: 1. **Why not quote "ונטעתם"?** If the word "ונטעתם" (plant) is the proof that the count starts from planting, why doesn't Rashi quote *that* word as the phrase he's commenting on (what's called the *dibbur hamatchil* – the "starting phrase")? Rashi usually quotes the specific word or phrase his comment is explaining. 2. **Why *change* the source?** The Rebbe points out that Rashi's source for this interpretation is the *Toras Kohanim* (an ancient Midrashic commentary on Leviticus). The *Toras Kohanim* *does* explicitly connect the ruling ("count from planting") to the word "ונטעתם". However, Rashi *deviates* from his source. He ignores "ונטעתם" and instead attaches his comment to the later phrase "three years it shall be *orlim* to you." Why would Rashi make this change? It suggests he sees the primary explanation lying elsewhere in the verse. 3. **How do we know from the *simple meaning*?** If we *don't* rely on the word "ונטעתם" (since Rashi doesn't quote it here), how would we know from the simple meaning (*p'shat*) of the words "three years it shall be *orlim* to you" that the count starts from planting? Couldn't it mean, for example, that the *fruit* produced during the first three years of growth is forbidden? How does the *phrase Rashi quotes* lead directly to the idea of counting from *planting*? 4. **Why the lengthy wording?** Rashi says, "From when does one count for it? From the time of its planting." Why this question-and-answer format? He could have simply stated: "`Three years` - [means counting] from the time of its planting." Rashi is known for his concise style, focused on explaining the plain meaning. While the *Toras Kohanim* uses similar phrasing, Rashi often adapts Midrashic language for his commentary, simplifying it to fit the verse's direct meaning. Why keep the longer phrasing here? These questions show that the standard explanation (that Rashi relies solely on "ונטעתם") doesn't fully account for Rashi's specific choices in his commentary. The Rebbe seeks a deeper understanding of Rashi's intention. **The Rebbe's Explanation: Two Aspects of Orlah (Section Beis - ב)** The Rebbe proposes a novel interpretation of Rashi's thinking: * **Rashi's Underlying Difficulty:** The Rebbe suggests Rashi is bothered by a subtle redundancy or awkwardness in the verse itself. The verse first states, "וערלתם ערלתו את פריו" (you shall treat its fruit as *orlah*), clearly establishing the prohibition on the fruit. Then it adds, "שלש שנים יהי׳ לכם ערלים" (three years it shall be *orlim* to you). Why does the Torah seemingly repeat the idea that the fruit is forbidden (*orlim*)? Why not simply say, "You shall treat its fruit as *orlah* for three years"? The extra phrase "יהי׳ לכם ערלים" (it shall be *orlim* **to you**) must be teaching something additional. * **Rashi's Solution - Two Dimensions:** Rashi understands this repetition as indicating *two distinct aspects* related to *Orlah*: 1. **The Status of the Fruit (Issur *Cheftza* - Object-Based Prohibition):** The phrase "וערלתם ערלתו את פריו" refers to the inherent status of the fruit itself. The fruit grown in the first three years *is* intrinsically *Orlah*, forbidden. Rashi elsewhere explains this means it's "sealed and closed off from deriving benefit." This is a prohibition tied to the *object* (the fruit). 2. **The Duty of Counting (Din *Gavra* - Person-Based Obligation):** The phrase "שלש שנים יהי׳ **לכם** ערלים" (three years it shall be forbidden **to you**) emphasizes the word **"לכם" (to you)**. This highlights an obligation placed upon the *person* (*Gavra*). What is this person-based obligation? It's the duty to *count* the three years. * **Explaining Rashi's Wording:** * This distinction explains Rashi's seemingly lengthy phrasing: "מאימתי מונה **לו** משעת נטיעתו" (From when does one count **for it/him**? From the time of its planting). The word **"לו" (for it/him)** in Rashi's comment echoes the **"לכם" (to you)** in the verse. Rashi is highlighting that the counting is a personal duty ("לכם"/"לו"). * It also explains why Rashi connects his comment to "שלש שנים יהי׳ **לכם** ערלים". This phrase, with its emphasis on **"לכם"**, is the source for understanding the counting as a personal obligation. * And why does this personal obligation start from planting? Because the counting is "for **you**" ("לכם"), it's logical that it begins with **your action** – the act of planting ("ונטעתם") – rather than a later event like the tree naturally bearing fruit. The planting is the moment the person initiates the process that leads to the *Orlah* situation. * **Practical Consequence:** This interpretation has a significant practical difference (*Nafka Mina*). If the three-year count is tied intrinsically to the *tree's* age, what happens if you take a branch from a mature, three-year-old tree and plant it (a process called layering or grafting)? One might argue that since the branch is already "three years old," its fruit should be permitted immediately. However, according to the Rebbe's understanding of Rashi, the count is "לכם" – tied to the *person's action* of planting. Therefore, even if the branch comes from an older tree, the person must start counting the three years *anew* from the moment *they* performed the new act of planting. This aligns perfectly with the established *Halacha* (Jewish Law), which states that *Orlah* applies equally whether one plants a seed/sapling ("*Notea*") or layers/grafts a branch ("*Mavrich*"). **A Second Look at Rashi's Comment: Why Combine Two Ideas? (Section Gimmel - ג)** The Rebbe now examines the *rest* of Rashi's comment under the same *dibbur hamatchil* ("three years..."): > Rashi continues: "...From the time of its planting. **One might think if he stored [the *Orlah* fruit] until after the three years, it would be permitted? Therefore, the verse states 'יהי׳' (it *shall be*) – it shall remain in its state [of prohibition].**" * **The New Question:** This second part of Rashi's comment addresses a different issue: Does *Orlah* fruit picked during the forbidden years become permissible *after* the three years have passed? Rashi says no, based on the word "יהי׳" (it *shall be*), implying permanence. The Rebbe asks: These seem like two distinct points derived from the phrase "שלש שנים יהי׳ לכם ערלים": 1. The "שלש שנים" (three years) part tells us *when* the count starts (from planting, because of "לכם"). 2. The "יהי׳ לכם ערלים" (it *shall be* forbidden to you) part tells us the prohibition is *permanent* for fruit grown during those years (because of "יהי׳"). Why does Rashi combine these two separate interpretations into a single, continuous comment? He usually separates distinct points into different comments. Furthermore, the *Toras Kohanim* also presents these two derivations as separate teachings. Why does Rashi merge them? **The Rebbe's Explanation: Preventing a Misunderstanding (Section Daled - ד)** The Rebbe explains that Rashi combines these points deliberately to preempt a potential misunderstanding arising from his own first point: * **The Potential Misinterpretation:** Rashi just emphasized the "לכם" (to you) aspect, highlighting the *Gavra* (person-based) element – the duty to count. One might mistakenly take this emphasis too far and conclude that the *entire* prohibition of *Orlah* is *only* a *Gavra* prohibition. * **What would that mean?** If *Orlah* were purely an *Issur Gavra* (like, for example, the prohibition of eating *Chametz* on Passover), it would mean the restriction is only on the *person* during a specific *time*. The *Chametz* itself isn't inherently evil; you just can't eat it *during Pesach*. Once Pesach ends, leftover *Chametz* (that you properly owned) becomes permitted again. If *Orlah* were like this, one might think: The Torah forbids *you* ("לכם") from eating the fruit *during* the first three years. But what about fruit picked in year 1, 2, or 3 and stored? Once the three years pass, perhaps the time-bound, person-based restriction expires, and that stored fruit becomes permitted? * **Rashi's Foresight:** Rashi anticipates this potential error. Right after establishing the "לכם" aspect (to explain the start of the count), he immediately uses the word "יהי׳" (it *shall be*) from the *very same phrase* to counter this misinterpretation. "יהי׳" teaches "בהוייתו יהא" – it shall *remain* in its state. This clarifies that although the counting is a *Gavra* duty linked to the person's action ("לכם"), the resulting prohibition on the fruit *itself* is an *Issur Cheftza* – an inherent, permanent status. The fruit grown during those years remains forbidden forever, even after the three years are up. * **Conclusion:** Rashi combines the two points because the second point (permanence due to "יהי׳") is crucial to correctly understanding the scope of the first point (the "לכם" aspect). It prevents the reader from wrongly extending the "Gavra" idea to negate the inherent, permanent prohibition on the *Orlah* fruit itself. **Deeper Chasidic Explanation: Why is Orlah an Issur Cheftza? (Section Hey - ה)** The Rebbe now delves into the mystical, Chasidic understanding of *why* some prohibitions are object-based (*Cheftza*) and others are person-based (*Gavra*). * **Spiritual Source of Prohibitions:** Chasidus explains that reality includes forces of holiness (*Kedusha*) and forces of impurity (*Klipah*, meaning "husk" or "shell"). * ***Issurei Cheftza* (Object-Based):** These involve items whose essential spiritual life-force derives directly from the "three completely impure *Klipot*." These are spiritual shells that are fundamentally opposed to holiness and cannot be refined or elevated. Therefore, the object itself is intrinsically forbidden and remains so permanently (e.g., pork). * ***Issurei Gavra* (Person-Based):** These often involve items whose life-force comes from *Klipat Nogah* (the "translucent husk"). *Nogah* is a mixture of good and bad and *can* be elevated to holiness through proper use (e.g., eating permitted food with the right intention). When something from *Nogah* is forbidden, it's usually a restriction on the *person* (*Gavra*) under specific circumstances (like a time limit), while the object itself isn't inherently impure. * ***Orlah* as *Issur Cheftza*:** The Alter Rebbe (founder of Chabad Chasidus) states in the Tanya (his foundational work) that the life-force of forbidden plants like *Orlah* and *Kilayim* (forbidden mixtures in a vineyard) comes from the three impure *Klipot*. This explains *why* Rashi establishes (based on "יהי׳") that *Orlah* fruit remains forbidden forever – it's an *Issur Cheftza*. * **The Paradox:** But this raises a significant question. The *tree itself* is permitted! You can use its wood, etc. And after three years, the *same tree* produces permitted fruit, even holy fruit (in the fourth year). If the fruit gets its life-force from the tree, and the tree is permitted, how can the fruit suddenly be an *Issur Cheftza* deriving from impure *Klipot*? And how can this change after three years? If the source of life-force within the tree was inherently impure, shouldn't *all* its fruit be forbidden? **Resolving the Paradox: Body vs. Life-Force (Section Vav - ו)** The Rebbe resolves this paradox by introducing a subtle distinction based on an analysis of the Alter Rebbe's wording by the Rebbe Rashab (the 5th Lubavitcher Rebbe): * **A Nuance in Tanya:** The Rebbe Rashab noted that when the Alter Rebbe discusses forbidden *animals*, he says their "sustenance of their *body*" (*kiyum gufam*) comes from the impure *Klipot*. But when discussing forbidden *plants* like *Orlah*, he says only their "sustenance and life-force" (*kiyum v'chiyus*) comes from there, *not* necessarily the "sustenance of their body." The Rebbe Rashab explains this is because the *body* of the *Orlah* fruit, being derived from a permitted tree, is considered essentially pure. * **The Lingering Question:** This still seems puzzling. If the fruit is an *Issur Cheftza* forbidden forever, shouldn't its body *also* be rooted in impurity? And if its body is pure (from the tree), why isn't its life-force also pure? * **The Rebbe's Resolution: Permanent Body, Renewable Life-Force:** The key lies in the difference between the physical substance ("body") and the spiritual life-force ("chiyus"). 1. **Physical Body (*Guf* / *Kiyum Gufam*):** The physical matter of a created being is formed at the moment of creation. Its continued existence is the *maintenance* (*kiyum*) of that original substance. Its fundamental nature doesn't change spontaneously over time. The tree's physical substance was created as permitted, and the fruit's body, derived from it, shares this essential permitted nature. 2. **Spiritual Life-Force (*Chiyus*):** The flow of spiritual energy that animates creation, especially the inanimate and vegetative realms, is *constantly renewed*. This is alluded to in the prayers: "He renews in His goodness, each day, continuously, the work of Creation." Because the life-force is renewed, the *source* from which it is drawn *can* change over time. * **Applying this to *Orlah*:** * The *physical tree* remains permitted because its core substance (*guf*) is fundamentally pure. * However, during the first three years after planting, the specific *spiritual energy* (*chiyus* and *koach*) that the tree draws upon and channels *specifically for the purpose of producing fruit* originates from the three impure *Klipot*. This impure life-force imbues the *fruit* produced during this period, making *that fruit* an *Issur Cheftza*, permanently forbidden. * *After* the three years, the channel shifts. A *new, different* kind of life-force – pure and holy – begins to flow through the tree and into its fruit production. This is why the fruit produced from the fourth year onward is not only permitted but, in the fourth year, even has a special holiness ("קדש הלולים לה'" - holy, praiseworthy to G-d). **In Summary** The Rebbe analyzes Rashi's seemingly simple comment on *Orlah* with great precision. 1. He asks why Rashi deviates from his source and uses specific wording. 2. He reveals that Rashi identifies two aspects in the verse: the inherent prohibition on the fruit (*Cheftza*) and the personal duty to count (*Gavra*). This explains Rashi's choices and aligns with Halacha. 3. He explains that Rashi combines his points to prevent the misunderstanding that *Orlah* might only be a temporary, person-based restriction, clarifying its status as a permanent, object-based prohibition for fruit grown in those years. 4. Finally, he delves into Chasidus to explain the underlying spiritual reality: while the tree's physical substance remains permitted, the *renewable life-force* channeled *for fruit production* originates from impure *Klipot* for the first three years (making the fruit an *Issur Cheftza*), and then shifts to a holy source afterward. Through this detailed analysis, the Rebbe uncovers layers of meaning in Rashi's words, showing how they reflect both the plain sense of the verse and profound mystical concepts, all interconnected.