אמור ג

Okay, let's break down this Sicha (a talk or discourse by the Rebbe) step by step. The Rebbe is analyzing a specific detail about the Four Species taken on the Jewish festival of Sukkot and uncovering profound lessons about Jewish unity and our relationship with G-d. **The Context: The Four Species of Sukkot** First, some background. The festival of Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles) occurs in the fall. One of its central Mitzvot (commandments) involves taking four specific types of plants, known as the "Four Species" (or *Arba'a Minim* in Hebrew), and rejoicing with them. The Torah itself, in the book of Leviticus (Parshat Emor, which is the Torah portion referenced here), tells us: "On the first day [of Sukkot], you shall take for yourselves the fruit of a beautiful tree [citron], branches of palm trees, boughs of thick-leaved trees [myrtle], and willows of the brook..." (Leviticus 23:40). These four species are traditionally identified as: 1. **Etrog** (אתרוג): The "fruit of a beautiful tree" (Hebrew: *Pri Eitz Hadar*). This is a citron. 2. **Lulav** (לולב): "Branches of palm trees" (Hebrew: *Kapot Temarim*). This refers to a closed frond from a date palm. 3. **Hadas** (הדס): "Boughs of thick-leaved trees" (Hebrew: *Anaf Eitz Avot*). These are myrtle branches. 4. **Arava** (ערבה): "Willows of the brook" (Hebrew: *Arvei Nachal*). These are willow branches. **Part A: The Rebbe's Initial Question - A Strange Inconsistency** The Rebbe begins by pointing out something puzzling in how the Torah describes these four species and how Jewish law (Halacha) interprets these descriptions. * **For the first three species (Etrog, Lulav, Hadas):** The descriptive term the Torah uses seems to be a *required characteristic* for the actual item you use to fulfill the Mitzvah. * **Etrog ("Pri Eitz Hadar"):** It must be the fruit of a *tree* (*Pri Eitz*), not a vegetable, and it must be *Hadar* – beautiful, perfect, possessing splendor. A dried-out Etrog, for example, is invalid (*pasul*). The beauty must be present in the specific Etrog you hold. * **Lulav ("Kapot Temarim"):** It must be *Kapot* – the leaves must be bound together, closed over the central spine. If the leaves are spread out, it's invalid. * *(The Rebbe adds an interesting point from Rabbi Yosef Rosen, known as the Rogatchover Gaon):* The Rogatchover explains that "Temarim" (dates/palms) implies it must come from a palm tree that actually *produces dates*. It's not enough if it's just technically a palm tree species; it must be from one capable of bearing fruit. This reinforces the idea that the description points to a quality the specific source tree must have. (He uses this to explain a Talmudic statement that two of the four species bear fruit – Lulav and Etrog. One might ask, don't myrtles sometimes have berries? The Rogatchover says the *requirement* for Lulav is specifically a *fruit-bearing* type, unlike Hadas where this isn't required). * **Hadas ("Anaf Eitz Avot"):** It must be *Avot* – "woven" or thick-leaved, meaning three leaves must emerge from the same point on the stem. If they don't grow in this pattern (e.g., two leaves opposite each other), it's invalid. Again, the specific branch must have this characteristic. * **But for the fourth species (Arava - Willow):** The Torah calls it *Arvei Nachal* ("Willows of the Brook"). Yet, the Halacha (Jewish Law) is different! The law states that a willow branch is perfectly valid (*kosher*) even if it grew in the mountains or desert, *as long as it is the species of willow that typically grows near brooks*. The description "of the brook" defines the *type* of willow, not the location where the *specific branch you are using* must have grown. **The Question:** The Rebbe asks: This is strange! Why the difference? For the first three species, the Torah's description is a condition that the actual item must meet. For the Arava, the description only identifies the general *type* of plant, not a condition for the specific branch used. Why are willows treated differently? **Part B: Exploring Traditional Legal Explanations (and finding them lacking)** The Rebbe acknowledges that the Talmud (the central text of Rabbinic Judaism containing legal discussions, ethics, philosophy, etc.) offers an explanation. * **The Talmudic Explanation:** One opinion in the Talmud suggests we know a desert-grown willow is okay because the Torah says "*Arvei* Nachal" – using the plural form "Arvei" (willows of) instead of a singular form. This pluralization is interpreted as an inclusion, teaching us that it includes *more* than just those literally by the brook – it also includes those that grow elsewhere but are of the same species. * **The Rebbe's Difficulty with this:** 1. Even if this is the *technical* legal source, it doesn't answer the *fundamental* question: *Why* did the Torah set it up this way? Why require the specific quality for the first three, but only the general species type for the fourth? What's the underlying reason for this difference? 2. Furthermore, the Rebbe points out that Maimonides (the Rambam, a hugely influential medieval Jewish scholar and codifier of law) and the Shulchan Aruch (the standard Code of Jewish Law) seem to explain the validity of the desert-grown willow differently. Their wording suggests it's valid simply because "Willows of the Brook" is the *common name* for this species, as *most* of them grow near water. The Torah uses the common name, but it includes *all* members of that species, even the minority that grow elsewhere. 3. *(Adding complexity based on commentators on Rambam):* Some commentators argue that Rambam *couldn't* be relying on the plural "Arvei" to include desert willows, because he needs that pluralization for a different law – the requirement to take *two* willow branches. If the plural teaches us to take two, it can't *also* teach us that desert ones are okay. * **The Sharpened Question (especially according to Rambam):** If Rambam is right that "Arvei Nachal" simply refers to the *name* of the species because of where they *usually* grow, then the Torah's description for the Arava *inherently* refers only to the general category from the outset. This makes the contrast even starker: Why do the descriptions "Hadar," "Kapot," and "Avot" refer to the *specific item*, while "Arvei Nachal" refers *only* to the general species? How do we know when to apply which type of interpretation, and what is the reason for the distinction in this case? **Part C: The Rebbe's Solution - Finding Answers in the Inner Meaning** The Rebbe suggests that sometimes, apparent difficulties or "non-smooth" aspects in the plain meaning of the Torah text (known as *P'shat*) become perfectly clear when we look at the deeper dimensions: *Drash* (homiletic interpretation), *Remez* (hints), *Sod* (mystical secrets), and especially *Pnimiyus HaTorah* (the inner, spiritual dimension, particularly as explained in Chassidus). He quotes the famous commentator Rashi who sometimes says about a verse, "This verse cries out, 'Interpret me!'" (אין המקרא הזה אומר אלא דרשני - *Ein hamikra hazeh omer ela darsheini*), meaning its full sense is only grasped through deeper interpretation. * **The Midrashic Analogy:** The Rebbe introduces a well-known Midrash (a collection of Rabbinic teachings that interpret scripture). This Midrash explains that the Four Species correspond to four types of Jews: * **Etrog:** Has both taste and smell. Represents Jews who have both Torah learning (taste – provides internal nourishment) and good deeds (Mitzvot) (smell – impacts the world externally). * **Lulav (Date Palm):** Has taste (dates) but no smell. Represents Jews who have Torah learning but lack good deeds. * **Hadas (Myrtle):** Has smell but no taste. Represents Jews who perform good deeds but lack Torah learning. * **Arava (Willow):** Has neither taste nor smell. Represents Jews who lack both Torah learning and good deeds. * **The Mitzvah's Purpose:** The Midrash continues that the Mitzvah of taking the Four Species is about bringing all these types of Jews together: "Let them all be bound together in one bundle (*Agudah Achat*)." This unity allows them to complement and atone for one another. * **The Explanation:** This Midrash, the Rebbe explains, makes the Halachic difference perfectly understandable: * The first three species (Etrog, Lulav, Hadas) represent Jews whose defining positive characteristic is something *revealed* and *active* – actual Torah study or the performance of good deeds. To symbolize these Jews, the physical item representing them must *actually possess* its defining quality *in practice*. Just like we wouldn't call someone a scholar if they *could* learn but *don't*, or someone charitable if they *could* give but *don't*. The potential isn't enough; the *actual* taste (Torah) or smell (Mitzvot) needs to be there. * The Arava, however, represents Jews who currently lack these *revealed* qualities. Their connection isn't based on their current actions or knowledge, but on their *essential Jewishness* – the inherent soul they possess simply by being descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is an intrinsic, internal quality, present even if outwardly nothing is apparent. It's there even in a *Tinok Shenishba* – a Jew raised among non-Jews, completely unaware of their heritage. * Therefore, the Halacha reflects this: For the Arava, the requirement isn't that the specific branch has the ideal *condition* (growing by the water, symbolizing a connection to life-giving Torah), but only that it belongs to the *species* ("Willows of the Brook" type) – representing the essential Jewish identity rooted in heritage. As long as it's the right *kind* of willow (i.e., a Jew), even if it grew "in the desert" (spiritually unaware or disconnected), it's kosher for the Mitzvah. Its inclusion is based on its *inherent nature*, not its current state. * *(A Linguistic Hint):* The Rebbe notes that the name "Arava" (ערבה) shares the same Hebrew letters as the word "V'Arvah" (וערבה), meaning "and it shall be pleasant/sweet," as in the prophecy, "Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasant (V'Arvah) to G-d..." (Malachi 3:4). This hints at the inherent preciousness of even this category of Jew in G-d's eyes. **Part D: Practical Lessons (Horah'ot)** From this explanation, the Rebbe derives clear practical lessons: 1. **The Necessity of Unity:** You cannot fulfill the Mitzvah of the Four Species without all four types. Just as you need the Etrog, Lulav, and Hadas, you absolutely need the Arava – the Jew who seems simple or lacking in obvious Torah and Mitzvot. We *must* connect with every single Jew, regardless of their current spiritual level. 2. **The Value of Simplicity:** Far from being less important, the "simple Jews" (represented by Arava) have a unique connection. Chassidus explains that simplicity (*Pshitus*) connects to the very Essence of G-d (*Pshitus Ha'Atzmus*), which is beyond complex attributes. Therefore, connecting with simple Jews connects us, in a way, to the Divine Essence itself. 3. **Different Approaches to Connection:** * For those represented by the first three species (those involved in Torah and Mitzvot), the connection requires them to *actually manifest* these qualities *now*. It's not enough to rely on past learning, family background, or just being enrolled somewhere. The "taste" and "smell" must be present *in practice*. * However, when reaching out to the "Arava" type Jew – the one who seems distant – we should place *no preconditions*. We don't say, "First learn, first do Mitzvot, first feel Jewish." The connection is immediate and unconditional, based purely on *Ahavat Yisrael* (love for a fellow Jew) because they possess a Jewish soul. In fact, if they *don't* feel Jewish, our compassion (*Rachmanus*) should be even greater, and profound compassion leads to profound love (*Ahavah Rabbah*). 4. **Love Leads to Torah:** This unconditional love and connection ("loving G-d's creatures") will ultimately achieve the goal of "bringing them close to Torah" (as Hillel taught). Eventually, this embrace will elevate them, helping them develop their own "taste" and "smell" – their own connection to Torah and Mitzvot. **Part E: Addressing an Alternative Halachic View** The Rebbe now revisits the Halachic point about the Lulav, acknowledging that some opinions hold that even for the Lulav ("Kapot Temarim"), the requirement might *not* be that it comes from a fruit-bearing tree. According to these views, perhaps "Kapot Temarim" *also* just describes the general species type (like "Arvei Nachal"). If so, the division is now: * Etrog and Hadas: Require the specific quality (*Hadar*, *Avot*). * Lulav and Arava: Only require belonging to the correct species type (*Temarim*, *Arvei Nachal*). How does the Midrashic analogy work according to *this* Halachic view? * **The Challenge:** The Lulav represents someone with Torah but no Mitzvot, and the Arava represents someone with neither. Both are lacking in *action* (Mitzvot). How can they be essential components of a *Mitzvah Ma'asit* – a Mitzvah fulfilled through physical action? Shouldn't their lack of "good deeds" hinder, rather than enable, the fulfillment of the Mitzvah? The Rebbe invokes the principle "A prosecutor cannot act as a defender" (*Ein Kateigor Na'aseh Sanegor*), suggesting that someone defined by a lack (like lack of Mitzvot) shouldn't logically be able to *create* the reality of a Mitzvah based on action. * **The Explanation (according to this view):** It must be that both the Lulav and the Arava contribute to the Mitzvah not through their actions (or lack thereof), but through their *Etzem* – their essential Jewish core, their identity as descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. When this essential core is aroused and joined with the others (Etrog and Hadas), it possesses a power that transcends the presence or absence of specific actions. * *(An Analogy):* The Rebbe offers a parallel regarding *Terumah* (the portion of produce given to a Kohen, a priest). Terumah is given to a Kohen purely because of his lineage (his essence as a descendant of Aaron). Nevertheless, the ideal is that the Kohen should also possess Torah knowledge; giving Terumah to an ignorant Kohen (*Kohen Am Ha'aretz*) is viewed negatively. This shows a concept where eligibility stems from essence/lineage, yet the ideal involves manifest qualities (like Torah). Similarly, the Lulav (representing Torah knowledge) is included based on the Jew's essence, even though ideally, that Torah knowledge *should* lead to Mitzvot. **Part F: A Deeper Insight and Final Lessons** Reflecting on the grouping of Lulav (Torah/No Mitzvot) and Arava (Neither) in the alternative view, the Rebbe finds an even greater *Chiddush* (novelty or surprising insight) in the inclusion of the **Lulav** compared to the Arava. * **Why is the Lulav's inclusion more surprising?** An *Am Ha'aretz* (represented by Arava) who lacks Torah and Mitzvot might simply not know any better. But a *Talmid Chacham* (Torah scholar, represented by Lulav) who possesses Torah knowledge ("Talmud") yet fails to translate it into action ("Ma'aseh") is arguably in a worse position. They *know* what's right but don't do it. The Sages even say that for Torah scholars, unintentional sins (*Shgagot*) are treated almost like intentional ones (*Zdonot*) because of their higher awareness. * **Further Practical Lessons:** 1. **Embrace Everyone, Even the Struggling Scholar:** The obligation to unite ("Yikashru Kulam Agudah Achat") isn't just for the completely unaware (*Am Ha'aretz*, *Tinok Shenishba*), for whom outreach might seem like spiritual life-saving (*Pikuach Nefesh*). It extends even to the individual who *knows* Judaism, who has "tasted" its sweetness, but for whatever reason, isn't currently practicing. We must actively connect with them and include them. 2. **They Are Essential:** Moreover, these individuals (both the Arava type and the Lulav type) are not just people we need to *help*; we *need them* to fulfill the Mitzvah properly. The unity is incomplete without them. 3. **The Power of Unity:** When all four types of Jews unite, the Midrash concludes, "They atone for one another." This "atonement" (*Kapparah*) means more than just forgiveness of sin; it signifies achieving a state of being pleasing and acceptable to G-d, creating *Nachat Ruach* (spiritual satisfaction) for Him, so to speak. 4. **Elevating G-d:** This unity even causes an "elevation" for G-d Himself, as the Midrash says, "The Holy One, Blessed be He, says... I am elevated." 5. **Bringing Redemption:** Ultimately, this complete unity is the key to the final Redemption (*Geulah*). As the Sages teach, "Israel will not be redeemed until they all become one single bundle (*Agudah Achat*)." **In Summary:** The Rebbe starts with a seemingly technical question about a difference in the legal requirements for the Four Species. He shows how this technicality is resolved by looking at the deeper, symbolic meaning presented in the Midrash, where the species represent different types of Jews. This reveals profound lessons about the nature of Jewish identity (revealed qualities vs. inherent essence), the absolute necessity of unconditional love and unity among all Jews, regardless of their current level of observance or knowledge, and the power of this unity to bring about atonement, please G-d, and ultimately hasten the final Redemption. The different ways of understanding the Halacha regarding the Lulav only add layers to this message, emphasizing the need to embrace even those whose knowledge hasn't yet translated into action.