English translation — תבא א

1.

At the beginning of our portion,

in the section of the Bikkurim declaration,

it is said¹

: "And you shall speak and say ..

An Aramean [would have] destroyed my father, and he went down to Egypt and sojourned there with few people, and there he became ..

And the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a strong hand ..

And He brought us to this place".

And behold, the reason that in the bringing of the first fruits the bringer mentions these two matters — "An Aramean [would have] destroyed my father"

(with the intention of emphasizing his rescue from Laban²)

and the descent of the children of Israel to Egypt and their redemption from that exile — seems simply,

that this is praise and thanksgiving to the Holy One, blessed be He, for these kindnesses,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, saved our forefathers from being "destroyed" and annihilated by Laban and in the exile of Egypt etc.,

until He brought them to the land "flowing with milk and honey" — and this thanksgiving in speech is also expressed in deed: the bringing of the "first fruit of the ground" as first fruits to the Lord.

However, it should say: if the reason is in order to mention "the kindnesses of the Place"³

that He did

for our ancestors, beginning from "A wandering Aramean was my father" until their coming to the land — why does it mention only these two kindnesses

(the rescue from Laban and the redemption from Egypt)

and not the other miracles and kindnesses*³

that the Holy One, blessed be He, did with them⁴

before He brought them to the land: the splitting of the Red Sea,

the war with Amalek; and also the kindnesses in the wilderness: the manna and the well etc. — for they are what stood for our ancestors to be alive and existing in their going forty years in the wilderness

("the great and awesome"),

to come to this land and to bring of its fruits firstfruits?

! And in their likeness, further kindnesses,

like "the brook of the streams"⁵,

the war of Sihon and Og etc.

And it is possible to say that the rescue from the hand of Lavan and from the Egyptian exile are different, because they are primary and general kindnesses,

in which and through which the Holy One, blessed be He, saved our forefathers and all of the Children of Israel from complete annihilation and destruction<sup>6</sup>

; but this is not the case regarding the other kindnesses

And the aforementioned miracles,

which are like a continuation of particular miracles and an offshoot of the kindness of the Exodus from Egypt, in order to bring them to the Land — so that the miracle of the Exodus from Egypt is not complete without the miracles that came after it: the Splitting of the Sea,

the manna and the well, etc.<sup>7</sup>

— it is still difficult<sup>8</sup>

: Why does he not mention in the thanksgiving of the firstborns the kindness that was done for Yaakov and his sons between the time of "An Aramean [was] my father" and the time of "And he went down to Egypt",

and which was a primary and general rescue: the rescue of Yaakov and his sons from the hand of Esav and his men<sup>9</sup>

(about which our forefather Yaakov said in his prayer, "Deliver me, please, etc., and strike a mother with children"<sup>10</sup>)?

And since this difficulty is in the "simple meaning of Scripture" - it is therefore puzzling: why does

(a hint to)

the resolution of this difficulty not appear in Rashi,

whose purpose

is known to explain and resolve every matter that is difficult and requires clarification in the "simple meaning of Scripture"?

And from this very fact, the necessity,

that this is not a difficulty from the outset,

and the matter is understood and explained so simply that there is no need for Rashi to explain this even to a five-year-old studying Scripture

(or the answer is understood from what Rashi explained previously)¹¹.

2.

And behold, in resolving this difficulty, one could say superficially that the reason he does not mention in the bringing of the first fruits also the kindness of the saving of Jacob from Esau,

this is because it was not in a manner of rescue from a trouble that came in actuality and deed

(but rather from a danger anticipated in thought),

for in actuality Esau did not do any evil deed to Jacob¹².

And even though Laban also did not bring his evil thought into actuality,

nevertheless it is as if his thought was actualized in actual deed,

since "because he thought to do — the Omnipresent considered it for him as if he did, for the nations, the Holy One, blessed be He, considers their thought as deed" as Rashi explains,

therefore the bringer says "An Aramean [sought to] destroy my father"; but not so Esau,

who was an apostate Jew¹³,

his evil thought is not considered as deed,

and since in actuality he did not do what he plotted to do and it is only a nullification of evil that was "in potential",

therefore he does not mention this rescue together with the two matters that came in deed

(or — as deed).

However, our master, our father, and our teacher, the Rebbe, said "yes"

(In addition to this, that we did not find in the meaning of the verses,

according to the simple meaning of the plain text,

that Esau had the law of a Jewish apostate; and regarding the Patriarchs in general,

there is no proof from the plainness of the verses that the definition and law of a Jew, as defined for the children of Israel after the giving of the Torah¹⁴, applied to them)

for whichever way you look at it:

If we say that in the confession of the first fruits one should mention only those kindnesses of saving our forefathers from practical trouble and danger

(And in the manner that it was in Egypt: "And the Egyptians treated us badly and afflicted us, etc., and He took us out, etc."),

then he should not have also said "An Aramean [was] my father [who was] lost," since after all, from this no harm came to "my father"

(to our father Jacob)

any actual harm¹⁵

For this attribute of thought is like deed pertains only to the magnitude of Lavan's sin and punishment,

but there is no practical difference regarding Yaakov,

for either way

(that thought is like deed)

or either way

(that it is not like deed)

Lavan did not touch him for harm.

But — on the other hand — it must be said,

that even though the danger of destruction from the hand of Lavan was only in potential and in thought,

nevertheless, the one who brings [the offering] properly recites "An Aramean [sought to] destroy my father" and this is included in "the kindnesses of the Omnipresent" — therefore it would have been fitting for the one who brings [the offering] to also give thanks for the kindness that the Holy One, blessed be He, did for our father Yaakov in saving him from the hand of Esav.

The upshot from the above: it necessarily follows that the seven kindnesses mentioned in the verse have a special connection to the mitzvah of first fruits,

which is not the case with all the other kindnesses.

3.

And the explanation of this:

With the mitzvah of first fruits, Bnei Yisrael were not obligated except after they came to the land and conquered it and settled in it,

as Rashi explains¹⁶

("And you shall inherit and dwell in it" -)

"This tells that they were not obligated in first fruits until they conquered the land and divided it."

From this it is understood that this mitzvah of bringing first fruits is not only an acknowledgment of the very giving of the land by the Holy One, blessed be He, to Bnei Yisrael,

but also

(and primarily)

Because of this that they came to the inheritance in a permanent settlement in it,

for only then does it bring that good which he rejoices in — and the first fruits of my produce they bring to the Lord¹⁷.

And since the purpose of the matter of the first fruits is thanksgiving to the Lord for His kindness and His goodness that He gave us "this land, a land flowing with milk and honey" to dwell in it permanently and to eat from its fruit and be sated with its goodness — therefore,

in order to emphasize the greatness of this kindness,

the bringer also mentions

(only)

their example — the "kindnesses of the Place" that were done for our forefathers at the time of their being in a fixed place and in that place no good came to them,

but rather on the contrary — in it they stood to consume them and destroy them

(the ultimate evil),

and the Holy One, blessed be He, did with them kindness and saved them — until "and He brought us to this place",

and was given to them the good that comes from the place itself and the ultimate¹⁸

this good.

And this is that he mentions specifically the "kindnesses of the Place" that were done to our forefathers in Aram¹⁹

And in Egypt,

because in these places our forefathers dwelled permanently

("twenty years" in Aram and two hundred and ten years in Egypt²⁰)

And it is also sweetened the reason that he begins his thanksgiving with "A wandering Aramean was my father - and he went down to Egypt,"

in order to emphasize,

that from the aspect of the places themselves of Aram and Egypt there was destined for them danger of destruction and annihilation,

but that the Holy One, blessed be He, in His kindness saved them and redeemed them,

until He brought them to the place that itself is full of the blessing of the Lord.

But not so the rescue of Jacob from Esau,

which came while he was found on the road; and likewise regarding the other kindnesses that were done for the children of Israel during their walking in the wilderness

(and also because it is essentially not a settled place for people),

they are kindnesses that are not comparable to the thanksgiving to the Lord that is in the bringing of the first fruits,

as above,

as above.

4.

In the inner aspect of the matter, it can be said:

It is explained in Ohr HaTorah²¹

regarding the matter of the mitzvah of bringing first-fruits: The fruit of the tree is the aspect of the soul that is clothed in the body,

and the mitzvah of first-fruits is to connect and unite the aspect of the soul below with its root, which is called the supernal first-fruits,

as it is said²²

Like the first-ripe fruit on the fig tree, I saw your fathers.

And it explains there that

(Two matters in this: The bringing of first-fruits is an elevation

from below to above,

f)

the reading of the portion of the first fruits is the drawing down of Divinity from above to below,

that is, to draw down the aspect of first fruits of the soul from above to below,

that the aspect of the soul above will connect and shine,

into the soul that is clothed in the body.

And based on this it can be explained that this is the reason that in the reading of the portion of the first fruits two matters are mentioned: Laban and Egypt,

for both of them

(in their two aspects: the descent there and the departure)

were in the aspect of kindness and drawing down from above to below: "And Jacob left<sup>23</sup>

(and was drawn)

Jacob from Beersheba

(from above above)

and went to Haran

(to below below)

" and in the departure from there "And Laban arose early in the morning" — the aspect of "Laban" in holiness "is the aspect of the supernal whiteness, the source of the kindnesses, and about Laban it is written<sup>24</sup>

"And Laban arose early in the morning,"

that each day the light of the supernal kindness is strengthened and drawn down...

And Jacob went on his way to draw down the aspect of the supernal whiteness mentioned above to below below"<sup>25</sup>.

And likewise regarding the descent to Egypt,

and even before this: And he sent Judah...

to instruct before him — to prepare for him a house of study<sup>26</sup>

And afterwards the Exodus from Egypt, which was from the aspect of the kindness of Havayah that was revealed upon them from Above, in His glory and His very Self, and redeemed them²⁷.

And based on this, one can explain the wine of Torah in Rashi, what he explained "mentions the kindnesses of the Place",

for at first glance

(a)

the subject here is the rescue of Yaakov from Lavan and the Exodus from Egypt, which are great miracles and not kindnesses alone,

and it should have said²⁸

miracles of the Place;

(b)

why is it said "kindnesses of the Place" and not "kindnesses of Havayah"?

And according to the above, it can be said that in Rashi's commentary the reason is hinted that we mention these two matters in the portion of Bikkurim,

for the matter of the reading of the portion of Bikkurim is the aspect of "Chesed" — the drawing down of Divinity — specifically in a "place"²⁹,

and therefore it mentions the matter of the rescue from Laban and the Exodus from Egypt, which are the aspect of "the kindnesses of" Havayah that are drawn down in a "place"

(fixed)

as above.

5.

The lesson from this in the service of man: a person should not be satisfied with his service and his ascent in Torah and prayer,

for through this he is elevated

And connects to Havayah,

but must also draw down Elokus below, and also in matters of the permitted and in the choicest among them; that is,

not only that matters of the permitted will not occupy any place for him due to his attachment to Havayah,

but also in the physical matters that he engages in in a manner of permanence etc. he will draw down in them light and Divine revelation until he transforms them to good and holiness actually

(that this must be "from the first

fruit" specifically — from the choice³⁰

pleasant and good),

in this he completes the ultimate intent of the creation of the world: to make for Him, blessed be He, a dwelling place in the lower realms.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Tavo 5732)