English translation — קדושים א

A.

In the verse¹

"And when you come into the land and you plant etc. and you shall circumcise etc. its fruit three years it shall be for you uncircumcised, it shall not be eaten,"

Rashi stands on the words "three years it shall be for you uncircumcised" and explains: "From when does he count for him? From the time of its planting."

The commentators learn²,

that by this Rashi means to ensure,

that the count of the "three years" is not "from the time it produces fruit",

but "from the time of its planting"; and this is derived from the word "and you plant"³

— "to say that from the time of planting they count."

One must understand:

a)

If the entire necessity that "one counts from the time of its planting" is from the word "ונטעתם"⁴

— then Rashi should have copied

(also)

<b>the </b>word in that discourse-beginning?

The question is even stronger: the source of this interpretation is from Torat Kohanim⁵,

and there indeed the teaching is brought

(in continuation of the expositions)

on "and you shall plant etc." — but Rashi <b>changes</b> from Torat Kohanim,

and brings it on the words⁶

"three years they shall be for you

uncircumcised",

and does not mention at all the word "and you shall plant".

b)

Without the word "ונטעתם" — from where does one know simply that this is from the time of its planting and not "פריו ג׳ שנים" three years of fruits growing&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;?

c)

What is the lengthiness in Rashi both in the citation of the verse and — in his language "&lt;b&gt;מאימתי מונה לו&lt;/b&gt;" — he should have said briefly: "שלש שנים&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;

— from the time of its planting"?

(as discussed several times)

it is not Rashi's intent in his commentary on the Torah to copy the teachings of our Sages in their language,

rather he explains the plain meaning of the verse; for which Rashi often changes

(and obviously — omits)

from the language of our Sages,

in accordance with the explanation of the verse according to its plain meaning].

2.

The explanation in this:

Rashi, in plain meaning, explains here the verbosity of the verse "three years they shall be uncircumcised for you": it already says earlier "and you shall circumcise its foreskin, its fruit",

so why does the verse repeat again the words "they shall be uncircumcised for you",

and does not say concisely: "and you shall circumcise its foreskin, its fruit, three years"?

Rashi derives from this,

that in orlah there are two aspects:

(a)

The prohibition of orlah upon the

(tree and)

fruits

("object")

— "and you shall circumcise its foreskin <b>its fruit</b>",

and in the language of <b>Rashi</b>⁸

: "<b>it shall be closed and sealed</b> from benefiting from it";

(b)

The <b>count</b> of the "three years" — a law upon the person

("subject")

(three years)

they shall be <b>for you</b> uncircumcised"⁹.

And this means Rashi with his lengthy language "From when &lt;b&gt;does one count &lt;/b&gt;for him from the time of its planting": It must be "&lt;b&gt;does one count &lt;/b&gt;for him" — the &lt;b&gt;person counts &lt;/b&gt;the "three years"; and since the counting is "for you,"

it is logical that the "three years" are counted

(not from when the &lt;b&gt;tree &lt;/b&gt;produces fruits,

but)

from the &lt;b&gt;action of the person &lt;/b&gt;

(the man)

— "and you shall plant"&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;

— from when &lt;b&gt;he &lt;/b&gt;planted the tree.

And based on this, another practical difference emerges: Since that which "one counts for him from the time of its planting" is due to the fact that the counting

must be "for you",

must turn out,

that the three years

(from planting)

are counted not according to the &lt;b&gt;tree&lt;/b&gt;,

but according to the &lt;b&gt;person&lt;/b&gt;

("for you").

The difference between the two manners — whether one counts the "three years" according to the "tree" or according to the planting of the person — is in a case when one plants a branch from a tree that is already "three years" old:

If one would calculate according to the Etz,

it has a place to say,

that since the branch had already previously undergone the two orlah,

the fruits that grow from this branch are permitted immediately;

If however one would calculate the "shalosh shanim" according to the planter — "lachem" — it must turn out,

that one must begin anew to count "shalosh shanim" from when the planter made his planting

(new).

that the law is¹¹,

that "one who plants and one who bends [a branch to root] etc." is liable for orlah¹²].

3.

Based on this, one will also understand another matter in this commentary of Rashi:

After the words "From when does one count for him? From the time of its planting,"

Rashi continues — in the same discourse-beginning — "One might think that if he stored it after three years it would be permitted; the verse states 'it shall be,' in its state it shall be."

One must understand: the two matters in Rashi's commentary —

(a)

"From when does one count for him? From the time of its planting,"

(b)

"One might think that if he stored it etc." — seemingly have no connection between them: "From when does one count for him etc." is a commentary on the words "three years"¹³,

and "One might think that if he stored it etc." — on the words "it shall be to you as uncircumcised";

Rashi should have divided the two subjects into two separate dibur hamatchils

(as is his way in every place)

— why does Rashi bring them in one sequence in the same dibur hamatchil&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;?

The difficulty in this is even stronger: also the source of this subject

("yachol im hizni'u etc.")

in Rashi's commentary is from Torat Kohanim&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;,

but there it indeed &lt;b&gt;does not &lt;/b&gt;come in sequence to the teaching "mei'ematai moneh etc."&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;,

rather it is a teaching by itself — so why does Rashi &lt;b&gt;change &lt;/b&gt;from Torat Kohanim and combine the two teachings together?

4.

According to the above

(section b)

it is understood simply:

Since the verse emphasizes "it shall be <b>for you </b>uncircumcised" — that it is a law in the "person"

(as above)

— one could think that it is only in relation to the detail of "three years"

(that the <b>counting </b>must be "for you",

as above),

but that the <b>entirety </b>of the prohibition of orlah is only "for you",

(And the words "they shall be to you as uncircumcised" are not an addition to the words "and you shall circumcise its uncircumcised fruit"

(and a prohibition only within the count of 3 years),

but they are the explanation and interpretation of "and you shall circumcise its uncircumcised fruit" — that it means only "they shall be to you as uncircumcised",

a prohibition on the person¹⁷,

a prohibition on the person)

And if one were to accept that the prohibition of orlah does not apply to the fruits themselves

(but it is only a prohibition upon the person not to eat the fruits the first three years)

— there is room to say,

that after the 3 years the prohibition of orlah is gone,

even not on the fruits that grew during the 3 years of orlah.

One would learn,

that orlah is a prohibition on the person

("It shall be <b>to you</b> uncircumcised")

dependent on time

("three years")¹⁸

— like the prohibition of eating chametz on Passover¹⁹

and the like — a specific time the <b>person</b> may not eat it²⁰

; and consequently,

"if they hid it after three

years" it is permitted

(since the time of its prohibition has already passed).

One learns from the word "יהי׳" — "בהוייתו יהא" — that the prohibition of orlah remains forever on the fruits,

also after the three years²¹.

H.

The inner reason for the difference between prohibitions of the person and prohibitions of the object — one could say that this depends on from where the vitality of the prohibited thing comes:

Prohibitions of the object

(that the object itself is forbidden),

is when the object receives a vitality that is forbidden,

from the three completely impure klipot²²

which cannot be elevated into holiness,

and therefore it is an object of prohibition and is forbidden forever;

Prohibitions of the person is when the thing receives a vitality in general,

from the klipat nogah²²

which can be elevated into holiness,

and therefore it is an object of <b>permission</b>

(only the <b>person</b> may not eat it etc.).

And fruits of orlah are an issur cheftza

(as above at length)

— because their vitality is from the three impure klipot

(as

The Alter Rebbe brings down in Tanya²³).

It requires, however, further explanation: since the tree itself is a thing of <b>permissibility</b>²⁴,

and the fruits are indeed suckling their vitality from the tree — how can it be,

that the tree itself should be a thing of permissibility and the fruits that come out from it should be an object of prohibition?

If the fruits of the tree were always forbidden,

one could still explain,

that this part of the vitality²⁵

of the tree from which the fruits suckle their vitality is from the three impure shells;

Since however that after 3 years the fruits are permitted,

it turns out,

that also <b>the </b>part

(the life-force of)

the tree is not from the three impure shells — so how do the fruits become a forbidden object?

6.

One will understand this with the prior explanation in the language of the Alter Rebbe in Tanya²⁶

regarding "forbidden foods from plants like orlah and mixed species of the vineyard etc." — that their "<b>existence and vitality</b>" is from the three impure shells; thus the Rebbe

(the Rebbe Rashab)

of blessed memory²⁷,

that "regarding orlah and mixed species of the vineyard he did not say <b>and the existence of their body</b>" — not like earlier,

by "unclean animals and those forbidden for eating",

where the Alter Rebbe

says that

(not only their "nefashot",

but)

also "the existence of their body" is from the three impure klipot — and explains: "for their body

(of orlah etc.)

is pure etc."

is seemingly not understood: fruits of orlah are indeed forbidden forever — so the "existence of their body" of the fruits must be from the three impure klipot; and if because the fruits come from the tree which is a permitted thing — then also the <b>life</b> of the fruits is from

(and through)

the tree?

Then the explanation in this: the difference between "existence &lt;b&gt;of their body&lt;/b&gt;" and "existence and vitality" is:

The &lt;b&gt;body&lt;/b&gt; and materiality of a creature was created only once,

and afterwards one only sustains the prior existence,

and therefore in this a change from time to time by itself is not applicable&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

(that the place from where "existence of their body" comes should change)

In contrast, the life-force of the vegetative and the inanimate is constantly renewed anew

(as explained in several places²⁹

in the explanation of "Who renews in His goodness every day, constantly, the work of creation,"

that "every day" a new life-force is drawn forth),

and therefore a change can occur in this life-force.

And this is also the explanation of the prohibition of orlah: the body and materiality of the tree which is a

A pure thing — remains pure,

because in it no change can occur

(regarding how it was before)

But not so the <b>life-force</b> and power with which the tree makes the fruits grow and they are nourished

(from the tree),

is during the three years of orlah it is a life-force from the three impure husks³⁰

— and from <b>that</b> the fruits become a prohibition <b>object</b>³¹

(and are forbidden forever)

And afterwards is influenced and drawn into the tree³⁰

a new vitality³²,

that the fruits of it

(in the fourth year)

are not only pure and permitted,

but on the contrary — "<b>holy </b>praises to Hashem"³³.

(From the talks of the last day of Pesach and Shabbat Parshat Kedoshim 5736)