English translation — אמור ג

A.

In the current parshah are enumerated the four species¹

which one must take on the first day of the festival of Sukkot — "fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of date palms, and a branch of a thick tree, and willows of the brook"².

One finds in this a wondrous thing:

By the first three species one sees that the sign which the Torah gives about them,

is a condition that invalidates in the species which one takes <b>in practice</b>:

"pri etz hadar" — the esrog that one takes must be a "pri etz"*²

and it must be a "hadar"³

(and a dried esrog is invalid⁴

"kappot temarim" — the lulav must be "<b>kappot</b>"⁵

: "leaves that are fit to bind and bend together with the spine"⁶

(and if not, it is invalid),

that it is not enough a lulav from

a tree that has the name

(of the species)

dates,

rather it must come from a "palm tree that produces dates".

(With this he explains what Chazal&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

say that "the four species of the lulav &lt;b&gt;two &lt;/b&gt;of them produce fruit" — at first glance: also a hadas tree gives forth fruit

(grapes&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;?

But because by lulav the law is,

that the lulav must be from a "palm tree that produces dates",

and if "he planted a palm tree for wood it is invalid for lulav",

but not so by hadas which does not have to come from a tree that produces fruit&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;

"Branch of a thick tree" — the hadas must be "thick": "three in one branch"¹¹

(And if not, it is invalid).

However, regarding the fourth species,

although also regarding it the verse specifies "willows of the brook",

the law is¹²,

that "of a valid one is kosher": if only it is from the <b>species</b> of willow that grows <b>commonly</b> by a brook,

it is kosher ab initio¹³,

even if

The aravah that he actually takes is <b>not</b> grown by a stream.

One must understand: why are aravot of a stream different from the other three species,

that the sign that the Torah gives regarding the aravot is only on the general category of the species and not on the aravah with which one fulfills the mitzvah in practice¹⁴?

2.

In the Gemara¹⁵

there is a teaching that the law

(that also a willow that grew in a desert or on mountains is kosher)

is derived from that which it says “<b>willows of</b> the brook” — willows plural¹⁶

— which includes also a willow that does not grow by a brook.

But in addition to this, the matter itself requires explanation: what is the reason that by the three species the <b>Torah</b> is particular that the actual item taken should have the signs,

and by willows of the brook it is sufficient if it is of the species in general — it is not understood:

from the language of the Rambam¹⁷

(according to the interpretation of most commentators¹⁸)

and the Shulchan Aruch¹⁹

it implies,

that one does not need to have a special abundance to increase a willow that grew in a desert or in mountains,

rather one knows it from

<b>Meaning of the verse</b>: The Torah calls them by the name "willows of the brook" because "most of this species grows by the brooks",

and also a willow that one takes from the minority that grow in a desert or in mountains is kosher.

And the commentators²⁰

add,

that one cannot say at all that according to the Rambam the law is derived from the multiplicity "willows" — because the multiplicity is needed to derive that one must take two willows²¹,

It turns out according to the opinion of the Rambam,

that when saying the phrase "willows of the brook" the Torah speaks

(ab initio)

only about the <b>generic name</b> in general,

and not about the willows with which one fulfills the mitzvah in practice.

It is not understood: from where

(and what is the reason)

to divide the signs of the Torah regarding the four species,

between the first three and the aravot?

3.

We have already spoken several times²²,

that there are several matters in Torah,

which in the simple way and according to the revealed aspect are "not smooth",

and they become completely understandable — only specifically according to the way of homiletic interpretation, allusion, and the secret,

and especially according to the explanation in the inner dimension of Torah.

And see Rashi²³

And with emphasis: “<b>This</b> verse <b>only says</b> ‘explain me’.”

And likewise in our matter: the above distinction between the four species,

is understood <b>simply</b> according to the explanation in the four species by way of homiletic interpretation:

It stands in the Midrash²⁴,

that the four species are a hint to the four types of Jews: an esrog that "has taste and has smell" hints to Jews that "have Torah and have good deeds"; palm branches

(lulav)

that

(a date)

"has taste and has no smell",

are a hint to the Jews that "have Torah and have no good deeds"; "hadass has smell and has no taste" hints to Jews that "have good deeds and have no Torah"; and aravah that "has no taste and has no smell" is a hint to "people that have neither Torah nor good deeds".

And the mitzvah of taking the four species is its matter — "they shall be bound together as one bundle": all four types of Jews become connected in one bundle.

It turns out,

that there is a fundamental difference between the first three species and the aravah: the first three species — types of Jews — are equal to each other

(and consequently their unity is also)

because of the fact that they all possess <b>revealed</b> virtues,

one sees them <b>in actuality</b>; as the well-known adage²⁵

: "A thief is not one who can steal but one who steals,

and a scholar is not one who can learn,

but one who learns

(<b>in actuality</b>)

"; and all the more so that the virtue of good deeds is

(in its simple meaning)

relevant specifically when one does

(and one has)

good deeds in actuality.

But the aravah — Jews who "have in them neither Torah nor good deeds" — the unity with them is because they are <b>Jews</b>,

which is an inner and essential virtue that exists in every one who is of the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — even when in actuality "there is in them neither Torah nor good deeds",

and even a child captured among the nations who knows nothing that he is a Jew.

And from this is derived in practical halachah,

that the signs of the species of the first three kinds must be revealed on those with which one fulfills the mitzvah in practice; but not so with aravah,

even if the particular aravah did not grow by the stream

(he is a captive infant among the nations),

if only he is from the &lt;b&gt;species &lt;/b&gt;“willows of the brook” — he descends from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — it is a valid aravah with which to fulfill the mitzvah,

and through this “they will be bound” with it from the other three kinds — they become a part of

(and one fulfills)

the mitzvah of the four kinds.

And it is noteworthy that specifically their name,

which “and they are called in them in the Holy Tongue”&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

“aravah” — is the same letters as “&lt;b&gt;and pleasant &lt;/b&gt;to Hashem shall be the offering of Judah etc.”&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;.

4.

From this we also have the clear lesson:

First of all, one must know,

that one <b>must</b> connect oneself with every Jew,

even with simple people,

because in order to fulfill the mitzvah of taking the Four Species, one must have all four species.

Just as

One cannot fulfill the commandment without an etrog,

or a lulav or a hadas,

so one cannot fulfill the commandment without willows,

simple people.

<b>And on the contrary</b>: since the simplicity of simple people

(specifically)

is connected with the simplicity of the Essence²⁸,

it turns out,

that specifically through that which one connects with simple people,

one connects with the simplicity of the Essence.

In addition to this comes the directive,

that there is a fundamental difference in the manner in which one connects with the first three types of Jews,

or — with a simple person:

Those who are related to revealed virtues — Torah and good deeds — they must have Torah and good deeds <b>in actual deed</b>; it is not enough that one stems from a family of scholars,

or that one enrolled in a yeshivah,

or even that he studied Torah <b>previously</b> a while ago; he must have <b>now</b> the "taste",

the study of Torah <b>in actual deed</b>

(and likewise regarding good deeds).

But when bringing close a simple person,

one must not set "conditions" — <b>first</b> learn Torah, perform good deeds,

even not the condition that <b>first</b> he should "feel" himself like a Jew²⁹

Since he is from the seed of Israel, he must

One must first of all connect with him — from the aspect of Ahavas Yisrael,

because he is a Jew,

And on the contrary, if he does not feel this, then the compassion upon him is very very great,

and abundant compassion brings abundant love³⁰,

And this "loves the creatures" will bring,

"and brings them close to Torah"³¹

: in the end he will bring close and elevate the creatures to Torah,

until they will be on the level of "there is taste in it and there is fragrance in it."

5.

The explanation is according to the opinion

(above section 1)

that "branches of date palms" is an absolute requirement for the lulav,

that it must come from a "date palm that produces dates."

There are, however, opinions³²,

that also "branches of date palms" is only the general species name

(just like "willows of the brook")

and also a date palm that does not produce dates is fit for a lulav —

And it can be explained, the difference

(between the signs of the Torah regarding an etrog and hadas and lulav and aravot)

According to the opinions:

The taking of the four species is indeed from the <b>practical</b> mitzvot,

and in them themselves there is a most exalted quality,

because it requires achieving unity <b>in completeness</b> of all types of Jews,

like the unity of the four letters of the <b>unique</b> Name,

the Name Havayah³³

And here one says that it is <b>preventing</b>,

how can <b>the reality</b> of the <b>physical</b> mitzvah come about

when there are involved in it such ones who "have no <b>good deeds</b>"³⁴,

Not only that &lt;b&gt;in &lt;/b&gt;them is accomplished

(unity and unification etc.)

through the fulfillment of the commandment,

and see the midrash there itself &lt;b&gt;in our matter&lt;/b&gt;: they atone for one another.

Moreover: their joining in the performance of the &lt;b&gt;actual &lt;/b&gt;existence of the commandment &lt;b&gt;practical&lt;/b&gt;,

must actually hinder,

in the manner that one says&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

by the red heifer that it must be not by Aaron,

because "an accuser cannot become a defender" —

One must say that both

(lulav and aravah)³⁶

act upon the <b>reality</b> of the commandment through their <b>essence</b>³⁷,

that they are children of Abraham etc.,

which is stronger

(when it is revealed³⁸

— through the joining and taking together with etrog and hadassim)

than actions.

And it can be said, its parallel,

at least something similar to this,

regarding the lulav that nevertheless needs Torah: terumah is given only to a kohen,

Because he is the son of Aharon,

And nevertheless one says that he needs to have the superiority of the Torah and the giver³⁹

Terumah to the Kohen, upon him, as if he gave it etc.

6.

According to this explanation, another matter emerges — that there is a <b>greater</b> novelty in the combination of the lulav relative to the combination of the willows:

"One who has Torah",

who does not have good deeds, this is

(the not having good deeds)

much worse than with an ignoramus.

An ignoramus does not know better,

but the Torah scholar has the "Talmud" and nevertheless it does not "lead to action".

And along these lines is the statement of our Sages⁴⁰,

that Torah scholars — "inadvertent sins become for them like intentional sins".

What from this does one still have a teaching,

that the obligation to connect oneself with every Jew — "they should all be bound together as one bundle" — is not only with those regarding whom it is a matter of life-threatening danger

(in spirituality)

literally,

the ignorant and a child captured among the nations etc., such ones who have never "tasted" the "flavor" of Judaism,

But even one who does know and nevertheless does not fulfill — one must exert oneself and &lt;b&gt;connect &lt;/b&gt;with him

("they should all be bound together as one bundle").

And even more: one &lt;b&gt;must &lt;/b&gt;have him to make the reality of the commandment and to fulfill it.

And through this that all types of Jews become united together,

it is brought about — as the Midrash explains — "they atone one for another",

including

the meaning of "kapparah" — "to atone before the L-rd to be a pleasing satisfaction to his Maker"⁴¹

until this works an elevation also above, as it were — "Said the Holy One, blessed be He ..

I am elevated"⁴²,

and this brings down the true and complete redemption — Israel is not redeemed until they are all one bundle⁴³.

5712)