English translation — שופטים ג

1.

On the verse¹

"For man is the tree of the field" asks the Gemara²

"But is man a tree

field?" and answers: "Rather, because it is written: 'For from it you shall eat and it you shall not cut down,'

and it is written³

'It you shall destroy and cut down,'

how so? If he is a worthy Torah scholar, 'from it you shall eat'

(learn from him,

Rashi)

'and it you shall not cut down,'

and if not, 'it you shall destroy'

(turn away from him,

Rashi)

'and cut down.'"

One must understand: From that which the Gemara asks "But is a man a tree of the field?" it is proven,

that the Gemara assumes,

that that which the verse compares a man to "tree of the field" is not only because the tree of the field serves as a <b>parable</b>⁴

from which one can understand one

(or several)

of the virtues and qualities of man

then there is no place to ask⁵

"For is a man a tree of the field?" — since it

there are <b>several</b> details in which a man can indeed be compared to a "tree of the field"⁶],

But that a person &lt;b&gt;is &lt;/b&gt;a tree of the field&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;

: a “tree” expresses

(not only partial or trivial details of the person,

but)

the whole thing of a person — “the person is a tree of the field”.

— the New Year for trees&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;

; it is a custom of Israel to eat fruits of the tree on this day&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;

etc.

(and one connects it&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;

with the verse “for the person is a tree of the field”).

If the tree of the field is no more than a parable for man — then there is indeed no taste sufficient that man should "practice" the tree's Rosh Hashanah.

It is understood from this,

that "man is a tree of the field" means,

as above,

that man is a tree of the field,

and therefore the Rosh Hashanah of the tree has a connection to man].

It is not understandable:

a)

How is the Gemara's question "But is a man a tree of the field?" answered by the answer "If he is a worthy Torah scholar, you may eat from him etc.",

since also this matter is,

at first glance,

no more than

(a)

a <b>mashal and nimshal</b> of a tree of the field,

and moreover — only in <b>one</b> detail — the question nevertheless remains in its place: "But is" — is it then because of this that one can call a man "a tree of the field"?

(b)

How does it generally fit to describe the <b>virtue</b> of man — the <b>speaking being</b> — with that which he is "a tree of the field",

he has the characteristics of a "vegetable"?

True indeed that in a man there is also the aspect of "growth"

(and especially the growth of his hair and nails etc.),

But:

(a)

If so,

then in a man there is a greater virtue — the aspect of "living"¹³.

b)

<b>And the main point</b>: not in this consists the virtue of man

(speaker)

— so how is it fitting to say "man is a tree of the field"?

(b)

B.

The unique virtue — distinctiveness from the species of the growth

(relative to speaking living)

consists in that it does not cover "does not hide" its true vitality,

it is <b>always</b> connected

(through its roots)

to its source,

to the power of growth in the earth that makes it "live" and grow.

When one tears off a growth from the earth,

it ceases to be a growth.

By the living and the desert one does not find,

that they must be bound to their root and source: they are not connected to the

Ma¹⁴,

From where was the coming into being

(also)

of the species of the living and the desert — "everything came from the dust"¹⁵

; after the coming into being

(birth)

of every living and desert — it is not dependent on its root and source

(which gave birth to it)

; also the sustenance of the living and desert is in a manner,

that they need not stand in a connection with the source of the sustenance.

But not so by vegetation,

which is constantly connected to the vegetative power that is in the earth.

— one finds likewise by fish,

that they must constantly be found in water,

the source of their life,

and when they separate from the water, immediately they die¹⁶

; and furthermore — more than vegetation: they remain with their entire existence in their source — in water;

But — this itself proves: in this very thing is the novelty regarding vegetation relative to fish,

that even when they grow upon the face of the earth,

away from their source,

up to trees that grow higher than three handbreadths,

ten handbreadths,

up to very high — they remain always connected with their roots which are in the earth,

and through them — with the vegetative power that is in the earth.

Furthermore — by fish, the individual fish is not at all connected with <b>its </b>source of life <b>individual</b>,

it moves over and even from river to sea

(and vice versa),

but not so by vegetation.

3.

In this itself there is an advantage superiority in tree of the field — trees — relative to other plants¹⁷

Other plants¹⁸

— like grain,

fruit of the earth and the like — do not remain in their existence

(as a plant attached to the ground)

from year to year,

they lose their reality; in contrast trees are bringing forth fruits from year to year — they can suffer all kinds of changes,

summer and winter etc.,

and their existence is not discontinued.

What this indicates is a very strong connection with the source of their vitality,

which gives into them a great strength not to be affected by the changes of time,

they remain in their existence and also grow from year to year.

4.

Man is a "small world"¹⁹.

Just as the "great world" is divided into four types: inanimate,

vegetative,

living and speaking,

so too are there by man also in his spirituality,

these four types²⁰.

And as is known²¹,

that the attributes of the man are the growth aspect of the soul of man,

because in the attributes there is the matter of growth from smallness to greatness.

In the power of the intellect there is not only the matter of growth from smallness to greatness,

but also the matter of "living"²²,

which expresses itself in movement and change from place to place,

like a living being that moves from place to place.

And so too, the intellect is not

("connected")

defined and un-

Thrown into one nature,

intellect is its essence to understand a thing

(not as <b>it wants</b> itself,

but)

as the thing is,

so that it goes and changes place sometimes to kindness and sometimes to severity — regarding one matter the conclusion of the intellect is that it needs to be kindness,

and regarding a second matter — severity.

And so forth.

But not so the emotions

(in themselves)

are defined in their nature — the attribute of kindness remains

(in itself)

in the line of kindness,

and so the attribute of severity — in the line of severity; it is only that they "grow" from smallness to greatness.

5.

Just as growth in the "great world" is divided,

as above,

with the advantage that it is constantly connected to its root,

so too regarding the aspect of growth in man — the emotions — that they have an advantage over intellect, that specifically they are

(constantly)

connected to their source — the inwardness of the human soul.

And this is also the reason²³

why the emotions

(the feeling of the heart)

have within themselves,

as we see,

a great force,

to the extent that it is very difficult for them to change "place",

to change

(as was discussed earlier regarding trees)

: a man of kindness by nature,

it is very difficult for him to be changed to be a man of might

(and so too the opposite).

not in the manner of the majority: a person can overcome with his intellect over the nature of his character traits,

until that he can change them from evil to good&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;

— just as

By trees it is through the extra effort of uprooting them from their place and planting them in another place — they grow in the new place and sometimes — better and with greater excellence than in the first place&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;].

And this itself is also the reason why intellect is not defined in the nature of man

(as we see,

that a person can comprehend until grasping²⁶

a matter that is opposite his nature)

— because the intellect

(“living”)

that is in man is not so openly connected to its root in the soul²⁷

(just as “living” in the “great world”,

which does not have the connection

(constant)

to its root).

6.

With this one will understand what the verse says “for man is the tree of the field” — the matter of “man” is “tree of the field”

(as above section a)

— because specifically in the emotions²⁸,

the aspect of “growth” within him,

comes out openly

(their root and source as it is b)

the inwardness of the soul.

And it can be said that therefore the main service is

of man

(not so in the matter of the intellect,

but primarily)

in the refinement and purification of the attributes²⁹,

because the correction of the attributes touches the innerness of the soul; and therefore a man achieves his perfection specifically through <b>that </b>service,

until that also the <b>perfection </b>of the intellect of man

("and you shall know"³⁰)

is brought about through his acting upon the attributes of man

("and you shall return [it] to your heart"³⁰).

And this is³¹

what the Gemara explains,

that the concept of "the man is a tree of the field" expresses itself in that "if the Torah scholar is <b>fit</b>, you may eat from him": the explanation of "fit" is,

that by this Torah scholar there exists not only the quality of <b>intellect</b>

(study),

but that his intellect affects his character traits,

which brings him to conduct himself in a manner "fit".

And specifically from such a Torah scholar "you may eat" — from him learn and receive,

because "the man is a tree of the field": when is one a "man" in his completeness

(from whom one can learn)

— when one is a "tree of the field",

that the aspect of the vegetative in man,

his character traits,

is proper³²

to be.

7.

Just as this is with every individual in particular,

so too is it regarding the entirety of the Jewish people:

All Jews descend from the three Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,

and this in a manner that they are always connected and attached to the Patriarchs.

And as Rashi says on the verse³³

"For from the top of the rocks I see him" — "I look at their beginning and at the root of their origins³⁴

And I see <b>them</b> established and strong etc. through the Patriarchs and Matriarchs."

In what does the connection of every Jew with the three Patriarchs express itself?

— Not

in the matter of intellect,

but specifically in the matter of the emotions.

As known&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

that the three Patriarchs correspond to the three emotions love, awe, and mercy

(the totality of all emotions&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;),

and they bequeathed to their children after them forever these emotions,

so that the aspect of the Patriarchs exists "always ..

in every time, in every person."

What the reason for this is: the matter of inheritance is connected with the essence of the bequeather and heir&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;.

And therefore,

that which the Patriarchs transmitted to their children after them in a manner of &lt;b&gt;inheritance&lt;/b&gt;,

is not

(so)

(so)

connected with their level in intellect and comprehension of Divinity

(for example: the level of Abraham — intellect hidden from every concept&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;)

— because intellect does not have in a revealed way within itself

(so much)

the connection with the essence and inwardness that is transmitted through inheritance; rather, this is connected with their service in emotions — love, awe, and mercy,

since the nature of their emotions is connected with the inwardness of the soul.

8.

One of the instructions that one needs to extract simply from the matter:

The source of vitality of a Jew is Torah,

"for they are our life."

But the order of life of most people has been arranged

(according to &lt;b&gt;Torah&lt;/b&gt;)

in a manner,

that "their Torah is their craft" are few in number and generally &lt;b&gt;sitting in&lt;/b&gt; the tent,

settling in the tent of Torah — not like fish of the sea that are constantly within their source of vitality&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

Rather they go out into the world and there they must carry out the mission to make for Him a dwelling in the lower realms.

One must remember,

that “the man is a tree of the field” — a Jew must always be

bound to the source of his vitality: the vitality in Torah and mitzvos that he received while being in the tent of Torah before the time of “to pursue”⁴⁰ came

— must remain with him always,

until he <b>feels</b> that he is <b>now bound</b> to that time.

d.

h.

With him there must not be the feeling,

that he <b>once</b> studied in a cheder and yeshivah and he now remembers what he <b>once</b> felt and did — rather he feels <b>now</b> the <b>connection</b> with that time,

until he feels that this is his vitality <b>now</b> and in this his existence consists.

And on the other hand, the dwellers of the tent need to know,

that it is not enough Torah study alone,

because with intellect alone,

in which there are variations,

there is no guarantee that also afterwards, when one goes out from the tent of Torah, one should remain <b>bound</b> properly to Torah.

Specifically when the study is in a manner of "and you shall return it to your heart," Torah becomes <b>engraved</b> in the person in a manner of "I did not change"; and in whatever state he may find himself, he remains bound to the source of living waters — Torah and mitzvos.

Shabbos Parshas Beshalach 5740)