English translation — תזריע א

1.

Already spoken many times¹,

that the names of the parshiyos in the Torah are not merely a sign used in order to divide one parshah from the second,

but every name — as in general “the names²

that are called in them in the Holy Tongue” — shows and expresses the content of the relevant parshah,

and therefore we see that several parshiyos are called <b>not</b> with the word with which they begin,

but with a later word,

because specifically <b>that</b> word shows the content of the parshah*².

And so it is also regarding the current parshah,

that it is called

(i.e., the &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;)

&lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; by the name "Ishah"

(although this is the first word — after the &lt;b&gt;general&lt;/b&gt; introduction: Vayidaber G-d etc. L'emor — with which the parshah begins),

but by the name "Tazria".

One must understand what is the unique aspect in the word "Tazria"&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;,

that by virtue of this it contains within itself the content of the entire parshah?

One must understand even more: On "Isha ki tazria" Rashi brings in his commentary on the Torah

(from Midrash Rabbah⁵)

: "Said R' Simlai: Just as the formation of man came after every beast, animal, and fowl in the work of creation, so his Torah was expounded after the Torah of beast, animal, and fowl."

What from this is understandable,

that the function of our parshah regarding the matters that are spoken about in the previous parshah is,

that there the Torah of "beast, animal, and fowl" was expounded,

and in our parshah — the Torah of <b>man</b>.

And since it is so,

it comes out,

that the word "Isha" is not merely the beginning of the parshah,

but it also points to its content — the Torah of <b>man</b>,

now why specifically is the parshah called not by the name "Isha",

but by the name "Tazria"?

One must say,

that the superiority of "Toras HaAdam" — which <b>that</b> is the content of the parshah — expresses itself in the word "Tazria".

B.

From the language of our Sages of blessed memory mentioned above "<b>Just as</b> his formation etc. <b>so</b> his Torah etc." it is proven,

that that which "his Torah

(of man)

was expounded after the Torah of beast, bird, and fowl" is it

it would have said "<b>Because</b> his creation etc.⁶

And since it says "<b>Just as</b> his creation etc.",

it is proven,

that that which his Torah comes at the end,

it is]

Because of the same reason that his creation was at the end.

What is indeed the reason that man was created at the end — says the Midrash itself there&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;

: that if man will conduct himself not as he should "they say to him, a gnat preceded you, a worm preceded you"

"so that the heretics should not say there was a partner to the Holy One, blessed be He, in the work of creation": "so that he should enter into a mitzvah immediately"; "so that he should enter into a meal immediately"].

Therefore the commentators ask&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;,

all these reasons are apparently relevant only regarding &lt;b&gt;His creation&lt;/b&gt; but not regarding &lt;b&gt;His Torah&lt;/b&gt;.

Now why does the Midrash say "&lt;b&gt;Just as&lt;/b&gt;

(and not "because")

his creation etc. so his Torah etc." ?

Is the explanation in this: the Alter Rebbe in Tanya

explains,

that the lowliness of man relative to all other creations,

even relative to unclean animals and even relative to a mosquito,

is not only when he commits a transgression <b>in practice</b>

(and as the simple language of the aforementioned midrash),

but also from the fact that he "<b>can</b> desire forbidden things": with that alone he is already "worse and more abominable and more loathsome than unclean animals and creeping things and reptiles",

because all of them

(not only that they do not sin <b>in practice</b> but)

"are not

<b>able</b> to transgress at all against His will."

And based on this one will understand the aforementioned statement of our Sages of blessed memory "Just as his formation etc. so his Torah etc.",

because <b>the</b> lowliness of man who <b>can</b> desire a matter that is "against His will" — just as this is the reason for that which he was <b>created</b> "after every beast, animal, and bird",

so too is it the reason for that which "<b>his Torah</b> was expounded after the Torah of beast, animal, and bird",

and as follows.

3.

The order in Torah,

4.

5.

How a Jew begins to learn and learns Torah,

is from the light to the heavy.

Both in the content of the study: ben¹²

chamesh lamikra ben eser lamishnah etc. — and in them themselves: yilmod¹³

adam Torah ve'achar yahageh

(see etc. to raise a difficulty etc.)

— both in the manner of study: one does not begin immediately from study of Torah lishmah in the highest manner — like "David

(who)

was a connector of Torah above in the Holy One, blessed be He"¹⁴,

but according to the ruling of our Sages¹⁵

: at first when a person acts, he acts for his own sake.

(In the <b>giving</b> of the Torah the order is reversed: first a higher level and then a lower level.

And as is the order in the verse¹⁶

: "And I was with Him as a nursling",

and only then "and my delights with the sons of men".

Thus is the order of the drawing down of the Torah from above to below¹⁷.

By the study and work of man, however, the order is — from below upward,

from the light to the heavy).

And just as the order in the generalities of the study of Torah is from below upward,

so too is the order of the study of the portions: first come the easier matters,

and only later the more difficult ones.

And therefore "his Torah

(of a person)

is expounded after the Torah of beast, animal, and bird,"

because the clarification — the "to distinguish between the unclean and the clean"¹⁸

— of beast, animal, and bird,

since "they are unable at all to transgress His will, may He be blessed,"

their clarification is easier than the clarification of the person.

According to the above explanation it is understandable,

that the view of R. Shmelai regarding that the person was created last is <b>not</b> because of his <b>advantage</b> — "so that he should enter the feast immediately" — because then there would be no rationale for that <b>his Torah</b> is expounded after the Torah of beast, etc.

his clarification must come more easily,

then consequently his "Torah" should have been interpreted <b>earlier</b> than the Torah of an animal etc.],

But <b>on the contrary</b>,

from the perspective of his deficiency — that which he was created from a coarse material,

and he is inclined to evil etc. more than animals¹⁹,

and it is <b>harder</b> to "turn him back" with him,

as above.

4.

Based on the above, one will also understand the connection of the maamar "Just as his creation etc., so his Torah etc.,"

to the author of the maamar — R' Shmuelai ²⁰

A quality of a thing can come in two ways: a)

It is given from Above — whether from the side of the offspring,

or it is given as a gift to another.

The creation; but one did not toil for it.

b)

From the side of labor; one toils for it and earns it.

In each of the two ways there is a unique advantage: in the virtues of the first type there is an advantage,

that the virtues are not limited: because they come from above,

they do not have upon themselves any limitations; unlike the virtues that come through avodah.

On the other hand,

the virtues that come through the avodah of man have in themselves an advantage in that they are &lt;b&gt;in his innerness&lt;/b&gt;: the matters which one receives as a gift from above or one has them by virtue of heredity,

since the recipient has not labored for them,

it may be that he is no vessel for them,

and consequently they do not affect him in his innerness.

But the virtues which &lt;b&gt;he&lt;/b&gt; has labored for,

they affect him,

and they are connected and they enter into his innerness&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;.

And in this consists the difference between the two reasons for the creation of man last: When one speaks about the virtues which come as a gift from Above — then man is higher in his virtue over all other creatures immediately from the beginning of his creation,

as soon as he is only born,

even before he has begun to work: he has within himself the divine soul which is a part of G-d from above literally.

And although he can, Heaven forbid, be a rebel against his Creator — a terrible deficiency which no other creature possesses — he nevertheless does not thereby lose his inborn virtue,

the virtue of his soul,

for even at the time of sin it is entrusted with Him, may He be blessed²³.

When one speaks, however, about the types of virtues that come from the side of service,

regarding them man at the beginning of his creation is not higher than all creatures.

And on the contrary,

that which is in him <b>in revelation</b> is a material prone to sin

(for the virtue of his soul is still in concealment,

he must first reveal it through his service).

And therefore one learns,

that the reason that he was created last is so that they should say to him: a gnat preceded you.

5.

And this is the connection of the maamar "Just as his creation etc." — which teaches that the reason why man was created last is because of his deficiency — to Reish Lakish:

Reish Lakish was not of yichus (lineage)

(until Rabbi Yochanan refrained from teaching him the book of lineage)²⁴.

And therefore his way was: one must work hard for everything; with him it "lay",

that a virtue is something that one works hard to attain.

And therefore he teaches,

that the reason for "the creation of man after all beast, animal, and fowl" is because of "a mosquito preceded you"²⁵

: his <b>virtue</b>,

he will attain only later,

when he will work hard,

as follows.

And based on this, one will also understand the reason why the parshah which speaks about "Torat HaAdam" is called by the name "Tazria",

because "Tazria"

(feminine gender)

indicates &lt;b&gt;avodah&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

And as it is stated in Likkutei Torah&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;,

that "ish mazria techilah" indicates an it'aruta d'leila,

a gift from above; but "&lt;b&gt;ishah&lt;/b&gt; ki tazria" indicates an it'aruta d'letata — &lt;b&gt;avodat&lt;/b&gt; ha'adam,

and the virtues that he receives through this are not "given",

but rather &lt;b&gt;earned&lt;/b&gt;.

6.

A deeper matter in this:

From the principle "the end deed is in thought first"&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;,

it is understandable that according to all reasons

(also according to the reason that the creation of man last is from the aspect of "a gnat preceded you")

one must say,

that that which man was created last is it from the aspect of his &lt;b&gt;advantage&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;29 &lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

— that he is the ultimate intention of the entire creation.

But the difference is: according to the reason "so that he should enter the meal immediately"

(and the like),

man has &lt;b&gt;from&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;himself&lt;/b&gt; — immediately at his creation,

an advantage over all created beings

(because the advantage of his &lt;b&gt;soul&lt;/b&gt;,

is present in him at all times,

as above section 4)

; and according to the reason "a gnat preceded you",

from himself he is actually &lt;b&gt;lower&lt;/b&gt; than all created beings

(from the aspect of that his &lt;b&gt;body&lt;/b&gt; is from a coarsest material).

And that which he specifically

(also from the aspect of &lt;b&gt;the body&lt;/b&gt;)

is first in thought,

is it from the aspect of the elevation that he will achieve only through his service&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;.

And the elevation to which he will come through his service,

is connected with the body itself that from the perspective of his body he is <b>lower</b> than all creations:

From the perspective of the body itself that the body of man is of a coarse material,

lower than a gnat — when he causes that the man formed from <b>the earth</b> should be a man from the term <b>earth</b> to the supernal³¹

he innovates a new reality³².

And through this there is revealed in him the power of the Essence,

because the power to innovate something from nothing is only in the power of the Essence³³.

7.

And based on this, one could say,

that in the name "Tazria" is expressed

(not only the <b>essence</b> of the service, as above at the end of the section,

but)

also the <b>quality</b> of the service:

In general it is known³⁴,

that the matter of birth is a renewal of something from nothing,

but the renewal is not in the birth itself,

but in the "Tazria": the birth is only a revelation of the hidden,

because even before the birth the fetus already existed in concealment,

and through the birth it only came out into revelation.

The renewal, however,

came about through the "Tazria"

(only through the birth does one know that the insemination was proper).

And therefore they call the Sidra by the name "Tazria",

because in this word is expressed the elevation that is brought about through avodah,

as above.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Tazria 5725)