051 —מאמרים מלוקט חלק ג - ש"פ נשא, י"ד סיון ה'תשל"ב

B"H, Shabbos Parshas Nasso, 14 Sivan 5732.

BaYom HaSheini Hikriv Nesanel Ben Tzuar Nasi Yissachar Hikriv Es Karbono Go'.

Rashi explains why the verse repeats the word "hikriv" (he brought) twice regarding Nesanel ben Tzuar, the leader of Yissachar: for two reasons he merited to bring second of the tribes—because they were knowledgeable in Torah, as it says, "And from the children of Yissachar, those who know understanding of the times," and because they advised the leaders to volunteer these offerings. Yet, this raises a question: if these two reasons are so significant, seemingly Yissachar should have brought his offering first among the tribes. The Midrash further complicates this, stating that because of the advice of the leaders, the Torah considers it as if he brought first. Why, then, did Yehudah actually bring first and Yissachar only on the second day? Additionally, why does the verse say "Nesanel ben Tzuar, leader of Yissachar," putting his name before his title, unlike the other leaders, where the title precedes the name? Similarly, regarding the leader who brought on the first day, it says "Nachshon ben Aminadav, of the tribe of Yehudah," first the name, then the tribe.

2) This can be explained based on the Midrash on the verse "Nachshon ben Aminadav, of the tribe of Yehudah." Why is he called Nachshon? Because he was the first to descend into the waves of the sea—he who sanctified My Name at the sea should bring first. The Midrash singles out Nachshon because the verse does not call him "leader of Yehudah," implying that his merit to bring first was not only due to the tribe's greatness but also his personal merit, alluded to in his name. Similarly, with Nesanel ben Tzuar, the Torah puts his name before his title to hint that his merit to bring on the second day—and even more, that it is considered as if he brought first—comes from the quality hinted at in his name. Even though it says "leader of Yissachar" (unlike Nachshon), showing that his merit is also due to the tribe, the Torah still puts his name first, since the tribe's quality is reflected in his name.

It is explained in the discourses that the connection of Nachshon and Nesanel to Yehudah and Yissachar is as follows: Yehudah represents bittul (self-nullification)—hence his name, from "odeh" (I will thank), and so the leader of Yehudah was Nachshon, who was first to jump into the sea, an act of mesirus nefesh (self-sacrifice) and bittul. Yissachar represents Torah, and so his leader was Nesanel (letters of "nasan El"—G-d gave), since Torah is a gift. "Ben Tzuar" (son of Tzuar) comes from "tzar" (narrow, humble), for the vessel for Torah is bittul. This is why Yehudah brought before Yissachar: bittul precedes (and is higher than) Torah study. The root of Torah is in chochmah (wisdom), but through bittul, one draws down keter (the crown, above chochmah). But if so, why does the Torah consider Yissachar as if he brought first, even before Yehudah?

3) It is known that Yehudah represents action, as explained in discourses about the approach of Yehudah and Yosef. Thus, Yissachar and Yehudah correspond to study (talmud) and action (maaseh). Elsewhere it is explained that although the sages concluded that study is greater, since study leads to action, this itself proves that action is the main thing—because the root of action is higher than the root of study, and in the future, action will be greater. Thus, Yissachar being considered as if he brought first is like "study is greater," but Yehudah actually bringing first is because action is the main thing. Furthermore, the building of the Mishkan and the giving of the Torah are connected. The main Divine Presence began to descend at the giving of the Torah, but its full revelation was when the Mishkan was erected. Just as at the giving of the Torah the Jews said "na'aseh" (we will do) before "nishma" (we will hear/understand), emphasizing action over understanding, so too, at the inauguration of the Mishkan, Yehudah (action) brought before Yissachar (study).

4) However, since even "study is greater" is only because it leads to action, and action is the main thing, what is the difference between the usual order—study before action (both in time and in value)—and the special occasions of the giving of the Torah and the inauguration of the Mishkan, where action comes first? The explanation is that action is the main thing, even though it is the lowest faculty, because "the beginning is wedged in the end and the end in the beginning," and "the end of action is first in thought." The Rebbe Rashab explains that the end (action) is the completion of the process, but this completion is rooted in the very beginning. He gives the example of giving charity: it starts with arousing compassion, which leads to the desire to help, then to intellect and emotions, and finally to the act of giving. The main intent in arousing compassion is that it should result in actual giving. If it does not, even if all the higher faculties are aroused, the main thing is missing. Because the end is rooted in the beginning, the revelation of the beginning is specifically in the end, in the actual deed. "The end of action is first in thought" is even higher: it refers to the recipient's acceptance of the act, which is not dependent on the giver but on the recipient, and this reaches the very essence, higher than the root of the giving itself. The pleasure the giver has when the recipient accepts the gift is greater than the pleasure in the act of giving itself.

Just as this is true in giving, so too in all action: the end is the act itself, which is the lowest faculty, and comes last. First comes pleasure, then will, intellect, emotions, thought, speech, and finally action. The end is wedged in the beginning and the beginning in the end: the root of action is in pleasure, which is the "beginning" and the cause of all faculties. The revelation of pleasure is specifically in action. The main aspect of "end of action" is the act that is accomplished through the person's deed, which is not dependent on the person's will. For example, a craftsman cannot guarantee that his work will be successful—this depends on the outcome, not just the effort. The pleasure in seeing the work completed perfectly is greater than the pleasure in the act of working itself; the latter is a composite pleasure, while the former is a simple, pure pleasure.

5) It is known that the greatness of man begins with his faculty of speech (whereas action exists even in animals). Thus, the two aspects of action—the act performed by the person (the end), and the act as it exists independently (the end of action)—have parallels in human activity. The fact that the person's faculties (intellect, emotions, thought, speech) are drawn into action is like the act performed by the person, while the act itself, as distinct from the higher faculties, is like the act outside the person, accomplished through his deed. The difference in their root in the soul is that the root of the act connected to the higher faculties is in the revealed aspect of the soul, which enables the faculties to descend and be invested in action. But the root of the act itself (as distinct from the faculties) is in the essence of the soul—like "the end of action is first in thought," whose root is in the very beginning, higher than the root of the influence.

It can be said that in the advantage of action, in that it reveals the infinite aspect of the soul above the faculties, the intellect and emotions are before and above action. Since the revelation of the infinite aspect of the soul is that the intellect and emotions are drawn into action, the intellect and emotions precede and are higher than action. The advantage of action here is not in the act itself, but in the fact that the intellect and emotions are invested in it. This explains why "study is greater, for it leads to action"—the advantage of action over study in this level is that study brings to action, and this is through the infinite aspect above study itself, so study is greater. But in the advantage of action as its root is in the essence of the soul, action is before and above all faculties. This is why before the giving of the Torah, the Jews said "na'aseh" before "nishma," and at the inauguration of the Mishkan, Yehudah (action) brought before Yissachar (study), because at the giving of the Torah and the building of the Mishkan, the essence was drawn down, and there, action precedes study.

6) This explanation—that Yehudah brought first because of the advantage of action—can be connected to the earlier explanation (section 2) that Yehudah brought first because he represents bittul, since bittul is found in action. The higher faculties, since they are about greatness and perfection, and as explained above (section 5) that man's greatness begins with speech, their bittul to the soul is not complete. Only the faculty of action, which is not man's greatness, has complete bittul to the soul. In action itself, the main bittul is in the level of action as it is distinct from the higher faculties. When the higher faculties are invested in action, there is an advantage, so it is a "metzius" (entity). The main bittul is in the act itself (distinct from the higher faculties), for since it has no advantage, it feels that its entire existence is only from the soul.

This can be connected to the idea that the root of action is in the essence of the soul, where there is no room for anything outside the soul. Thus, the fact that the root of action is in the essence of the soul is because its entire existence is only from the essence of the soul. Similarly, above (in the difference between Torah and mitzvos), the will for mitzvos is in the act of mitzvos (and in physical things), even though the act has no value, because the root of mitzvos is in the Essence. Therefore, the main bittul is in the act of mitzvos. Even the will for the intention in mitzvos is not because of its advantage, but because so it arose in His will. But the revelation of this is in the act of mitzvos, and through this it is revealed that so it is also in the intention. Similarly in Torah, even though Torah is wisdom (and above, Torah is His wisdom), the unity of Torah and the Holy One is not because of the advantage of Torah, but because so it arose in His will. The revelation of this is in mitzvos, and through mitzvos it is revealed in Torah as well.

7) This is the meaning of "on the second day Nesanel ben Tzuar brought"—"Tzuar" from "tzar" (humble). After the bittul of Yehudah in mitzvos, Nesanel ben Tzuar brought this bittul into Torah study as well. Therefore, the Torah considers it as if he brought first, even though Yehudah is higher than Yissachar (as explained in section 2, Yehudah is keter, Yissachar is chochmah). The idea of "brought first" is that he drew the bittul of keter (the beginning) into chochmah. The phrase "as if he brought first" (not "as if he brought on the first day") also hints at the bittul from the level of "beginning before the beginning of thought," where the end of action (mitzvos) is rooted, and Nesanel brought this bittul into Torah as well. It can also be said that "as if he brought first" means before Yehudah, for bringing bittul into Torah is an even greater novelty and thus higher than the bittul in mitzvos. Through the bittul of Tzuar that was in him, Nesanel (letters of "nasan El"—G-d gave) merited to receive the Torah as a gift.

Summary

This maamar explores the deeper meaning behind the order of the tribal offerings, teaching that action (maaseh) and self-nullification (bittul) precede and elevate Torah study. The Rebbe explains how both action and study are rooted in the soul's essence, and true spiritual accomplishment requires both qualities.