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

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

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

Rashi explains why the verse repeats "hikriv" (offered) twice regarding Nesanel ben Tzuar, the Nasi of Yissachar: for two reasons he merited to offer for two tribes—one, because they were knowledgeable in Torah, as it says, "and from the children of Yissachar, those who know understanding for the times"^[1], and two, because they advised the Nesi'im to bring these offerings. However, if so, seemingly Yissachar should have been the first to bring an offering. The Midrash^[2] further says that because of the advice of the Nesi'im, the Torah considers it as if he offered first. This makes it even more puzzling why Yehudah actually brought the first offering and Yissachar only on the second day. Also, why does the verse say "Nesanel ben Tzuar, Nasi Yissachar," mentioning his name before his title, unlike the other Nesi'im, where the title comes first? Similarly, regarding the Nasi who brought on the first day, it says "Nachshon ben Aminadav, of the tribe of Yehudah," with the name first and then the tribe.

2) This can be explained based on the Midrash^[3] 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; whoever sanctified My Name at the sea should offer first. The Midrash focuses on his name because the verse does not call him "Nasi Yehudah," implying that his merit to offer first was not only due to the tribe's greatness but also his own. Since a person's name hints at his essence, the Midrash asks why he is called Nachshon and explains that his unique quality was sanctifying Hashem's Name, which is why he offered first. Similarly, with Nesanel ben Tzuar, the Torah mentions his name before his title to hint that his merit to offer on the second day, and even to be considered as if he offered first, comes from the quality hinted at in his name. Even though it says "Nasi Yissachar" (unlike Nachshon), showing that his merit is connected to the tribe, still, his name comes first to indicate that the tribe's quality is embodied in him.

It is explained in the discourses^[4] that the connection of Nachshon and Nesanel to Yehudah and Yissachar is as follows: Yehudah represents bittul (self-nullification), which is why he is called Yehudah, from the phrase "I will thank (odeh) Hashem"^[5]. Therefore, the Nasi of Yehudah was Nachshon, who was the first to jump into the sea—an act of mesirus nefesh (self-sacrifice), a form of bittul. Yissachar represents Torah. Thus, the Nasi of Yissachar was Nesanel (letters of "Nasan El"—Hashem gave), because 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 offered before Yissachar: bittul precedes Torah study, for the root of Torah is in chochmah (wisdom), and through bittul one draws down keter, which is above chochmah. However, if so, why does the Torah consider Yissachar as if he offered first—even before Yehudah?

3) It is known that Yehudah represents action (as explained in discourses about Yehudah and Yosef^[6]), and thus Yissachar and Yehudah represent study and action. Elsewhere^[7] it is explained that although it was concluded that study is greater^[8], this is only because study leads to action, which shows that action is the main thing, since its root is higher than study, and in the future, action will be greater^[9]. Therefore, the Torah considers the Nasi of Yissachar as if he offered first (like "study is greater"), but in practice, Yehudah offered first because action is the main thing. Furthermore, the building of the Mishkan and the giving of the Torah are connected. As the Midrash says^[10] on the verse "Basi LeGani," the main Shechinah descended at Matan Torah, but the main revelation was when the Mishkan was erected. Just as at Matan Torah the Jews said "Na'aseh" before "Nishma" (action before understanding), so too, at the dedication of the Mishkan, Yehudah (action) offered 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, and study is greater) and the special cases of Matan Torah and the Mishkan, where action comes first? The explanation is that action is the main thing, even though it is the lowest faculty, because "their end is wedged in their beginning and their beginning in their end"^[11], and "the end of action is in the original thought"^[12]. The Rebbe Rashab explains^[13] that the difference between these two concepts is that "their end" refers to the completion of the process, which is rooted in the beginning. For example, when giving tzedakah, it starts with compassion, which leads to the desire to help, which is then drawn into intellect and emotions, and finally into action—actually giving. The main purpose of the compassion is the actual giving. If it doesn't result in action, the main point is missing. Because the end is rooted in the beginning, the revelation of the beginning is specifically in the end—in the action. "The end of action in the original thought" is even higher: it refers to the recipient's acceptance of the gift, which is not dependent on the giver but on the receiver, and this reaches the very beginning, higher than the source of the giving. Therefore, the pleasure the giver has when the recipient accepts the gift is even greater than the pleasure of giving itself.

Just as this is true in giving, so too in all actions: the end is the action itself, which is called "their end" because it is the lowest faculty, and the action comes last. First comes pleasure, which leads to desire, intellect, and emotions, which are invested in thought and speech, and finally action^[14]. "Their end is wedged in their beginning and their beginning in their 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 end of action" is not the act itself, but the result achieved through the person's action, which is not dependent on the person's will. For example, a craftsman cannot guarantee the success of his work; that depends on the outcome, not on the craftsman. The pleasure of seeing the work completed beautifully is greater than the pleasure of the work itself, as explained in the discourses.

5) It is known^[15] that the greatness of man begins with his faculty of speech^[16] (whereas action exists even in animals). Thus, the two aspects of action—man's act (their end) and the result achieved through his act (the end of action)—exist also in human action. The investment of the higher faculties (intellect, emotions, thought, speech) into action is like man's act, while the action itself (as distinct from the higher faculties) is like the result achieved through his act. The difference between these two aspects in the soul is that the root of action connected to the higher faculties is in the revealed part of the soul, while the root of the action itself is in the essence of the soul. The faculties themselves are separate and cannot descend so low as to invest in action; only through the soul's influence can they do so. But this is only the revealed aspect of the soul—like "their end is wedged in their beginning." The root of the action itself is in the essence of the soul—like "the end of action is in the original thought," which is higher than the source of the giving.

It can be said that the greatness of action, in that it reveals the unlimited aspect of the soul above the faculties, is that intellect and emotions precede and are above action. Since the revelation of the unlimited aspect of the soul is that intellect and emotions are invested in action, intellect and emotions come before and are higher than action. The advantage of action in this respect is not in the act itself, but in the fact that intellect and emotions are invested in it. This explains why "study is greater because it leads to action"—the advantage of action over study is that study leads to action, and this is because the unlimited aspect above study is drawn into study, making study greater. But in the aspect where the root of action itself is in the essence of the soul, action is before and above all faculties. This is why before Matan Torah, the Jews said "Na'aseh" before "Nishma," and at the dedication of the Mishkan, Yehudah (action) offered before Yissachar (study), because at Matan Torah and the Mishkan, the essence was drawn down, and there, action precedes study.

6) This explanation—that Yehudah offered first because of the greatness of action—can be connected with the earlier explanation (section 2) that Yehudah offered first because Yehudah represents bittul, since bittul is found in action. The higher faculties, since they are about greatness and perfection (as explained above, that the greatness of man begins with speech), their bittul to the soul is not complete. Only the faculty of action, which is not the main greatness of man, is completely nullified to the soul^[17]. In action itself, the main bittul is in the aspect of action that is separate from the higher faculties. When the higher faculties are invested in action, there is an advantage in that the unlimited aspect of the soul is revealed, so it has some "existence." The main bittul is in the action itself, which is separate from the higher faculties, because it has no advantage of its own, so 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 root of action in the essence of the soul is because its entire existence is only from the essence^[18]. 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 itself has no value, because the root of mitzvos is in the Essence^[19]. Therefore, the main bittul is in the act of mitzvos. Even the desire for the intention in mitzvos is not because of the advantage of the intention, but because so Hashem willed. However, this is revealed in the act of mitzvos, and through this it is revealed that this is also true in the intention. Similarly in Torah: although Torah is wisdom, and above, Torah is Hashem's wisdom, the unity of Torah and Hashem is not because of the advantage of Torah, but because so Hashem willed. This is revealed 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 offered"—Tzuar from "tzar" (humble). After the bittul of Yehudah in mitzvos, Nesanel ben Tzuar drew this bittul into Torah study. Therefore, the Torah considers it as if he offered first—even though Yehudah is higher than Yissachar, and as explained above, Yehudah is keter and Yissachar is chochmah—because "offered first" means he drew the bittul of keter (the beginning) into chochmah. The phrase "as if he offered first" (and not "as if he offered on the first day") also hints at the bittul from the level of the beginning before the beginning of thought, where the end of action (the act of mitzvos) is rooted, and Nesanel drew this bittul into Torah. One can also say that "as if he offered first" means before Yehudah, for drawing bittul into Torah is an even greater novelty and thus higher than the bittul in mitzvos. Through the bittul of Tzuar, Nesanel (letters of "Nasan El"—Hashem gave) merited to receive Torah as a gift.

Summary

This maamar teaches that while Torah study is essential, true spiritual elevation comes through action and bittul—self-nullification. Yehudah represents action and bittul, which precede and empower Torah study (Yissachar). The ultimate Divine will is revealed through the humble act of mitzvos.