Parashas Naso - The Parasha of Nazir

Topics

• The Meaning of “Nezer Elokav Al Rosho”
• The Question from “Vetimei Rosh Nizro”
• The Meaning of “Rosh Nizro”
• The Midrash: Hair Becomes a Crown Through the Mitzvah
• “Se’ar Rosh Nizro”
• Reading “Se’ar Rosh Nizro”
• The Sifrei Zuta on Nezirus and the Head
• Repeating the Reading of the Pasuk
• The Ohr HaChaim’s Question
• The Approach That the Hair Is the Crown
• The Nazirus Is in the Head
• Wine and the Loss of Daas
• Wine, Taavah, and Daas
• Wine as a Gateway to Taavah
• The Rambam: The Damage Caused by Wine
• Rabbeinu Bachya and the Sforno: Taavah and Prishus
• Ibn Ezra and the Chinuch: Wine Ruins Daas and Avodas Hashem
• Wine, Das, and Ta’avah
• How Much Wine Is the Nazir Drinking?
• The Size of a Revi’is
• Purim and Losing Das
• The Rambam’s Shitah and Losing Daas
• The Nazir and Wine
• Dei’ah and Daas
• Ata Chonein La’adam Daas
• Chochmah of Kedushah and the Kedushah of the Nazir
• The Words of Reb Simcha Zissel
• Rav Yerucham on the Nazir
• Kedushah as Separation
• Daas, Havdalah, and Kedushah
• Rav Yerucham and the Nazir
• The Eitz HaDaas
• Chava’s Desire for Haskel
• “Yahiv Chochmah L’Chachimin”
• Chava’s Search for Extra Da’as
• The Question of Touching the Eitz HaDas
• The Kedushah of the Eitz HaDaas
• No Is No
• Both Ta’avah and Haskalah
• The Nefesh HaChaim: Before and After the Eitz HaDaas

Transcript

# The Meaning of “Nezer Elokav Al Rosho”

This shiur is brought to you by the Lev Ahron Foundation. For more, visit levahronlibrary.com.

The Torah tells us about the Nazir, in Perek Vav, Pasuk Zayin, that the Nazir may not become tamei. Why? Because “nezer Elokav al rosho”—the crown of HaKadosh Baruch Hu, his God, is upon his head.

What does “nezer Elokav al rosho” mean? Where is this crown? What is it referring to?

The simple pshat would seem to be that it is an expression of his nesius, his elevated status. Nazir is royalty; a Nazir is a cut above everyone else. To express that elevation, the Torah uses the word nezer, a crown. Why “al rosho,” upon his head? Because that is where a crown is placed. That would seem to be the simple implication of the pasuk: the Nazir is crowned.

What is the crown? He is not an average person. The word Nazir itself means to be separated from something. But we also find that it is used as nezer, a crown. In what sense, then, does the Nazir have a crown on his head? Because he is elevated. He is special. Very well said: he is special, and a crown is on the head, so the pasuk says, “nezer Elokav al rosho.”

But I will show you from the reading of the pesukim that this cannot be the pshat. It cannot be that it simply means he is a special, elevated person, as if he is wearing a crown, and the crown is on his head.

## The Question from “Vetimei Rosh Nizro”

Let us read Pasuk Tes. What happens if someone is a Nazir, and unfortunately someone dies next to him? The pasuk says, “Vechi yamus meis alav b’fesa pis’om”—it was not planned; it happened suddenly. “Vetimei rosh nizro”—he made tamei the head of his nezer.

What does that mean, “the head”? He was metamei the head of his Nazirus? Is a person a Nazir only in his head and not in his body? He is a Nazir. So what is the Torah referring to?

If the Torah means to say that he became tamei, that he ruined his Nazirus, then why does it say, “vetimei rosh nizro”? What is “rosh”? “Vetimei” means he was metamei, he ruined. He ruined “rosh nizro.” But if “nezer” means the crown, then the pasuk should have said, “vetimei nezer rosho”—he made tamei the crown of his head—not “rosh nizro,” the head of his crown. What does that mean?

The Or HaChaim HaKadosh asks this question. The word “rosh” appears to be extra and out of place. What does it mean?

The Or HaChaim gives two pshatim. The first pshat is that this refers to tum’as haguf, the body.

## The Meaning of “Rosh Nizro”

The Torah seems to be saying that not only did the body of the Nazir become tamei, but also the kedushah that he has on his head became tamei. What does that mean? Does it mean the crown? What is the kedushah that he has on his head? The pasuk says, “nezer Elokav al rosho.” So the nezer, the kedushah, is on his head.

But then it should have written, “v’timei nezer rosho.” What is “rosh nizro”? There is no “rosh” in the nezer. So it is not simply the nezer; it is something else, something called the “rosh” of the nezer. That is what is unclear here. The pasuk is missing definition and description.

Then the Or HaChaim says that “rosh” does not mean his physical head. “Rosh” means the beginning. Meaning, the beginning days do not count. If he observed fifteen days and now wants to do another fifteen days, it is not enough. The whole first fifteen are no good; he has to begin again. That is “tamei rosh nizro”: the beginning, the head, the techilah, became tamei.

So the first pshat is that it is about the nezer, the crown. The second pshat is that it has nothing to do with his head; it has to do with the beginning days. But what does the Or HaChaim mean in the first pshat? It is vague. The kedushah, the head, the nezer, the crown—it is not clear.

## The Midrash: Hair Becomes a Crown Through the Mitzvah

I saw a very interesting Midrash. The Midrash says: take a look at a bloris. A bloris is not a nice thing. Halachah tells us that a person is not supposed to have a bloris, long hair here, because of a chatzitzah with tefillin. It is also mishukatz; it is a sign of someone unkempt.

Yet by a Nazir, when he lets his hair grow, it becomes a crown.

Let me read the lashon of the Midrash: “Come and see how the mitzvos give beauty to Klal Yisrael.” We say, “Yisrael b’sifarah.” What is that referring to? Tefillin? The mitzvos. What is so beautiful about the tefillin? It is beautiful because it is a cheftza shel mitzvah. A Yid has ornaments of mitzvah.

Here also, the hair becomes an ornament. The Midrash says that long hair is not a pretty thing for a person. A bum on the Bowery keeps his hair long, and a Nazir also keeps his hair long. Does that make sense? When a person is untidy and not groomed, he lets his hair grow. It is nivul for a person; he does not wash and he does not cut his hair. But this Nazir, who does it as a mitzvah, the Torah calls his hair a crown.

According to this Midrash, what is the nezer? It is the hair. The nezer is the hair itself. You want to know what crown he wears? The hair itself is his crown.

## “Se’ar Rosh Nizro”

Let us read pasuk yud-ches. It discusses the cutting of the hair. The pasuk says, “se’ar rosh nizro.”

If “nizro” means his hair, then we can say that “rosh nizro” means the hair of his head. Here it is a little different: “nizro” is actually the hair, and that is called “se’ar rosh nizro.”

But I thought “nizro” is the “se’ar rosh.” It is the hair—unless it is supposed to be read together: “se’ar,” which is “rosh nizro.”

## Reading “Se’ar Rosh Nizro”

The way you would have to read it is: *se’ar*, which is *rosh nizro* — his head, which has the crown. The question, of course, is that the trop, the *te’amim*, are not *mashma* that way. If you look at the *te’amim*, it is *se’ar*, and then *rosh nizro*. It should have been *se’ar rosh nizro*. It is vague.

To say that it is referring to the hair, and that the hair is his *nezer*, I was not happy with that. So what did I do? I went to look at Chazal.

## The Sifrei Zuta on Nezirus and the Head

I found in Chazal, in the Sifrei Zuta — there are two Sifre: Sifrei Rabsa and Sifrei Zuta. They are the teachings of Chazal on the pesukim. There Chazal say that this teaches us that the *nezirus* is in his head.

Now we are starting to see something about the head. The *nezer* is a *nezer* in his body, but there is something unique, something specific about *rosh*, that the *nezirus* has to do with the *rosh*.

Does Chazal mean *rosh* in the hair? Is that what it means? The truth is, *al rosh* means “on the head.” What is the only thing that is on the head? Hair. Obviously, the Midrash is saying more. Chazal are trying to tell us that the crown is on his head, and that is because the actual *nezirus* has to do with his head — and we do not mean the hair. So what do we mean?

## Repeating the Reading of the Pasuk

If it is okay with you, I want to repeat this, and I will tell you why. It is very nice to come here and discuss philosophical things. It is also very important to read, to learn the Chumash inside, and to have a way of learning the pasuk. The pasuk is very important. That is half of what I try to teach you: to read. So give me a minute to repeat it, so you can see the reading of the pasuk.

Think for a minute how you would translate the idea that the Nazir is special, and therefore he should not make himself pasul. What does it mean? Nazir means a crown. So the crown of Hashem is on his head. What is that referring to?

Of course, it means that he is kasher, that he is a lofty person, not a regular person. So *keser* is meant to express that. If you want to say someone is special, you say he has a crown on his head; he is royal. Since a *keser* is usually on the head, that is *nezer Elokav al rosho*.

But I showed you that in the next pasuk, when he ruins the *nezirus*, it says that he was *tamei* not the *nezer*, but *tamei rosh nizro*. So there is something about the head, not only about the crown. He is ruining the head of his *nizro*. What does that mean? Are you saying he ruins the head that is wearing the crown? What is it referring to?

## The Ohr HaChaim’s Question

The Ohr HaChaim says this is a good question. We have to know what that word is doing there. It does not fit; it is out of place.

The Ohr HaChaim explains one of two things. Either it is referring to the crown, and because the crown is on the head, therefore it says *rosh nizro*. He uses that word because the *kedushah* is on the head. So it is not simply that the crown happens to be worn on the head. The *kedushah* is the crown. What is the crown? What are we referring to? We are referring to a *kedushah*, something spiritual, and that is *berosh*. Mainly, the pasuk says *nezer Elokav al rosho*, and therefore it says *tamei rosh*, because that is where the *kedushah* is. That is where the *nezer* is.

## The Approach That the Hair Is the Crown

*Lema’aseh*, there is an interesting *mehalech* that the crown is his hair. Since he is not cutting it, *leshem Shamayim*, the hair itself is a crown. But it does not fit with the pesukim so well. Later, when we talk about cutting the hair, the pasuk says *se’ar rosh nizro*. So you cannot say that the *se’ar* is the crown, because it says he cut *se’ar*, which is on *rosh nizro* — the hair which is on the *rosh*. You see that it is something else, unless it is—

## The Nazirus Is in the Head

The ta’amim do not indicate that it is read together. Rather, it is separate: **rosh lizro**. What does that mean?

I found in the Midrash Chazal that the nazirus is **b’rosh**, “in the head.” What does it mean that the nazirus is in the head?

I found Rabbeinu Bechaye—not in Bamidbar, not in this week’s parashah, but in Vayikra, in the hakdamah to Chumash Vayikra. He says, **“Libi omer li”**—my heart tells me; that is Rabbeinu Bechaye’s expression. My heart tells me that this is why the Torah uses and emphasizes the word **rosh** so many times.

If you notice, again and again by nazir there is **rosh**, **rosh lizro**, **rosho**. There is such an emphasis on the head. What is the emphasis on the head? He brings a few examples: **ta’ar lo ya’avor al rosho**, and **tamei rosh nizro**.

Why? **Ki haporesh atzmo min hayayin, mi kol davar hamashker**—as one separates himself from wine and from anything intoxicating—**asher heim hamekapchim u’mevatlim mimenu hadaas**, because these things cut off and remove a person’s daas. When a person drinks, he loses his senses; he is not there. His mind is being ruined—killing brain cells, as they say in English. **Harei ki yado lo b’shmiras hadaas**; this person has protection of daas. And where is the daas? **B’rosho**, in his head.

That is why, by nazirus, there is such an emphasis on **rosho**. Now I understand what the Midrash, the Sifri, is saying: **melamed shehanazirus**—the ikar part of the nazirus—is **b’rosho**. What does that mean?

In beautiful terminology, it is not primarily an action, what he does, but a concept, what he thinks. It is a **machshavah**. Nazirus is more than just what he is doing. It is about the daas, what is in his head. It is in his head, not on his body. It is not about the external; it is internal. It is **b’rosho**.

That is probably what the Ohr HaChaim also means when he says **kedushah**. **Tamei rosh**—what does **tamei rosh** mean? The **kedushah sheb’rosho**, the holiness that is in his head. There is something about **kedushas nazir** that is unique to the **rosh**. What is that? The whole body is kadosh, yes, but there is a specificity—if that is the right word; more or less, something specific to the **rosh**. Nazirus is about the **rosh** more than it is about the action.

You might have said it is the action: he is a nazir, he stays away from this and that, and he is holy, acting like a holy man. No. It is the mind. It is in the mind. That is the sugya of nazirus.

## Wine and the Loss of Daas

I want to discuss this a little in the Rishonim. Just as a side note: is that true, that the reason he should not drink wine is because wine takes away daas?

This is a machlokes Rishonim. The Rambam, in Moreh Nevuchim, says that the real problem with wine, and the reason a nazir should not drink wine, is because wine brings out the worst in people. The worst comes out. The Gemara says that there is nothing that brought more damage to the world than wine. Wine makes a person **shikker**, and that leads to all the degrading behavior in the world. The truth comes out with wine, right?

I want to be specific. The Rambam does not say more than this: wine is a destructive force. Wine is a destructive force.

Rabbeinu Bechaye continues with that concept of the Rambam on the pasuk of **yayin v’sheichar al teisht**. My impression is that there is a little bit of a difference between the Rambam and Rabbeinu Bechaye. The Rambam is discussing the damage that comes from wine. Rabbeinu Bechaye discusses the **taavah**: that a person who drinks wine is giving in to taavah. Wine is one of the biggest addictions. You see that wine is a tremendous addiction.

# Wine, Taavah, and Daas

## Wine as a Gateway to Taavah

Addiction to wine leads to other taavos. We find this in the reason Chazal forbade **yayin nesech**: what is the next step? **Mishum pita, mishum yeinam, mishum chasnus.** Wine leads to coarser taavos. **Taavah** means lust. From the lust for wine, the next step is the lust for women. Therefore, by giving in to wine, a person is giving in to the whole concept of taavah.

## The Rambam: The Damage Caused by Wine

I will read it to you, just to show that there is a difference. The Rambam says: **vetaam nezirus mevo’ar me’od, dehi prishus min hayayin, asher hifsid min harishonim veha’acharonim rabim va’atzumim, kol harugav.** Wine has caused tremendous damage to many people.

Think about Fossella, the congressman from Staten Island. For years he had tremendous chashivus there; they held him in very high esteem. What brought him down? A DUI. He was drinking and driving, they pulled him in, and then what did they find? A whole range of things came out about him. But what was his downfall? A cup of wine. That was his downfall. **Hifsid min harishonim veha’acharonim rabim va’atzumim, kol harugav.** It has victims—many victims from wine.

## Rabbeinu Bachya and the Sforno: Taavah and Prishus

Rabbeinu Bachya says a different pshat, along the lines of the Rambam but a little different: **huzhar min hayayin**—he is warned to be careful from wine—**ki kol hanimshach acharav nimshach achar hataavos; hu meivi lidei chataim umichshol larabim.** It is like the Rambam, that wine is a destructive force, but it is not so much technical as it is philosophical. Wine is the beginning of living a life of taavah. A person goes from one taavah, one addiction, to another, and it leads to addiction to terrible things.

The Sforno uses a lashon that the reason wine is the nazir’s enemy, so to speak, is because by not drinking wine he is **machnia the yetzer**. The prishus from wine itself subdues the yetzer.

These Rishonim are discussing the negative effect of drinking. Rabbeinu Bachya says the negative is that, by drinking, a person is going after taavah. The Sforno looks at the abstention: staying away from it is a way of working against the yetzer, a positive form of prishus. There are small differences, nuances, among the Rishonim; they are looking from different angles.

Rabbeinu Bachya says it from the other side: when a person drinks wine, it brings out more and more of the yetzer. It is the opposite side of the same idea, but it is a different nuance. One is saying that by drinking, you are adding to the bad. The other is saying that by staying away, it is a form of prishus, which is healthy. A person is teaching himself to stay away from addictions, from taavos, from the yetzer hara.

## Ibn Ezra and the Chinuch: Wine Ruins Daas and Avodas Hashem

But we still do not have that it has something to do with daas. We still do not have in these Rishonim that it is about the mind—“brain cells,” so to speak—that wine takes away daas, like Rav Yerucham said: **mikapeach**; it ruins the mind.

But I did find it. The Ibn Ezra says the reason one is supposed to stay away from wine: why does the nazir take on this neder? Because it is conducive to avodas Hashem. Why? Because wine ruins the daas and avodas Hashem.

The Chinuch says this as well. I mention the Ibn Ezra because the Chinuch is longer, and it takes longer to read a Chinuch, but it is the same idea: daas. But notice that it is not only daas; it is daas and avodas Hashem. What is he referring to? I understand daas: a person drinks, gets drunk, and loses his mind. But what is the—

## Wine, Das, and Ta’avah

When the Chinuch says that wine is also destructive in avodas Hashem, what does that mean? Does it mean ta’avos, that it is a destructive force in desire, a kind of virus? If so, I do not understand: is it this, or is it that? Which one is it? Do you mean that it ruins the das, that it destroys the mind, or do you mean that it is destructive because of ta’avah?

I really believe the peshat is that it is actually both.

What is das? Do you think it means that when a person drinks, he is simply not there, his mind is lost? That the Nazir should not turn into a Bowery bum? It cannot mean that.

## How Much Wine Is the Nazir Drinking?

Why can it not mean that? Because how much is the Nazir drinking? Did you ever think about that? How much does a Nazir drink for it already to be a problem for his nezirus? It is the amount that people gulp down in one shot at Kiddush.

Is there a problem with Kiddush because you drink wine? It is a mitzvah. Could you imagine that on Shabbos we would say, “A person really should not drink wine, because he is ruining his das”? But we are talking about Kiddush. What das? How much could you drink?

## The Size of a Revi’is

Do you know what a revi’is is? Let us even say the Chazon Ish shiur is the revi’is. Let us not say the smaller shiur. I got a becher, a kos, from Rav Moshe Feinstein at my pidyon haben—or maybe at my bris; I think it was my bris. Rav Moshe was my sandek. He gave me a kos, and it was this small. I always said to myself, probably he was just giving it for Kiddush—not to make Kiddush on, but one of those little cups that you pour from for Kiddush.

Then I heard that the Chafetz Chaim’s kos shel berachah, the one he used to make Kiddush on, was in the possession of grandchildren in Monsey. But they cannot use it, because they are afraid it does not have the shiur.

There is a story with the Michtav MeEliyahu. His wife bought him a becher. The week that she passed away, he asked whether they could get him a different one. Why only then? He said, “Listen, she bought me the becher in England.” In those days, in England, the shiur was much smaller. Later he moved to Bnei Brak, became the mashgiach of Ponevezh, and in Bnei Brak the shiur was five times the size. But he did not want to put away the becher, out of kavod for his wife. So he made Kiddush with it, even though everyone looked and said, “That is for schnapps, for l’chaim. That is not a Kiddush cup.” As soon as she passed away, he went and got the bigger becher.

I do not know if it was because he held the shiur was bigger. Maybe then he had to give kavod to the people of Bnei Brak. I do not know the reason. I do not know if it had to do with what he really held. But it is interesting that the kos of the Chafetz Chaim—the becher, as it is called in Yiddish—that his grandchild has, they cannot use because it does not have the shiur.

So let us say the shiur is small. Let us say it is the shiur from way back when, not the newer Chazon Ish shiur. And even if it is the Chazon Ish shiur, do you want to tell me that by drinking that much wine you lose your das?

Unless you say that the wine in those days was much stronger. I do not know; maybe in those days the wine was stronger, so hachi nami, if a person drank a revi’is. But it cannot be that there is a chiyuv for Kiddush to drink a revi’is if that is the shiur that takes away das. Does that make sense?

## Purim and Losing Das

They ask this question on Purim: Hayitachen, a person drinks until he is drunk? You are taking away the das? That is a terrible thing, to take away the das.

I remember there was once a member of this community who came in and screamed—you remember this, Rafael? He came in screaming, “Hayitachen, that Bnei Torah get drunk on Purim?” He came in screaming, “Hayitachen,” and asked how I could tell them that they could do it.

So I told him, “I am not telling them anything. I just read to them what it says.”

# The Rambam’s Shitah and Losing Daas

It is in Shulchan Aruch. What do you want me to do? Should I make up my own Shulchan Aruch? If I made it up, then say so.

They also asked, “How come you do not teach them the Rambam’s shitah, that it does not really mean to get drunk? It means to drink more than usual and go to sleep.”

I said, that is the Rambam’s shitah, but not everybody holds that way. One thing is certain: Purim is the only day on which there is such an idea that a person could lose his daas. By Kiddush, certainly, a person is not allowed to lose his daas. If the pshat in drinking wine were that one loses his daas, then it could not be permitted by Kiddush. Rather, it must not mean that.

# The Nazir and Wine

So what is the issue if a Nazir goes and drinks? Let me tell you what I think the pshat is. It is not that he drinks and actually loses his daas. He is drinking something that can make a person lose his daas. It is not that this drinking itself will necessarily make him lose his daas.

In English, we call it a vice. When a person wants to take his mind off something, he drinks wine. That is not healthy for the Nazir. It is not that he literally loses his daas and becomes a Bowery bum. That is the issue here. A Nazir stays away from that. That is the greatness of the Nazir: he uses nothing that covers over the daas. His daas is strong, and he needs nothing to take it away.

Some people look for an outlet. What is an outlet? A person’s mind is too much in his work, so he looks for something to make him forget about it. The Nazir does not have that. The Nazir drinks nothing and consumes nothing that takes away his mind even for a second.

We do not mean drunk. We do not mean daas in the sense that he is completely wasted, as they say in English.

# Dei’ah and Daas

To understand this word properly, we have to discuss what daas is. We are going in the right direction: we are discussing taking away daas. We do not mean becoming a Bowery bum. We mean even for a moment, getting your mind off it. That is already called affecting his daas, ruining his daas.

What is daas?

I want you to know that there is dei’ah and there is daas, and they are two different things. Dei’ah is what we discussed with the Bowery bum who becomes wasted. He becomes a chaser dei’ah. Dei’ah means concentration, thinking, brain activity. When a person has a stroke and is brain-dead, they test the brain waves to see whether the brain is working or not. That is simple dei’ah: does the brain work?

Above that, there is daas. Dei’ah and daas are not the same. Daas is haskeil; haskeil means the ability to understand. There is thinking, and then there is being maskil.

I think there is some form of dei’ah even by an animal. It has a brain, and the brain has very limited capabilities, but it is still dei’ah. A person has more. But haskeil, the ability to understand, an animal does not have.

# Ata Chonein La’adam Daas

I want to tell you over, perhaps from the sefer Chazis Ish from Kelm: “Ata chonein la’adam daas.” Adam can even mean a non-Jew. “Ata chonein la’adam daas” means that Hashem gives every person daas. “V’choneinu”—we ask...

# Chochmah of Kedushah and the Kedushah of the Nazir

What does “me’itcha” mean, as Reb Simcha Zissel explains it? It means *chochmah de’kedushah*.

There are two types of *chochmah*. There is basic *chochmah*, as Chazal say, “*Chochmah bagoyim ta’amin*.” That is not what we are asking for here. Then there is “*me’itcha*”: “*Choneinu me’itcha*.” We ask this from You, Hashem, the source of *kedushah*. “*Atah Kadosh*” — the holiest of the holy. We ask for *chochmah, binah, va’daas* from You.

Nusach Ashkenaz does not say “*chochmah, binah, va’daas*”; it says “*de’ah, binah, vehaskel*.” So this is something different. There is “*Atah chonen l’adam daas*,” and I want to add: what Hashem gives a person is “*chonen*” — it is a *matanah*. “*Atah chonen*.” Hashem gives it. A person is born; he never asked to be smart or not smart. Hashem simply gives it to him.

But “*vechoneinu*” is a request. “*De’ah, binah, vehaskel*” — that is “*me’itcha*,” from You, Hashem. This spiritual knowledge, this spiritual wisdom, has to be asked for. It is for someone who searches for it.

## The Words of Reb Simcha Zissel

I want to add this. I will read you the words of Reb Simcha Zissel and show you. He speaks about the importance of understanding the *tefillah*. This is in *Chochmah U’Mussar*, *chelek beis*, *perek yud-gimmel*. He says:

“*Atah chonen l’adam daas*” — the meaning is, even to the nations. But “*choneinu me’itcha*” is specifically from You. “*U’melamed seichel le’enosh*” — Hashem’s wisdom. “*Ki Hashem yiten chochmah, mipiv daas u’sevunah*.” This is what we ask: “*choneinu me’itcha*.”

I am adding: What does that mean? One part is given as a *matanah*: “*Atah chonen*.” The other part is “*vechoneinu*.” We have to ask for it. We have to search for it. We have to want it.

It comes out that there is thinking, and then there is something called *chochmah de’kedushah* — holy thinking. What is the difference?

## Rav Yerucham on the Nazir

Now I want you to know that Rav Yerucham continues and says: you want to know what the *kedushah* of the Nazir is? Because *daas* is *kedushah*. I will read it for you:

“*Harei ki yesodo hi b’shmiras hadaas*” — the Nazir is protecting his *daas*. “*Vezehu shene’emar alav: kadosh yihyeh*.” Now we know what the *kedushah* of the Nazir is. “*Ki hadaas kedushah hi*” — *daas* is *kedushah*. When *daas* rests upon him, then “*nezer Elokav al rosho*.”

*Kedushah* and *daas* are one and the same.

Reb Simcha Zissel says, “*vechoneinu me’itcha*” — from You, Hashem, Who is *kadosh*. I am saying: if you think about it, what is *daas*? Do not think *daas* is merely wisdom, because that is “*chochmah bagoyim ta’amin*.” Even a non-Jew can have that; he can be the smartest person in the world. But there is something called *chochmah, binah, va’daas*, something spiritual. There is a *daas* that is spiritual, and that is what we ask from Hakadosh Baruch Hu: “*vechoneinu me’itcha*.” We ask this of You, because You are spiritual: *chochmah, binah, va’daas*.

Rav Yerucham tells us that this is why the Nazir is *kadosh*. Why is he *kadosh*? Because of *shemiras hadaas*. The wine — as the Ibn Ezra discusses — affects *daas*. And I explained what it means that he protects *daas*. It does not mean that otherwise he becomes drunk, like someone acting foolishly and screaming in the street. That is not what we are referring to.

Rather, he is using something that takes his mind off things. It is a vice, an outlet. It covers over the *daas*, even momentarily. For the Nazir, that is already not good. By not taking it, through *shemiras hadaas*, protecting the *daas*, he is called *kadosh*.

# Kedushah as Separation

Let me explain what this is all about. It sounds like beautiful words, but l’maaseh, what does it mean?

We all understand that kedushah means separation. “Harei at mekudeshes li”—what is “mekudeshes li”? Kadosh. Does that mean your wife is kadosh? I wish you would think that, but it does not necessarily mean that. So what does “mekudeshes li” mean? Kadosh is explained as separated: muvdal or mufrash.

When we speak about something as kadosh, it is because it is muvdal. Notice where we speak about havdalah. For example, in Atah Chonantanu: “l’havdil bein kodesh l’chol, bein or l’choshech, bein Yisrael la’amim, bein yom hashevi’i l’sheshes yemei hama’aseh.” That is havdalah. These are separations—between one thing and another.

# Daas, Havdalah, and Kedushah

Where is Havdalah placed? The Gemara says it is placed in Atah Chonen. So daas is havdalah, and havdalah is kedushah. Separation is kedushah, and daas is the ability of havdalah.

To be able to separate between good and bad, and beyond that, to make more refined separations—bein or l’choshech, bein Yisrael la’amim, bein yom hashevi’i l’sheshes yemei hama’aseh, bein kodesh l’chol—that ability is daas. It belongs in the parshah of daas. And that has to do with kedushah, because havdalah, separation, being muvdal and mufrash, is “harei at mekudeshes.”

I want to add that this is why the berachah of Atah Chonen follows Atah Kadosh as a berachah semuchah l’chavertah. The Gemara says that in Shemoneh Esrei, Atah Kadosh ends with “HaKel HaKadosh,” and the next berachah does not begin with its own opening berachah, because it is a berachah semuchah l’chavertah. There is an attachment between them. What is attached? Kedushah and daas.

This is pashut pshat in what we say: “Vechoneinu mei’itcha... chochmah, binah, v’daas.” Then we speak about daas. And which daas do we speak about? Havdalah.

You like it? You know why you like it? Because it is true. There is nothing I said that is not true. It is not my pshat. You see that this is what it says here.

# Rav Yerucham and the Nazir

Rav Yerucham explains to us that what I just said is the nazir. Daas is havdalah: the ability to differentiate between good and bad, between kodesh and what is not kodesh, pure and not pure, holy and not holy. And where does that come from? In Yiddish, where is the shoresh? It is kedushah, and the berachah semuchah l’chavertah is Atah Chonen.

# The Eitz HaDaas

With this, I think we can understand the Eitz HaDaas. What is the Eitz HaDaas? The pasuk says that the moment they would eat from the Eitz HaDaas, they would know: “venifkechu eineichem, vihyisem k’Elokim yodei tov vara.”

“K’Elokim”? What does that mean? How would they be like God?

The answer is: Atah Kadosh. Daas is from Hashem. It is kedushah. “Vihyisem k’Elokim.” The nachash was not wrong. There is a Chazal that says that two people—three people—did bad, but they spoke the truth, and one of them was the nachash. The nachash was not lying. Was he selling them a bill of goods? No, he was not.

“Vihyisem k’Elokim.” What does it mean, “vihyisem k’Elokim”? Hashem. Kedushah. Atah Kadosh. “Yodei tov vara”—the ability to know the difference between tov and ra.

# Chava’s Desire for Haskel

If you notice, what does Chava do? She eats from the Eitz HaDas. Why does she eat from the Eitz HaDas? The pasuk says, “Vateire ha’isha ki tov ha’eitz lema’achal, vechi ta’avah hu la’einayim, venechmad ha’eitz lehaskil.” What is the next word? “Lehaskil.”

In Shemoneh Esrei we say, “Chaneinu me’itcha de’ah, binah, vehaskel.” Nusach Ashkenaz does not even say, “chochmah, binah, vada’as.” The word “haskel” in Nusach Ashkenaz is da’as; it is another way of saying da’as. I think Sefardim do have it: “Chaneinu me’itcha de’ah, binah, vehaskel,” and da’as. You have to know whether it is true or not.

The pashut pshat is that haskel is that ability which comes only from HaKadosh Baruch Hu, and that is what she saw: “venechmad ha’eitz.” That is why it is called Eitz HaDas, the Tree of Knowledge. That is the knowledge: da’as is to know the difference between tov and ra. That is haskel, and that is what Chava saw: “venechmad ha’eitz lehaskil.”

# “Yahiv Chochmah L’Chachimin”

The Gemara tells us, “Yahiv chochmah l’chachimin” — Hashem gives wisdom only to those who are wise. Everyone asks the question: if they are already wise, what does it mean that Hashem gives it to them? Who gave it to them at first?

The answer is found in some Chassidishe sefarim. “Atah chonen l’adam da’as” — that first da’as is given as a present. When a person has da’as, he asks, “Vechaneinu me’itcha,” and then Hashem gives him a different type of da’as. That is “Yahiv chochmah l’chachimin.” First, the basic da’as is a present.

I think it is a beautiful word. We said different pshatim in years past, but according to some Chassidishe sefarim, this pshat is beautiful. First there is chochmah that everybody gets, and then there is chochmah that one achieves. See the difference? There is one that you receive when you are born, and there is one that you achieve throughout your life. That is “yahiv” — when you are searching. “Vechaneinu,” Hashem, give it to us; we ask for it.

# Chava’s Search for Extra Da’as

Chava wanted this. Chava looks and sees the Eitz HaDas, and she says, “Ki nechmad ha’eitz lehaskil.” Here is my chance to get this extra chochmah, this extra da’as. I want it. I am searching for it.

We always think that Chava ate from the Eitz HaDas because she liked apples, because she had a ta’avah she could not control for red delicious apples. Even though it is not so pashut that it was apples — Chazal say it was not apples — but let us go with the fairy tale that it was apples. Some say it was grapes; some say it was wheat. We will discuss that a little bit later.

Either way, it was not about ta’avah. It was “nechmad ha’eitz lehaskil.” She wanted “Chaneinu me’itcha de’ah, binah, vehaskel.” She knew this was something not simply given to a person; it has to be achieved, it has to be searched for. So she thought this was the way to get it: “nechmad ha’eitz lehaskil.”

# The Question of Touching the Eitz HaDas

I want to tell you something. I believe that is why there was a discussion whether one was allowed to touch the Eitz HaDas. What was the Eitz HaDas? It is very possible the Eitz HaDas had kedushah. If you look at the Pardes Yosef, he brings from the Acharonim that the reason one was chayav misah for eating from the Eitz HaDas was not because he went against the word of Hashem—

# The Kedushah of the Eitz HaDaas

There is also the issue of me’ilah b’hekdesh. If a person eats from kodesh, if he takes from hekdesh, it is a tremendous aveirah. The Acharonim discuss whether perhaps Chavah thought that one was not even allowed to touch the Eitz HaDaas because it was kedushah.

I always wondered: where is the kedushah? Where does it come from? If daas itself is kedushah, now I understand where it comes from. Daas is kedushah; it is an intensely spiritual reality.

So to think that the Eitz HaDaas was just a beautiful apple tree, or an orange tree, or an esrog tree, is incorrect. It was like part of the Beis HaMikdash. It was kedushah, to the extent that the Acharonim discuss whether eating it involved a problem of me’ilah b’hekdesh, like entering the Beis HaMikdash and eating something there that is not yours. And perhaps Chavah reasoned: maybe I may not even touch it.

Where does that kedushah come from? From the daas. Daas and kedushah are one.

# No Is No

But if so, it seems difficult to explain that eating from the Eitz HaDaas was bad. It sounds like it was a good thing. What was the problem? If the Eitz HaDaas is daas, and there is kedushah, and that is what she was looking for, what is so bad? Why did Hashem say no?

It is a good question. For years I had an explanation, and I think I may have said it over. This year I found that the Chidushei HaRim says the same thing, so I suppose that means we are meant to say it again.

The cheshbonos may be good, but Hashem said no. You may be right: you want to eat from the Eitz HaDaas for the right reasons, and it may be a good thing. But at the end of the day, Hashem said, “No. Do not eat from it.”

Many people make their own calculations: this will be good, this will accomplish something. But one must see what it says in Shulchan Aruch and what the chachamim say. Perhaps this is what Hashem was teaching her. Yes, the Eitz HaDaas contains tremendous things; there are tremendous levels one could gain from it. But I said no. Learn that no is no.

That is how the Chidushei HaRim explains it: the Eitz HaDaas was a good thing, and yet Hashem said no. Therefore, when she ate it, it became a bad thing, because no is no, and one cannot make one’s own calculations.

# Both Ta’avah and Haskalah

But I want to say a little more in pshat. The Eitz HaDaas had both elements. If you notice, the pasuk does not only say, “v’nechmad ha’eitz l’haskil.” What else does it say? “Ki tov ha’eitz l’ma’achal,” and “v’chi ta’avah hu la’einayim.”

So it is not only “nechmad l’haskil.” It is very easy to come to the end of the pasuk and say: she wanted haskalah; she thought there was something great there. Yes, but it also says ta’avah, and it also says, “ki tov ha’eitz l’ma’achal.”

So which is it? Is it ta’avah, or is it haskalah? I think the answer is that it is both. Part of it is “ki tov ha’eitz l’ma’achal” and “ta’avah hu la’einayim,” and part of it is also the koach of “nechmad ha’eitz l’haskil,” to differentiate between the two.

# The Nefesh HaChaim: Before and After the Eitz HaDaas

I will give an example. It is brought from the Nefesh HaChaim, Shaar Aleph, Perek Vav, in the hagaah, that Adam HaRishon had to have had some shaychus to the yetzer hara before he ate from the Eitz HaDaas. Otherwise, he would never have eaten from the Eitz HaDaas. You see that the Nachash was already present beforehand.

So what was the difference between before the Eitz HaDaas and after the Eitz HaDaas?

The Nefesh HaChaim says that before the Eitz HaDaas, the yetzer hara was on the outside. The Nachash was external. Afterward, the Nachash was internal; the yetzer hara was internal.

What does that mean? I have explained many times: before the chet, it was identifiable. You knew, “There he is. That is the Nachash. He is enticing me, but I see it.” Afterward, it became internal, so that a person no longer knows: is this me, or is it him? Who is speaking?