English translation — ויקרא א

A.

On the verse¹

"When a man from among you brings an offering to Hashem etc." Rashi explains after he quotes the words "When a man from among you brings an offering": "When he brings,

in voluntary offerings the matter speaks"²,

and apparently he means that from the wording of the verse <b>"When </b>he brings" - which means <b>if </b>he brings³

by the will of a person; - it is proven that what is spoken here

(in the matter)

is about voluntary offerings.

That their bringing depends on the will of the person⁴,

and not about offerings that there is upon him an <b>obligation </b>to bring them.

However according to this it is unclear: Since the proof is from the words <b>"When </b>he brings"⁵,

why does Rashi also quote the words "A man..

from among you"⁶?

Afterwards, Rashi quotes from the verse the word "Adam" by itself,

and explains: "Why is it said,

just as Adam the first did not offer from theft because everything was his,

so too you shall not offer from theft."

And behold, one cannot say that in the question "Why is it said" Rashi's intention is that the word "Adam" is superfluous — for we find in many places⁷

that the verse precedes "Adam" or "Ish", and it must be said that such is the way of the Scriptures⁸.

And even though one can distinguish and say that our case is different because in the verse it is also said

(afterwards)

"from you" and one of them is superfluous — but according to this, the question should have been

(not "Why is Adam said" since this is the way of the verse,

but rather)

"Why is 'from you' said"⁹,

because only when one reaches the word "from you" does the wonder arise "Why is 'from you' said" after "Adam" has already been said — and Rashi's wording "Why is Adam said" proves that the question is on the word "Adam"¹⁰.

And therefore it is unclear, seemingly, according to the explanation of the commentators&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;

that Rashi's intention is to ask why it says "Adam" and not "Ish".

And upon this he answers that he used the term Adam to teach us: that "Just as Adam the first etc."&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;.

But according to the simple understanding, the initial assumption is that specifically "Ish" should be said and not "Adam" — and behold both are common in the verse&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;?

Also tz.l.h.b. why Rashi explains first the words "Adam ki yakriv" and afterwards the word "Adam"¹⁴

- is not the order in the verse "Adam

(and afterwards - its joining to the continuation)

ki yakriv mikem"¹⁵?

And behold there are commentators¹⁶

that one difficulty is resolved by its fellow: before it is forced that the verse speaks about voluntary offerings,

it could have been said that it speaks here about obligatory offerings and therefore it is said "Adam" and not "Ish" in order to exclude gentiles,

and as our sages of blessed memory said¹⁷

"Adam atem - you are called Adam and not the nations of the world are called Adam"; but after we deduce from "ki yakriv" that it speaks about voluntary offerings which also gentiles are permitted to bring as it is said in Chullin¹⁸,

behold the difficulty arises why is it said "Adam" which seemingly excludes the gentiles?

(and the title "Ish" which does not exclude gentiles would have been more fitting).

But according to Rashi's commentary on the Torah, it is possible to say so,

because¹⁹

(a)

From where do we know <b>in the simple meaning of Scripture</b> that only the Children of Israel are called "man"?

And on the contrary: we find several times in Scripture²⁰

(also before the portion of Vayikra)

"man" includes also gentiles; and especially at the time of the verse²¹

"When a man dies in a tent etc." about which our Sages expounded "You are called man etc." Rashi did not bring this exposition — and it is proven that according to Rashi, in the study of the simple meaning of Scripture, the meaning of "man" does not exclude gentiles.

(b)

From where do we know — <b>in the plain sense</b> of the verses of our portion

that gentiles bring voluntary offerings?

— And on the contrary — this law is learned from a special amplification that comes in the portion after our portion,

<b>and as Rashi explains below</b> in the portion of Emor²²

: "And from a foreigner you shall not offer etc." — "But a perfect one you may accept from them,

therefore it was stated above 'a man a man' to include foreigners who vow vows and freewill offerings like Israel"

(for since a verse was necessary to include,

it implies that without this inclusion they would not be permitted)

— and since this is so,

even after we deduce that "in voluntary offerings the matter is relevant" one cannot ask in our verse "man

(which excludes gentiles)

why is it stated",

because before²³

we know that they bring a voluntary offering²⁴.

(c)

Above - the question "Why is it said 'man'?" - only "How is it said 'man'?"

(which excludes gentiles - opposite of the law).

Also tz.l.h.b.: a)

Since the word "from you" is superfluous according to everyone,

as above,

should Rashi have resolved this in his commentary?

The source of Rashi's answer is in Midrash Rabbah²⁵

and in Tanchuma²⁶

— except that there are differences between them,

and among them: in Tanchuma the wording is "that he did not rob from others because he was alone in the world,"

and in Midrash Rabbah — "that everything was in his possession and he did not offer from stolen goods and from extortion,"

and from Rashi's wording "that everything was his" it implies that he intends the words of Midrash Rabbah "that everything was in his possession"²⁷

— and it requires examination the practical difference of the wordings and Rashi's reason that he chose the Midrash Rabbah.

2)

2.

And the explanation in all this:

In the plain sense of the matter,

since our parshah is the beginning of the Torah of sacrifices,

it stands to reason

that it speaks of obligatory sacrifices — which are the <b>primary</b> type

(and the necessary)

in sacrifices,

and not of voluntary sacrifices²⁸.

Therefore, as much as possible, one should load and force the verse that it speaks of obligatory sacrifices — unless there is proof and absolute necessity that it speaks of voluntary sacrifices.

And this necessity is hinted at in Rashi in that he also cites the word <b>“Adam</b>

(when he brings an offering)

<b>from you” —</b> meaning that from “when he brings an offering” alone there is not yet sufficient proof that the verse speaks of voluntary sacrifices:

It was explained above that in the plain simple meaning, the term “Adam” does not exclude non-Jews; and on the contrary,

it includes them as well.

And since this is so, then according to the aforementioned reasoning,

it must be explained that it speaks of <b>obligatory</b> sacrifices,

and what is written “when

he brings an offering” is because non-Jews were also included in the section “Adam” who offers sacrifices²⁹

— and for them, it is not in the category of obligation and command,

but rather permission and allowance.

Therefore it is said “when he brings an offering,” a language of permission that is also appropriate for the sacrifices of non-Jews.

And for this Rashi also copies the word "mikem" to emphasize that it is impossible to interpret the verse

(also)

regarding offerings of non-Jews — for the precision "mikem" means from Bnei Yisrael and not from non-Jews³⁰.

And thus what is written "for he will offer" forces one to say that "regarding voluntary offerings the matter is discussed".

However, there is still room to say that this is not absolutely forced: even when the discussion is about offerings that come "mikem",

one can force

(for the aforementioned reason)

that the verse speaks regarding obligatory offerings,

except that it states "for he will offer" because the verse also discusses such "obligatory" offerings that, although they are of the category of "obligation", nevertheless one is not obligated to offer them, but it depends on his will — that is, the act of transgression obligates an offering, but the sinner cannot be compelled to offer it,

for the discussion is that he sinned in his minority, and a minor, even if he killed a person, we do not punish and obligate him³¹.

And

(with difficulty at any rate,

as above)

we will explain that the verse teaches us that when he grows up and becomes obligated in commandments

(including also the offering of sacrifices)

— if he wishes³²

"he shall offer etc. and it shall be accepted for him to atone for him".

But based on this, the precision of the verse "for he shall bring" — permission — is because of the distinction in age

(and the obligations of)

the one who brings between the time of his committing the transgression and the time that he brings the offering.

And if so, it should have emphasized in the verse the matter of age

(and the obligation),

namely to write: a man

(- since he is already an adult and is relevant to offerings)

for

(if)

he brings etc. and it shall be accepted for him

(for a positive command etc. that passed before this),

But since it is said "a man when he brings",

the matter of age is not emphasized at all — for "man" everywhere includes minor and adult^32*

(except that in general it is understood that the Torah's commands were said to adults)

Thus it is that there is no

(the text emphasizes the change in age that)

the discussion is about a minor who has grown up,

and consequently this forces that in voluntary offerings the matter was spoken -

And therefore Rashi also copies the word "Adam".

However, based on this it is understood that in order to know that regarding voluntary offerings the matter was spoken³³

It must be said the verse "from you" which excludes the gentiles,

And as above,

But it is difficult: "Adam" why is it said:

A)

The above teaching is compelled by this that it was not said "Ish" - and not by its saying "Adam".

B)

One cannot explain that such is the way of the verses to precede "Adam" or "Ish" etc.,

Because in our case where it is said "Adam - from you" and "from you" it is compelled to say as above - then "Adam" is superfluous.

3.

And Rashi explains that it comes to teach us "Just as Adam did not offer from theft because everything was his, so too you shall not offer from theft,"

And Rashi is precise and does not quote "that he was alone in the world" — and the reason for this:

The difference between the language

(that is in the Tanchuma)

"that he did not rob from others because he was alone in the world" and the language

(that Rashi used)

"he did not offer from theft because everything was his": according to the first language the reason "that he did not rob from others" is because he had no one from whom to rob,

since "he was alone in the world"; unlike according to the second language the reason is that he had nothing to rob because "everything was his".

And behold we do not find in the Torah,

according to the simple meaning³⁴,

that Adam the first man offered a sacrifice,

therefore it must be said that the intention of Rashi

(not that Adam the first man actually offered a sacrifice from that which was not stolen,

but rather)

that he did not have the <b>possibility</b> to offer from that which was stolen because "everything was his"

And if we say that the reason that Adam the first man did not offer from that which was stolen is because he "was alone in the world" and consequently there was no one <b>from whom</b> to steal — it is difficult, for he was not "alone in the world" except for a very short time,

because

(on that same day³⁵

that man was created)

Eve was created,

and

(on that very day³⁶)

Cain and Abel, sons and daughters, etc. were born — and if so it is simple that during the vast majority of his years there were many people from whom he could steal

(and it is very forced to say according to the simple meaning that the intention of the hint in "man" refers to that brief hour of the life of Adam the first man when he was the only man in the world!).

And thus according to Rashi's explanation the intention is that it was not &lt;b&gt;possible&lt;/b&gt; to bring an offering from stolen property,

It is impossible to bring a proof from this that he was "alone in the world"

And to this the verse alludes].

And even if you say that also according to the plain meaning it is understood that Adam Harishon actually brought an offering&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

— and so it is somewhat implied from the fact that Cain and Abel brought offerings&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;,

That in plainness they knew of this from their father's deed,

Nevertheless it is logical that the offering was as an atonement for the sin of the Tree of Knowledge

(Like Noah who brought an offering after the flood&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;),

For then he was no longer "alone in the world".

in this short hour,

there were many things: naming "all the cattle and the birds of the heavens &lt;b&gt;and all &lt;/b&gt;the beasts of the field"&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;,

"Adam came upon &lt;b&gt;all &lt;/b&gt;the cattle and beast etc."&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;,

"And Hashem Elokim cast a deep sleep upon the man etc."&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;].

Therefore Rashi explains that it was impossible to bring an offering from stolen property because "everything was his"&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;

- that is, immediately when he was created, everything became his,

and consequently, even afterwards when Chava was created and sons and daughters were born, his ownership did not lapse and "everything is his",

and it works out well that it was impossible to bring an offering from stolen property &lt;b&gt;all &lt;/b&gt;the duration of his life.

And even though it is necessary to say that also to the rest of mankind there were various things &lt;b&gt;"of their own"&lt;/b&gt;

(that were in their possession and their acquisition)

also during the life of Adam,

And the verse said that Cain and Abel had sheep&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

etc. - this is like "children who are supported at their father's table"

except that it was given and placed in the possession of others],

And even if we say that Adam gave them a share as an outright gift,

behold, since the giving was by his choice and his good will,

and they are his children and his children's children etc., certainly he will not steal from their share.

4.

However, Tzlah"b:

It was from the outset "everything was his"

And it is <b>simple</b> that in order to acquire something one needs an act of acquisition.

And it is very forced and we have not found that Adam HaRishon performed an effective act of acquisition on every single thing in the world, and all this during that brief hour before Chava was created, etc.

And since Rashi wrote simply "everything was his" without any additional explanation,

it must be said that it is so simple that Rashi does not need to explain it.

And behold, there are those who bring a proof from this

("everything was his"

(of Adam HaRishon)?

(of Adam HaRishon)

- even though he did not perform an act of acquisition)⁴⁵

that when there is something that has no owners and only one person in the world can acquire it

(for whatever reason⁴⁶)

that one person does not need to perform an act of acquisition,

rather it becomes his by law.

(Not that it does not belong to any person in the world,

but rather)

that it belongs to &lt;b&gt;each and every one &lt;/b&gt;in the world&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;,

and according to this, the acquisition that needs to be performed regarding hefker is only in order to remove the right of the rest of mankind,

and therefore in a case where the rest of mankind have no right in this,

no acquisition is needed].

But

behold]

this is a great novelty,

and Rashi would have needed to explain it.

And it will be understood by prefacing what my master, our teacher, and our rebbe, said in his Shulchan Aruch&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;

: "A king, even a gentile, who conquered some country in war acquires it with all the rivers and cities in it, etc., that the entire land,

with the rivers and forests,

is in the possession of the king, whether his country or a country he conquers in war, etc."

— And from this it is understood regarding Adam, the first, that when he was alone in the world,

and ruled over everything&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;,

the entire world was conquered under him,

and became his.

And this is analogous to a king&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;

who conquers a country, which comes under his dominion and becomes his&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;.

And especially that all the animals

(about which it is discussed in the portion of the sacrifices)

were conquered under his dominion &lt;b&gt;in actuality,&lt;/b&gt;

as Rashi explains&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;.

And the conquest of a land is also from the aspect of <b>the plain meaning of the verse⁵⁵,</b>

And as is also proven from that which Rashi explains⁵⁶

that it is said "Do not distress Moab etc. that Sihon took it from them and through him it was purified for Israel",

meaning that through Sihon conquering the land of Moab it became <b>his </b>and was permitted to the Children of Israel to take it

(And from that Rashi did not explain there the essence of the matter that through conquest it became his etc. it is understood that this is not a novelty of the portion there,

rather that this is understood simply,

and the novelty there is only that this was the case regarding Moab).

And consequently it is understood simply how "everything was his" without Rashi needing to explain it.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Vayikra 5732)