English translation — ויקרא א

1.

In the laws of the performance of the sacrifices¹

the Rambam rules: One who vows²

a large [animal] and brought a small [animal] has not fulfilled [his obligation],

How so? If he said, "It is upon me a burnt-offering or peace-offering, a lamb," and brought a ram, or if he vowed a calf and brought an ox, a kid and brought a goat, he has fulfilled [his obligation].

The source of the words of the Rambam is

(as marked in the Kesef Mishneh)

— the Mishnah in Menachot³

which says:

(One who vows)

a large [animal] and brought a small [animal]

(is according to everyone)

has not fulfilled [his obligation].

(is a dispute,

according to the Rabbis)

he has fulfilled [his obligation]; Rabbi [Yehudah HaNasi] says he has not fulfilled [his obligation],

and the Rambam rules like the Rabbis.

calf and he brought an ox kid and he brought a goat" — because the Rambam rules that the law that "a small one and he brought a large one he has fulfilled" is only when both are of one species<sup>4</sup>

(But not from two species<sup>3</sup>)

and as he says further explicitly in chapter<sup>6</sup>].

One must have a reasoning: How does one fulfill with a ram when he says "upon me a burnt-offering or peace-offering lamb"

(and the like)

— there is here the command<sup>7</sup>

"The utterance of your lips you shall keep and do as you have vowed"<sup>8</sup>.

And since he said "small"

(a lamb),

he must indeed fulfill his vow

(and do as you have vowed),

and when he brings a large one

("ram" instead of "lamb"<sup>9</sup>)

has he indeed not done "as you have vowed"?

There are in this two ways of learning it:

a)

From the perspective of the person — when he vowed a small one,

we assume that his intention was not specifically to bring a small one,

nor a large one,

but that he should bring no less than that; he meant that he should bring at least a small one¹⁰.

And therefore,

when he brings the large one he fulfills his vow,

because

(also)

to this he intended.

From the aspect of the object — the man indeed said and meant a minor,

a lamb etc.; but since "the greater includes the lesser"¹¹

(like "the greater includes the two hundred zuz"¹²),

so when he brings a large animal

(a ram in place of a lamb etc.)

then a minor is included in this

(he only added to his vow),

his vow is fulfilled.

b)

2.

But it is not sufficient:

A similar dispute also exists earlier in the Mishnah regarding Menachot¹³

: "I specified a meal offering of tenths and I do not know how many I specified, he shall bring sixty tenths. Rabbi says: he shall bring meal offerings of tenths from one to sixty."

And regarding the reason for their dispute, the Gemara brings¹⁴

several opinions,

and finally the opinion of Rav Ashi: "They disagree about a small [animal] and he brought a large [animal]: the Rabbis hold that [if one vowed] a small [animal] and brought a large [animal], he has fulfilled [his obligation]

(and this also [applies] if he vowed only three tenths and brings five for his vow, he has fulfilled [his obligation]"¹⁵)

and Rabbi holds he has not fulfilled [his obligation]."

And the Gemara continues: "But they already disputed this once, as we learned: [If one vowed] a small [animal] and brought a large [animal], he has fulfilled [his obligation]; Rabbi says he has not fulfilled [his obligation]."

And the Gemara answers: "It is necessary, for if it were stated regarding this

(regarding Menachot)

regarding this the Rabbis say [he has fulfilled his obligation] because both this and that are a handful

(whether a large meal offering or a small meal offering, one handful is offered¹⁶)

but there, where the sacrificial parts are more numerous, I might say they would concede to Rabbi

("The sacrificial parts of a large [animal] are more numerous than those of a small [animal],

and it can be said: he did not vow that [large one]; regarding that [case] they [the Rabbis] say

(the Rabbis)

he has not fulfilled [his obligation] because his sacrificial parts are more numerous"¹⁶)

And if it were stated regarding that

(regarding offerings)

regarding that Rabbi says [he has not fulfilled his obligation], but regarding this

(regarding Menachot)

I might say he would concede to the Rabbis; it is necessary."

And since there is a question: "The limbs of a large animal are more numerous than those of a small one, and it could be said that he did not vow thus"<sup>17</sup>,

and we do not say that "the many includes the few" — it is not plausible to say,

that according to the conclusion the novelty in the reason of the law is why "a small animal and he brought a large one, he has fulfilled [his obligation]" — because "the many includes the few"<sup>18</sup>.

And likewise it is not smooth to say that the distinction and novelty

(in the necessity)

is — that the person "vowed thus" when the matters in his mouth — are not so.

3.

Also required is clarification:

According to both manners mentioned above

that the person initially only limited a minimum measure,

(b)

that there is in general a majority [over] a minority]

— it is reasonable to say,

that at the time of a "minor vow",

he may initially bring a "large [offering]".

And since "he who wishes" to merit himself should subdue his evil inclination and broaden his hand and bring his offering from the finest, most excellent of that species²⁰

that he should bring from it, it is stated in the Torah²¹

And Abel also brought from the firstborn of his flock and from their fat etc. and so it says²²

All fat is for the Lord etc."²³

; further: regarding an offering it is stated²⁴

that one should bring "the choicest of your vows"²⁵,

So if one were to accept the above explanations,

it would seemingly have to result,

that when a small vow is initially he must

(at least — it is worthwhile that he should)

bring a large one

(from the side of ,

All fat is for the Lord")²⁶.

But from the simple language of the Rambam "a minor who brought and became a major has fulfilled [the obligation]"

(and even not as he says further regarding a donation²⁷

(as the language of the Mishnah²⁸)

"If he vowed a lamb and it became disqualified, if he wishes he may bring with its money a ram"²⁹)

it implies,

that this is not a law ab initio,

but³⁰

only that ex post facto he has fulfilled [the obligation]³¹.

it says in the Chinuch³³,

that "if he is poor and brought a ewe or a she-goat he has not fulfilled his obligation, and the reason is because after the Almighty blessed be He had mercy on him and exempted him with that, it is not proper that he should push himself to bring more than what his hand can attain"³⁴.

But this has no relevance to our subject,

because there it speaks regarding sacrifices that

the Torah's obligation is upon him

(not from his vow),

that specifically in this the reasoning of the Chinuch mentioned above fits.

The sacrifice of a rich person and a poor person which are different types: animals,

birds,

down to the poorest of the poor

(a meal-offering — which is the wealth of an ephah of fine flour).

However, in our subject it speaks about a sacrifice that

(a)

(a)

comes from his vow,

and

(b)

(b)

speaks about small and great in the same type³⁵].

And from this it is understood,

that when a small vow he does not mean also a large one,

and likewise in the object of the offering — in a large offering a small offering is not included.

And it is understood the difference between this and what one says "the general includes the specific two hundred maneh": there it is a matter of reality,

that in the general two hundred there is a maneh in reality,

but not so in our case,

when he offers an ox there is not in it³⁶

a calf³⁷.

And based on this the difficulty returns to its place — what is the reason for the law "a small one and he brought a large one he has fulfilled"?

4.

This will be understood with the introduction of the explanation in the language of the Rambam in the "heading" of Hilchos Nedarim — that the mitzvah is "that one should guard the utterance of his lips and do as he vowed,"

for at first glance this is an excessive length

(and repetition of language).

the Rambam states only one matter — "that a person fulfill everything that he utters with his lips etc." — because there its subject and style is extreme brevity].

Even though that this is according to the language of the verse "Keep the utterance of your lips and do as you vowed" — and the style of the Rambam in the book of the Hand to copy the language of the verses — it is however forced

(a little)

to say that above there is no practical difference for halacha.

And therefore it is logical to say that this is not simply a double expression,

rather these are two laws

(obligations)

: a)

that he guard the utterance of his lips

(Keep the utterance of your lips),

and he do as he vowed

(and do as you vowed).

And the explanation in this: by every vow there are two matters: a)

speech of his mouth — the words that he uttered.

b)

the content of his speech,

vow.

And these are the two matters in the verse: a)

that which goes out of your lips you shall keep — the words that he uttered.

b)

b)

and you shall do as you vowed — fulfill the content of his vow.

5.

And based on this, one can explain the dispute between Rebbe and the Rabbis

(regarding a minor who vowed and a major brought: does it go out or not go out),

that this is connected to how one learns the definition of the obligation of "And you shall do as you vowed":

Rebbe holds that one reckons only with "the utterance of your lips" — the speech of his mouth,

the content of the vow

(as you vowed)

is limited and defined by the language that he spoke out from his mouth;

Not so the Rabbis hold that the main thing is — "and you shall do as you vowed",

to fulfill the content of the vow,

even though that it is not in accordance

(so much)

with the wording that he uttered

(the utterance of your lips).

D.

H.

The fulfilling of the vow exactly according to "the utterance of your lips" is not indispensable.

which one finds in several places in the Sh”m in the dispute of Rebbi with the Rabbis,

regarding a wording that stands in the Torah or in the words of Chazal,

and likewise in the language of people — that according to Rebbi it means literally exactly and in all the details,

things as they are written; and according to the Rabbis it does not have to be according to the plain meaning of the wording and in all the details,

if only that it is in accordance with the general content,

as was spoken once at length³⁹].

6.

And likewise in our case — "a minor and he brought a large ..

it is upon me..

a lamb and he brought a ram":

From the aspect of "the utterance of your lips" — he indeed said "it is upon me..

a lamb"

(which does not include a ram,

as above)

; but from the aspect of the content of the vow — that this is a vow to G-d⁴⁰

(regarding which there is the command "all fat is for G-d" and "the choicest of your vows")

— we assume,

that the content of his vow is to bring an offering to the Most High from the species of sheep.

That which he actually,

said with his mouth "a lamb" is only due to a secondary impediment — because his hand did not attain [sufficient means] and the like — but the intention of "a lamb" is — the species of sheep⁴¹.

And therefore: according to Rabbi,

that one only reckons with "the utterance of your lips",

then a large [animal] in place of a small one does not fulfill [the vow] — his vow was a "small one",

he cannot fulfill his vow by bringing an offering which is a different offering

(large)

not like "the utterance of your lips";

According to the Rabbis, however, one reckons primarily with the content of his vow — "and you shall do as you vowed",

and therefore,

even though initially one does not say that he should bring a large [animal]

(a ram in place of a lamb),

because since the verse said "the utterance of your lips you shall keep",

he must initially bring according to "the utterance of your lips" —

But at the time that he brought a large [animal]

(He brought a ram)

he fulfills "And you shall do as you vowed" and thereby fulfills the commandments of the Torah⁴²

(Because the detail of "Keep what comes from your lips" is not applicable).

7.

And one may sweeten the ruling of the Rambam

(According to the reasoning of the Rabbis)

— And with an introduction:

By the "positive commandment of the Torah" that the Rambam says⁴³

"that a person should fulfill ..

his vow whether it was vows of prohibition or whether it was vows of consecration" the Rambam brings two verses: as it is said⁴⁴

The utterance of your lips you shall keep and do as you have vowed and it is said⁴⁵

According to all that proceeds from his mouth he shall do.

The difference between the two verses: "The utterance of your lips you shall keep and do as you have vowed" speaks about vows of consecration,

but "According to all that proceeds from his mouth he shall do" speaks about vows of prohibition⁴⁶

that in the counting of the commandments at the beginning of the Book of the Hand,

where he brings only the verse "The utterance of your lips you shall keep and do",

he says that the commandment is — "that a person should fulfill everything that he utters with his lips from a sacrifice or charity and the like"

(and does not mention vows of prohibition)].

And according to the above

(section 6)

is understood the difference in the language of the verses — by vows of prohibition it says only "as all that proceeds from his mouth he shall do",

but not by.

vows of consecration it says

(two details)

"that which goes out of your lips you shall keep and do as you have vowed":

The difference between vows of prohibition and vows of consecration is: by vows of prohibition the

(content of)

prohibition is created entirely from the side of the person's speech

(were it not for his speech there is no prohibition),

and therefore by vows of prohibition there is only one law

(obligation)

— "as all that proceeds from his mouth he shall do"

(since his speech creates the prohibition).

In contrast, regarding vows of consecration — the effect of the vow is only the application — that there should apply upon him an obligation

(that exists in reality)

in the Torah — an obligation of a sacrifice for

(or of charity and the like),

in explanation of the words of the Rambam at the end of Hilchot Nedarim: The sages said, whoever makes a vow is as if he built a private altar, and if he transgressed and vowed, it is a mitzvah to seek absolution for his vow so that there should not be a stumbling block before him,

In what case are these words said? In vows of prohibition, but vows of consecration it is a mitzvah to fulfill them and not to seek absolution for them except under duress, as it is said

Vows to the Lord I will pay —

By vows of consecrated property,

through his vow there was created

(not only a halachic obligation of a vow,

but)

a halachic obligation from the Torah — of a sacrifice

(and charity and the like),

it became an object of a mitzvah,

and therefore "one may not ask [for absolution] regarding them, etc."]

And therefore by vows of consecrated property there exists

(according to the ruling of the Rambam — like the opinion of the Rabbis)

also a law of "and you shall do as you vowed" — that one fulfills the vow only if the content and intent of the vow was carried out

(but a sacrifice to God,

or charity etc.),

even when it is not exactly according to "the utterance of your lips"⁴⁹.

8.

The explanation of this in the inwardness of the matters:

It is known that a sacrifice is from the term closeness⁵⁰.

And the content of the matter of sacrifices is — "A man⁵¹

when he brings near

(should say:)

an offering of a sacrifice to Hashem,

that which the Jew becomes drawn near to the Most High,

he brings near

(and offers)

his powers and senses to the Most High.

And this is the difference between sacrifices and other commandments: Commandments are particular "limbs and sinews",

the 248 positive commandments correspond to the 248 limbs⁵²

and the 365 negative commandments correspond to the 365 sinews⁵³,

and with each commandment — commandment from the term connection and attachment — one connects in particular⁵⁴

the limb

(or sinew)

particular with the Most High⁵⁵.

The matter of sacrifices, however, is its content that the Jew gives himself away entirely,

becomes entirely drawn near to the Most High.

in the reason that sacrifices atone,

"that a person should think when he does all these that he sinned against his God with his body and his soul and it is fitting for him that his blood be spilled and his body burned were it not for the kindness of the Creator who took from him a substitute ..

his blood

(i.e., the sacrifice)

in place of his blood, soul in place of soul etc.'".

A sacrifice is in place of his body and his soul,

because in this he gives over his entire

(body and)

soul to G‑d.

Furthermore: the matter of sacrifices is in its content the matter of repentance

(as is also understood from the words of the Ramban mentioned above),

and repentance is above all the commandments and therefore through repentance all the blemishes that were caused by the sins and the lack of fulfillment of the positive commandments are filled].

And it can be said that this is also one of the reasons that the section of offerings begins with offerings that come by vow and by free-will offering,

as Rashi says immediately at the beginning of the portion⁵⁷

"By free-will offerings the matter is spoken,"

and only afterwards does the Torah continue with a sin-offering and guilt-offering — obligatory offerings⁵⁸,

Because the concept in offerings is that through them a Jew becomes drawn close entirely to G‑d, and this is not expressed so much in obligatory offerings

what is primarily heard in it is the fulfillment of the command of G‑d to bring a sin-offering or guilt-offering for a sin and the like],

but in free-will offerings, when a Jew draws himself close to G‑d with the generosity of his heart.

9.

And based on this, one can explain in our case: if the one who vowed is a minor and an adult brought [it], he has fulfilled [the obligation].

When a Jew vows a sacrifice,

then its content and essence is not that which he comes to fulfill a particular commandment

("You shall keep what comes from your lips" and the like),

rather,

as above,

the general matter of offering oneself,

completely giving oneself over to the Most High.

regarding the term "soul"<sup>60</sup>

which stands by a voluntary meal-offering,

"Said the Holy One, blessed be He: 'Who is accustomed to bring a meal-offering? A poor person. I consider it as if he offered his soul before Me.'"

And it can be said that this addition "I consider it as if" is for superiority — that he also has in this a bestowal of power from above,

his "offered his soul" is even more than what could be from his own power and service — it comes to what "the Holy One, blessed be He, considers it as if"],

And consequently, the fulfillment of the particular commandment here — he becomes included in the general commandment — the general union and connection,

of the Jewish people,

through the donation and offering of the sacrifices,

with the Most High.

And therefore, what is relevant is primarily the general content and matter,

that which the Jew gives himself away entirely and consequently he becomes brought close to G‑d completely.

10.

Based on this, we must explain the language "small" and "great" in the spiritual aspects of the matters:

At the beginning of the service, the Jew is in a state of smallness,

but because this is connected with the matter of the offerings,

with his soul becoming drawn near

(the whole of it)

to G‑d,

and offering oneself,

this is connected with drawing near and offering

(the whole of it)

"great"

(in the manner explained⁶¹

in the connection between lower awe

(acceptance of the yoke)

with higher awe).

And therefore "והביא גדול" — this brings to the offering and drawing near in a manner of greatness,

that he in revelation and with all the powers of his soul becomes entirely drawn near to God.

And through engaging in the Torah of the offerings it becomes as if he offered an offering<sup>62</sup>

and "Torah scholars who are fluent in the laws of the service, Scripture accounts it to them as if the Temple were built in their days"<sup>63</sup>,

and from this "as if" becomes the "Temple was built" in actuality,

with the coming of Messiah our righteousness,

and there

("offered an offering" in actuality and beyond this —)

we will offer before You as the commandment of Your will<sup>64</sup>,

in the third Temple that will be built speedily in our days, literally.

(From the talk of 13 Tishrei 5745)