English translation — ויקרא ב

1.

Endless laws of disqualifications of the altar,

after the Rambam enumerates the types of oils that are fit for the menorah and states "but for meal-offerings all are fit"¹

— the Rambam continues in a separate law²

And since all are fit for meal-offerings, why were they enumerated? In order to make known that there is nothing above it, and the equal and the inferior, for one who wishes to merit himself will bend his evil inclination and open his hand and bring his offering from the finest, most excellent of that species from which he brings.

Behold it is stated in the Torah³

And Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat, and the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering.

And the same applies to everything that is for the sake of the good God, that it should be from the beautiful and the good.

If he builds a house of prayer, it should be beautiful from his dwelling place.

He fed the hungry, he should feed from the best and sweetest on his table.

He clothed the naked, he should clothe from the finest of his clothing.

He consecrated something, he should consecrate from the finest of his possessions, and so it says⁴

All the fat is for the Lord⁵

etc.

One must understand: the law that one must bring "from the choicest" the Rambam already said earlier at the beginning of the chapter⁶

: "Not every thing that is not invalid is brought initially etc., but rather whatever one brings for a sacrifice should be brought from the choicest."

And this is derived from a verse⁷

(as the Rambam already brought in the laws earlier⁸)

"the choicest of your vows

(your vows⁹)

" — so what is the new law that the Rambam adds and innovates,

which

(a)

is derived from that "they enumerated" the levels and types of oils,

is connected with the will of man <b></b>

("he who wishes to merit himself")

and

(c)

he brings on this further proofs "behold it is said in the Torah and the fat etc." and "all fat is for the Lord etc."?

(b)

B.

Simply, one can learn that in this matter of "from the choicest" regarding sacrifices there are several levels¹⁰,

as is implied in the Rambam himself: there is the lower type of choicest which must be in a sacrifice; without it it is <b>forbidden </b>to the altar

(although it is not a blemish),

On the way of the Rambam says.

In chapter 2

"Four other blemishes

(One in whose white of the eye there is a cataract that has no hair,

if its horns were cut off etc.)

if one of them is found in an animal, they do not offer it because it is not of the choicest

and the verse says 'from the choicest of your vows'.

Beyond this there is a type of choicest which is not merely negating an animal in which one of these blemishes etc. is found

(which are forbidden for the altar),

but also

(and primarily)

a "lean and ugly sheep"

which is not at all fine and good.

So also if the "choicest" is lacking — one should not bring it ab initio.

As the Rambam says at the beginning of chapter 7

(cited above)

"Not everything that is not invalid may one bring ab initio. How so? If one was obligated to bring a burnt-offering, he should not bring a lean and ugly sheep and say, 'Behold, it has no blemish,' and concerning this it is said

'Cursed be the deceiver etc.' Rather, whatever one brings as an offering, he should bring from the choicest."

"One who vowed a bull or a ram or a lamb or a calf and the like should not bring &lt;b&gt;the most emaciated &lt;/b&gt;of that species etc. and he is not obligated to bring the best, the fattest, for there is none above it, but he should bring the intermediate.

And if he brought the emaciated, he fulfilled his vow".

There it speaks about a vow and the Rambam there does not bring at all that one should bring a good and fat from the aspect of &lt;b&gt;the choicest &lt;/b&gt;of your vows].

And at the end of Hilchos Issurei Mizbeach the Rambam &lt;b&gt;innovates,&lt;/b&gt;

that "one who wishes to merit himself should subdue his evil inclination and broaden his hand and bring his offering &lt;b&gt;from the best, the most excellent" — &lt;/b&gt;not merely such that is not emaciated and blemished,

an intermediate and even above intermediate — rather "the best, the most excellent &lt;b&gt;most".&lt;/b&gt;

And this the Rambam learns not from "the choicest of your vows,"

but from that which "they enumerated" the types of oils,

and brings on this "And Hevel also brought from the firstborn of his flock and from their fats" and "All fat is for G‑d" — and from that specifically one learns .

off "And the same law applies &lt;b&gt;to every &lt;/b&gt;matter that is for the sake of the God of goodness that it should be from the beautiful and good"

(But not so the law of "the choicest of your vows" is a special law regarding offerings).

Thus it is also proven from the continuation of the Rambam's language here — "And since all are fit for meal-offerings, why were they enumerated."

For at first glance it is not understood: the Rambam has already said in a previous halacha&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

"Although all are fit for meal-offerings, the first has none above him, and after him the second etc." — so consequently the reason "why were they enumerated" is understood.

The law of "the choicest of your vows" the Rambam has already brought earlier,

must one then know the levels among the oils in order to be able to fulfill the "from the choicest"?

Is from this itself compelled,

that from the perspective of the obligation of "from the choicest" it is <b>not</b> necessary to know the levels¹⁹,

because "from the choicest" excludes only "lean and blemished",

but it is not an obligation to bring the most excellent.

And therefore the Rambam says "why were they counted" and it is a reason only for the one who "wants to merit himself"²⁰.

3.

One must, however, understand:

Since the law in the Rambam is not connected specifically with sacrifices

(not like the law of "the choicest of your vow-offerings" which is specifically with sacrifices as above)

— rather it is a general law regarding every matter which is connected with Hashem,

and in the language of the Rambam &lt;b&gt;"in every matter &lt;/b&gt;that is for the name of the good God"

(and as he brings the examples regarding this)

— why does the Rambam state it specifically here in the laws of Forbidden Offerings,

and does not state it &lt;b&gt;earlier &lt;/b&gt;in the laws of Gifts to the Poor&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

(in accordance with the example here itself "fed the hungry etc. clothed the naked etc."&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;)

— as in the &lt;b&gt;Shulchan Aruch &lt;/b&gt;where the law of the Rambam is copied in the laws of &lt;b&gt;Charity&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;

: or even earlier — in the laws of Prayer

(in accordance with the &lt;b&gt;first &lt;/b&gt;example in the Rambam "built a house of prayer etc.")?

Further: the Rambam brings in Hilchos Tefillah&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;

several laws about the manner of building a synagogue, how it must be "higher than all the courtyards of the city, etc." — it would have been fitting there to bring that "he who wishes to merit himself" should build a house of prayer in a manner that "it should be more beautiful than his dwelling house" and in continuation of this to bring all the detailed laws which are included in this general obligation of "all fat is for the Lord".

But one must understand the examples which the Rambam brings for "everything that is for the name of the good God should be from the beautiful and the good" — "he built a house of prayer, etc., fed the hungry, etc., clothed the naked, etc., consecrated an item, etc."

At first glance:

The Gemara says²⁵

the obligation of "beautifying before Him in mitzvos"

(which is derived from the verse²⁶

"This is my God and I will beautify Him")

and brings the examples: "Make before Him a beautiful sukkah and a beautiful lulav and a beautiful shofar, beautiful tzitzis, a beautiful Sefer Torah, etc., with beautiful ink, with a beautiful quill, with a skilled scribe, and wrap it in beautiful silk" — why does the Rambam bring here <b>other</b>²⁷

<b> </b>examples²⁸?

4.

And one can say the explanation in this:

As one learns at first glance, it comes out,

that the difference between this law in the Rambam at the end of Hilchos Issurei Mizbe'ach and the halacha of "Mivchar Nidreichem" which the Rambam discusses earlier,

consists in that "Mivchar Nidreichem" is a law in the object

(your vows),

that it pertains to the body of the sanctity of the offering,

and therefore there may not be in it any deficiency,

even not

(in the appearance)

lean and ugly,

and in the manner of "disgrace of holy things²⁹

But the law at the end of Hilchos Issurei Mizbe'ach "he shall bring his offering from the best, the most excellent" is not a law in the object of the offering,

rather it is a law in the <b>person,</b>

as per the precise language of the Rambam "one who wants <b>to merit himself </b>shall subdue his evil inclination etc."

And therefore this is also not a specific law by offerings,

rather it is a general law by "every thing

(which the person binds himself with)

that is for the sake of the good God" — also by other mitzvos.

It is a beautification in the deed of <b>the person</b>³⁰,

"one who wants to merit himself"³¹,

that every thing which he does and brings for the sake of God should be "from the pleasant and the good".

And it can be said that this is what the Rambam guarantees with that which he teaches the law of meal-offerings

("Since all are fit for meal-offerings, why were they enumerated")

and brings the proof "Behold it is stated in the Torah, 'And Hevel brought, etc.'" — with this he brings out that the "he shall bring his offering from the finest, the most choice" is connected with the definition of <b>offerings</b>

(meal-offerings),

which pertains

(not only to the action of the person but also)

to the object of the offering.

And this is emphasized in the proof "Behold it is stated in the Torah, 'And Hevel also brought, from the firstlings of his flock and from their fat, and the Lord turned to Hevel and to his offering'": the Rambam is not satisfied with the words "And Hevel also brought, from the firstlings of his flock and from their fat" but he also brings the continuation of the verse,

and not only "and the Lord turned, etc." but also — "to Hevel and to his offering."

Because with this he emphasizes that the bringing of the offering "from the finest, the most choice" is not merely a matter related to the action of the person but it pertains also to the object of the offering: the "and the Lord turned" was not only "to <b>Hevel"</b>

(from the aspect of his "he shall coerce his inclination"),

but also

(and this as a separate matter)

"<b>and to</b>³²

<b> his offering."</b>

5.

The explanation in this:

The difference between the fulfillment of the commandments and the matter of the sacrifices

(in general)

In relation to the object:

The fulfillment of the commandments is essentially the action of the person,

the person fulfills the command of G‑d upon him.

But the fulfillment is carried out through the object.

There are several levels in the action that is performed upon the object&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

: items used for a commandment,

items used for holiness.

All this, however, is not the &lt;b&gt;intent&lt;/b&gt; of the person's action.

His matter is — his fulfillment of the commandment,

but through the action of the person something is performed upon the object

(items used for a commandment,

items used for holiness, etc.).

With sacrifices, however,&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

the definition of the commandment is — the holiness of the sacrifice itself,

that is, that which he consecrates and gives the item away to G‑d.

There is also his fulfillment of the commandment,

he thereby fulfills the vow that he also took upon himself to bring a sacrifice and the like,

or he fulfills his obligation to bring the specific sacrifice that he is obligated [to bring].

Here, however, the main thing is not the fulfillment of the commandment of the person,

but primarily the action upon the object — the offering of a sacrifice to G‑d,

giving the animal, etc., to G‑d.

What the order in this is, that first the person consecrates the animal,

then he brings it to the Temple, etc., until it is offered

(by agency of the owner of the sacrifice&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;)

upon the altar.

And in simpler style: all the commandments,

even after the object with which one fulfills the commandment becomes tashmishei mitzvah and the like,

remains in the possession of the person; the kind³⁶

that a Jew gives away to Hashem and the Almighty "takes" it from him,

is in the offering of a sacrifice.

6.

And this is the difference between the law of hidur mitzvah,

which the Gemara learns from the verse "This is my God and I will glorify Him,"

and the law in the Rambam "he shall bring his sacrifice from the finest and most choice":

The law of hiddur mitzvah is — like the mitzvah itself — not

(so)

for the sake of the object,

but for the sake of the fulfillment of the mitzvah of the person,

and as the language of the Gemara <b>"adorn yourself before Him </b>with mitzvot",

that the mitzvah which the person fulfills is "v'Anvehu",

and consequently "make before Him a beautiful sukkah and a beautiful lulav etc."

With that which the action with which he does the mitzvah is beautiful,

the fulfillment of the mitzvah of the <b>person</b> is in a manner of "adorn yourself before Him" — before the Almighty.

By sacrifices however is the bringing of sacrifices "from the finest most choice" not

(merely)

for the sake of the <b>"adorn yourself before Him" — </b>of the person,

but on the contrary,

this is a part and detail of the definition of the sacrifice <b>to God,</b>

that the sacrifice to God which consists in the holiness <b>and offering to God</b>

(giving away to God)

is with perfection and with more beauty³⁷.

7.

And this is the reason why the Rambam brings this law first in Hilchos Isurei Mizbe'ach — because the matter pertains to the definition of "Mizbe'ach".

Furthermore: it pertains to the laws of "

(Isurei)

<b>Mizbe'ach" </b>even more than

(even)

to the laws of "Ma'aseh HaKorbanos":

The essence of the matter of the korban — is a korban to Hashem.

And although man's action in this begins from his consecrating the korban — nevertheless the main thing and the completion of the korban is in its offering upon the Mizbe'ach.

And then,

at the time when it becomes his bread of

there is an eating of the altar,

he becomes a part of the table of the Most High.

And therefore the matter of "he shall extend his hand and bring his offering from the finest, the most choice" brings out the perfection of giving to G‑d in a sacrifice,

pertains not so much to the essential definition of "sanctified things",

or "the act of the sacrifices" — in which all the details in the act of the sacrifice are included,

and not only the detail of offering upon the altar — but to the law "

(forbidden)

altar,

<b>altar",</b>

the completion and perfection of the sanctity of the sacrifice,

which is in its bringing upon the altar.

8.

With this is answered what the Rambam says the examples of "built a house of prayer etc."

(For by them is the same law of "it shall be from the beautiful and the good")

— and not the examples of the Talmud:

Here it does not speak about the definition of beautification of a commandment,

a beautification in the thing with which one does the commandment,

rather "anything that is <b>for the sake of the good God,"</b>

every type that is fit to be offered <b>upon the altar,</b>

in that which one gives it "for the sake of the good God":

"He built a house of prayer" — for the Above&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;,

And likewise "he sanctified a thing" — its content is that he gives it "for the sake of God".

And likewise also the middle two cases "he fed the hungry etc. clothed the naked etc.": the Rogatchover&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

explains that in charity there are two categories — charity in the category of "commandment",

and "charity in the category of atonement".

And this is the emphasis in the Rambam "he fed the hungry ..

clothed the naked",

because the matters of charity are connected with "charity in the category of atonement"&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;,

And in the content of the verse&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;

"Deal your bread to the hungry and bring the poor that are cast out to your house; when you see the naked, cover him",

where the prophet speaks about the actions that a Jew must do on the fast day&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;

for his repentance to atone for him

(in the manner of — sacrifices).

9.

The explanation of the connection of the two matters in the law of "he shall bring his offering from the finest and most excellent" —

(a)

A law in "

(forbidden)

altar",

which is connected with the object of the offering

(and its offering upon the altar),

and

(b)

the action of the person — "one who wishes to merit himself should subdue his evil inclination and broaden his hand etc.":

The completion and perfection of the holiness of the offering to God,

which is in its offering upon the altar,

is itself the cause for the appeasement⁴⁶

and the atonement of the person which an offering effects.

And therefore,

that the more there is the "he shall compel his evil inclination and extend his hand and bring his offering from the beautiful, the most choice" in the giving of the person to G‑d,

the more does this add to the completeness of the atonement and appeasement of the person⁴⁷

(that the altar effects)

— "for his own merit".

And in the manner that we find several types in the appeasement of the sacrifice

(connected with the intention of the person),

it atoned and it did not atone⁴⁸,

the difference between the appeasement of the chatat and the appeasement of the olah⁴⁹,

and more⁵⁰.

- And it will be sweetened more according to how it is brought in the commentaries,

and especially in the Ramban on the Torah,

the reasons for the commandment of sacrifice:

The Ramban⁵¹

explains the reason that sacrifices atone,

"that a person should think when he does all these that he sinned against 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

(of the sacrifice)

instead of his blood, soul instead of soul"⁵².

And since this is so,

it is understood that "he shall subdue his evil inclination" is not a side matter in the matter of offering a sacrifice upon the altar,

or at least another detail in the matter of the sacrifice,

but rather this is the entire definition of the sacrifice,

"he shall subdue his evil inclination",

that in this consists the appeasement and the atonement of the sacrifice.

10.

Based on this, we can explain the reason why the law of "he shall coerce his inclination ...

and bring his offering from the finest and most superior" is derived specifically from the oils for meal-offerings:

The essential content of the offering is⁵³,

that a Jew gives himself over to the Most High

(by coercing his evil inclination etc.)

; but when is this truly and completely?

At the time of his giving himself over entirely to the Most High without calculations,

and specifically then is it appeasing and atoning a complete and perfect atonement.

And this is also the reason that we learn it specifically from the oils of the meal-offerings,

in the manner of our Sages, may their memory be blessed⁵⁴

that specifically by the meal-offering it says "And when a soul offers a meal-offering" — "The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Whoever is accustomed to bring a meal-offering, a poor person, I consider it as if he offered his soul before Me" — specifically by a meal-offering; he does not bring a fat and large ox,

but rather the poverty of an offering,

there is more emphasis on "offered his soul before Me".

Because by him there is no feeling that he is offering an offering in splendor and completeness,

"He" is a "fine Jew" who brings an offering and — in splendor;

By him the true broken-heartedness is heard,

subjugation of the evil inclination until the slaughtering of the evil inclination and therefore it is "as if he offered <b>his soul".</b>

11.

And through <b>the </b>manner of the offering,

that he coerces "his evil inclination ..

and he brings his offering from the beautiful, the most excellent",

becomes the <b>conclusion and completion </b>of "Laws

(of Prohibited)

<b>Altar",</b>

that after the beginning of the actions of the altar atonement of his soul⁵⁵

atonement of the "prohibited" — prohibited and bound⁵⁶

— is drawn and opened the action of the altar in its completeness <b>and accepted </b>for him to atone for him — to atone before Hashem to do gratification for his Maker⁵⁵,

as our Rabbis of blessed memory said "Altar removes

(evil decrees from Israel⁵⁸)

and moves

(the world is sustained⁵⁸)

<b>makes beloved </b>

(Israel to their Father⁵⁸)

atones

(sins)

And when the cause of the destruction and exile is nullified — sins

(our transgressions),

immediately becomes <b>and consequently </b>nullified the effect,

the "we were exiled from our land",

and <b>"immediately </b>they are redeemed"⁶⁰

by means of Mashiach our righteousness,

And if he builds a sanctuary in its place⁶¹,

and especially the altar⁶²

and if "its place is precisely aligned"⁶³,

And he will gather the dispersed of Israel⁶⁴,

speedily in our days, literally.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Ki Savo 5745)