English translation — ויקרא ג

1.

It has been spoken several times¹

about this principle in Rashi's commentary on the Torah,

that in the <b>most</b> cases, all of them — Rashi <b>does not</b> bring in his commentary the name of the source for his commentary

(Rabbi So-and-so,

our Rabbis,

Talmud,

Midrash and the like),

he does not say "a thing in the name of its sayer".

From this itself it is proven,

that in the places where Rashi deviates from the rule and says "a thing in the name of its sayer",

it is a part of

his explanation,

there comes through this an additional explanation in the verse and its matter.

A striking example of this is found in our parshah,

regarding the matter

(verses)

of the sin offering of a thing that is hidden

(of the community)

In the Gemara²

two statements from "the school of Rabbi Yishmael" are brought,

one after the other,

regarding the variations in language between the verses of the sin offering of a thing that is hidden of the anointed priest and of the community:

a)

"Why are the caul and the two kidneys stated in the bull of the anointed priest&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;

and not stated in the bull of the congregation that erred&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;,

a parable: a king of flesh and blood who was angry at his friend and minimized his offense because of his affection for him."

b)

"Why is the curtain of &lt;b&gt;the sanctuary &lt;/b&gt;stated in the bull of the anointed priest&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;

and not stated in the bull of the congregation that erred&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;

a parable: a king of flesh and blood against whom a province rebelled; if a minority rebelled, his retinue endures; if a majority rebelled, his retinue does not endure"&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;.

Also Rashi in his commentary on the Torah presents the two changes and brings down both parables,

only with the difference: in his commentary on the

(earlier)

verse⁶

"before the curtain"

(where he brings the second parable from the school of Rabbi Yishmael)

Rashi does not mention the "says the verse"; but in his commentary on the

(later)

verse⁸

"and all its fat he shall remove"

(in which he says the first parable from the school of Rabbi Yishmael)

he brings "says the verse" — "the school of Rabbi Yishmael says a parable etc."!

If this were in reverse order — the <b>first</b> parable "in the name of the one who said it" and the second <b>not</b> — one could possibly explain

(with great difficulty)

that Rashi relies in his <b>later</b> commentary on the "says the verse" which he brings in his <b>earlier</b> commentary

(since it concerns a unique manner of commentary — of parables),

But not so when Rashi says this "the meaning of the verse" by the &lt;b&gt;second &lt;/b&gt;proverb and not by the first&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;.

One must say,

that the reason that Rashi brings "the meaning of the verse" by the "parable of a king who was angry with his friend etc." is because it adds an additional explanation in understanding the plain meaning of Scripture; but not so in his earlier commentary,

is that in the plain meaning of Scripture &lt;b&gt;nothing &lt;/b&gt;is added" through the knowledge of "the meaning of the verse."

2.

And it can be explained with the introduction of the explanation in his commentary on "And all its fat he shall remove"⁸

— "And although here it did not specify the diaphragm and the two kidneys, they are learned from 'and as was done'¹²

to the bull, as he did etc.,

And why were they not specified in it? The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: A parable to a king who was angry at his friend and minimized his offense because of his affection for him" — which at first glance is not understood:

a)

It is not the way of <b>the plain meaning — </b>so what is the question "And why were they not <b>specified </b>in it"?

We find <b>in many </b>places that when two

(or more)

things have the same laws, the Torah does not repeat all the details of the laws each time,

rather, regarding the second thing the Torah says briefly that it has the same laws as the previous one¹³

— and especially since the Torah says <b>immediately </b>afterwards "And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull of the sin-offering, so shall he do with it"?

b)

What is generally difficult by Rashi in <b>this</b> verse — "And all its fat he shall remove" — that because of this he needs to explain "And although he did not explain here the diaphragm etc. they learn from 'And he shall do with the bull as he did etc.'"?

According to his way in his commentary, Rashi would have needed to wait with his explanation until the verse

(later)

"And he shall do etc.",

If from <b>there</b> it is a necessity that also by the hidden matter of the public is one offers the diaphragm and two kidneys.

Even more: on the verse "And he shall make etc." Rashi <b>indeed</b> explains <b></b>

(again)

"And he shall make for the bull,

this.

as he did for the bull of the sin-offering that is explained in the bull of the anointed priest to bring the diaphragm and two kidneys that he explained there what he did not explain here" — is indeed most perplexing: why is Rashi earlier

(in the verse "And all its fat he shall remove")

explains briefly that "diaphragm and two kidneys are learned from 'And he shall do for the bull as he did etc.'" and warns "why were they not explained in it",

and then <b>again,</b>

in the verse after this,

he explains <b>how</b> "they are learned from 'And he shall do etc.'"

(and emphasizes "that he explained there what he did not explain here")

— and does not include both explanations <b>together:</b> "And he shall make for the bull ..

to bring the diaphragm and two kidneys that he explained there what he did not explain here and why were they not explained in it the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught etc."

c)

3.

Also there are several precise points in the language of Rashi,

And among them:

a)

Why does Rashi bring a parable of a king specifically — the concept of "He minimized his offense because of His love" is also found by two friends in general,

not specifically by a &lt;b&gt;king &lt;/b&gt;and his beloved?

(In the first explanation

(Regarding the phrase "את פני הפרוכת")

It is understood why he says "משל למלך",

Because specifically by a king the parable of "סרחה עליו &lt;b&gt;מדינה") is applicable.&lt;/b&gt;

And although in this phrase

("משל &lt;b&gt;למלך")&lt;/b&gt;

It stands in the Tanna debei R. Yishmael as above — is

(In addition to this that also there a reason is needed: Why does it say there "משל למלך" specifically?

Is further and mainly)

: As discussed several times&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

Is his style and language of Rashi's commentary on the Torah not a copy of the Sages' explanations &lt;b&gt;in their exact language — &lt;/b&gt;rather he brings only the matters

(And phrases)

As they are relevant to the plain meaning of the verse.

b)

In his commentary to the Talmud²

Rashi explains the words "מיעט בסרחונו" — "קיצר בדברים".

It is not understood: if Rashi needed to translate it in his commentary to the Talmud — he certainly should have explained it in his commentary on the Torah

d.

And one can say the explanation of all this:

Rashi on "and all its fat he shall remove" comes in continuation to the previous Rashi on "toward the face of the curtain,"

where he explains

(through the "parable of a king whose province rebelled, etc.")

that the sin of "communal error" is much harsher than the sin of the anointed priest,

to such an extent that through the sin of the congregation "His retinue

does not endure...

Heaven forbid

the holiness departed."

And therefore,

when one learns the verse "and all its fat he shall remove" it becomes <b>immediately</b> difficult,

why are not mentioned here "the caudate lobe and the two kidneys": were it not for the previous Rashi one could say,

that they are not mentioned because for a communal error offering one indeed does not need to burn the caudate lobe and the two kidneys,

because a communal error offering is not as severe

as the offering of the anointed priest.

even though this is a matter of inadvertence,

it is nevertheless a sin of inadvertence for which the anointed priest <b>himself</b> is responsible and guilty in it.

But not when "the community acted upon their ruling" of the <b>Sanhedrin"</b>²⁰

<b> </b>then the sin of <b>the community</b> is lesser than a regular inadvertent sin,

not only are <b>they</b> not guilty in it

(but the Sanhedrin who "erred in ruling" and the community "acted upon their ruling"²⁰),

but even more: in the eyes of the community it is a thing that they did <b>according to the instruction of the Torah</b>²¹

(Sanhedrin)

— according to which it would have to turn out,

that also the offering for the error in a ruling of the community which the <b>congregation</b> brings²²

is not as severe as for the anointed priest].

Afterwards, but as Rashi says that the sin of the congregation

(even though "they acted on their instruction" of the Sanhedrin)

brings about "the holiness departed",

unlike by the sin of the anointed priest,

as above — one cannot say that <b>the </b>offering should be lighter than the bull of the anointed priest.

Therefore Rashi must <b>immediately </b>warn "And even though it did not specify here the diaphragm and the two kidneys, they learn from 'and he shall do with the bull as he did etc.'"

5.

Rashi, however, cannot suffice with saying that one learns it from "and he shall do with the bull as he did etc." — because: whichever way — if the verse wants to abbreviate and say only "and he shall do with the bull as he did etc.",

then what the verse specifies "and all its fat he shall separate from it and burn etc." is also superfluous — from "and he shall do with the bull etc." one already knows that one must do with the bull <b>all </b>as one does with the bull of the sin-offering of the anointed priest²³

; and if the verse intends to state explicitly the law "and all its fat etc.",

then "why were not specified

(the diaphragm and the two kidneys)

in it"?

On this Rashi brings the "parable of a king who was angry at his friend &lt;b&gt;and minimized his offense because of his affection": &lt;/b&gt;Rashi's intention here is &lt;b&gt;according to the plain meaning of his wording,&lt;/b&gt;

that the king minimizes only the "offense".

"Offense" is not the essence of the thing,

but a secondary thing that comes out from it — the &lt;b&gt;bad smell &lt;/b&gt;of the thing&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;.

4.

5.

Because of the affection for his beloved,

the king endeavors that outwardly it should appear as if the sin is not so severe — a reduction in the corruption of the sin.

And likewise in the analogy: indeed, the actual sin of the communal sin-offering has in itself more severity than the sin of the anointed priest — but because of the affection of the Jews,

the Most High, as it were, minimizes the "corruption" of the sin,

as if the sin is not so severe — and this expresses itself in that which is stated in the Torah

(explicitly)

only "and all its fat

he shall lift up."

As if the diaphragm and the two kidneys need not be offered,

because the communal sin-offering is lighter¹⁸

than the bull of the anointed priest.

as above&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;

; rather Rashi's intention in his commentary on the Torah is like the simple meaning of the words,

as above].

6.

Based on this, one will also understand why Rashi brings "a parable of &lt;b&gt;a king" &lt;/b&gt;specifically

(and not a parable of simply two friends)

A parable of a mere friend — would not be an example for our topic.

Here it speaks about a sin as an example to "a province rebelled against him ..

all rebelled",

which caused that "his retinue does not endure ..

G‑d forbid the holiness departed" — d.

h.

The severity of this sin does not consist only in that one did a thing which is against the will,

but against the will of a king,

and the sin caused that "his retinue does not endure",

that one thereby, as it were, nullified the entirety of his kingship.

That one forgives and diminishes the gravity of the sin of his friend because of his love for him is not at all an example for our topic — a sin of the congregation against the Lord.

Therefore Rashi brings a parable of "a king who was angry at his friend" — it indeed speaks about a king,

but this is not a parable of a king in relation to a servant,

but of a king in relation to his friend.

And accordingly in the moral: the relationship between Jews and the Most High has both aspects: the Most High is our King,

so that from that side "the relationship",

is when the entire congregation commits a sin it causes that "his retinue does not endure ..

G‑d forbid the holiness departed"; but on the other hand,

Jews are "his friend" of the King,

and therefore,

even in a situation of "a king who was angry"²⁶,

the king diminishes "his sin because of his love" for the friend.

7.

But after all is not entirely smooth by a sharp student:

When it would have been spoken about a mere a.

sin,

which is only a private matter,

one can understand,

that being a lover of the king, the king forgoes because of his love.

But how can it be,

that even after causing a matter of "his retinue does not endure" the king should nevertheless minimize his anger because of his love?

On this Rashi brings the "שם אומרו" — "תנא דבי ר׳ ישמעאל",

students of R' Yishmael:

R' Yishmael said about Jews who need to attain an atonement

(up to atonement for the plague of tzaraas which indicates the most severe impurity,

outside the three camps his dwelling&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;)

: "בני ישראל &lt;b&gt;אני כפרתן"&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;.

"I am an atonement" does not mean,

that he brought about that the Children of Israel should repent

(and consequently they receive atonement)

— then it is not called <b>"I am </b>an atonement",

the atonement comes from the side of the repentance of the Children of Israel —

Rather, that he <b>himself </b>is "an atonement",

he takes upon himself and "carries" their atonement upon <b>himself</b>²⁹.

And in the manner that we find

by Rashbi that he said

"I am able to exempt the entire world from judgment,"

which means

(as discussed several times),

that even when the entire world is in a state that evokes

(the attribute of G‑d)

judgment, G‑d forbid,

Rashbi "bears

all their sins and exempts them from judgment."

And the reason and cause for such a love of Rabbi Yishmael for Jews

— to the extent of taking upon himself the atonement also for such Jews as mentioned above — is understood from the matter "I am their atonement" — at first glance: it is indeed explicit

(in our parshah

and in many places)

that "a soul that sins" must be: "and he shall bring near etc. and he shall bring etc. and he shall lean etc."

And furthermore — how does "I" come in here

(Rabbi Yishmael)?

Only Rabbi Yishmael saw himself and other Jews not as two separate entities — rather that they are one thing,

"like yourself" literally.

And consequently, when a soul sins,

sins of other Jews <b>affect him</b>³⁶.

And consequently,

is: "I am an atonement for them" — being one thing with all Jews,

is <b>automatically</b> "I am an atonement for them".

And this gives an additional understanding in the love between Jews and the Almighty:

This is not only that from the side of the love of Jews, the Almighty minimizes the sin of &lt;b&gt;His beloved — &lt;/b&gt;and because the sin of His beloved touches, as it were, Him Himself&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;,

But this brings about that it becomes, as it were, "I am an atonement for them"&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

: Between Jews and the Almighty is an essential love,

so that one cannot separate, as it were, between them.

And consequently,

however low a state it may be, Heaven forbid,

the entire love and connection between Jews and the Almighty is always present.

And even in a case when Jews, from themselves, are &lt;b&gt;apparently &lt;/b&gt;not worthy of an atonement — the Almighty says that, as it were, "let the arrow enter into me and not

(enter)

into my children"&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;.

8.

From this there is also a lesson — on how deep must be the love for <b>every</b> Jew,

in whatever situation he may be.

One must know that every Jew is — "Na'ar Yisrael ve'ohaveihu"⁴⁰

: the love of the Most High for every Jew is analogous to the love for a "na'ar",

which is an <b>essential</b> love,

however the child behaves

(even when ostensibly he is "naton badin"⁴¹)

— he is "na'ar" and "ve'ohaveihu".

And since the Almighty says that He has love for every Jew in a manner of "I loved Israel as a youth" — it must be so also among Jews,

that their love for a fellow Jew must be in a manner of an essential love.

A Jew must feel that not he loves a &lt;b&gt;fellow,&lt;/b&gt;

that he does a favor to the &lt;b&gt;other,&lt;/b&gt;

but this touches &lt;b&gt;himself.&lt;/b&gt;

And in particular — as long as he does not take out the fellow Jew from exile

(in all interpretations)

— he finds himself in exile,

Then it is simply obvious that he does all that depends on him to help all Jews and every Jew — initially "diminish" in their sin &lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

(if he is there),

until the love comes out in a revealed manner,

and "I am an atonement for them".

And love of Israel

(— opposite of the cause of the exile&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;)

immediately nullifies,

"instantly"&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;

the cause — the exile,

and it becomes — like the beginning of the portion — "And He called to Moses ..

Tent of Meeting": the calling of &lt;b&gt;love&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;to Moses,

in the third Holy Temple,

In the true and complete redemption through our righteous Messiah,

speedily in our days, literally.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Vayikra 5740)