English translation — מצורע א

A.

Endless laws of those lacking atonement the Rambam rules¹

: A rich person who said, "The offering of this leper is upon me"*¹

And the leper was poor, this one brings on his behalf the offerings of a rich person, since the hand of the vower reaches.

And a poor person who said, "The offering of this leper is upon me" and the leper was rich, this one brings on his behalf the offerings of a rich person, since this vower²

is obligated in the offerings of a rich person.

It is seemingly not understood: In the first case — what is the difference whether "the hand of the vower reaches",

that therefore he must bring the offerings of a rich person — he took upon himself "the offering of this leper" and that leper is a poor person,

then why should he become obligated in the offerings of a <b>different</b> leper — a rich one?

In the Gemara it stands&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;

: "And although if he is wealthy

(with a question mark&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;)

And if he is poor, said the Merciful One,

And he is not poor".

The question is however: Since the vower was not obligated in a metzora offering at all,

It is only that he takes upon himself an obligation from the &lt;b&gt;poor person — &lt;/b&gt;is from where would it occur that in such a case an obligation should be placed upon him to bring the offerings of a wealthy person&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;?

A wealthy metzora, who mentions his existence?

In the second case, the language of the Rambam is not smooth — "for this &lt;b&gt;vower &lt;/b&gt;is obligated in the offerings of a wealthy person": The Rambam should seemingly have said "for this &lt;b&gt;metzora &lt;/b&gt;is obligated in the offerings of a wealthy person"

(That

is

Since the metzora is a wealthy person,

therefore the vower,

who wants to exempt the other's obligation&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;,

brings the offerings of a wealthy person).

2.

Another wonder in this matter:

The above-mentioned law the Rambam brings earlier,

in the Laws of the Performance of Offerings,

And this is his language: One who says, "The offering of this leper or this woman after childbirth is upon me," if that leper or the woman after childbirth was poor, the vow-maker brings the offering of a poor person,

And if they were rich, the vow-maker brings the offering of a rich person, even though the vow-maker is poor.

Is it then a contradiction from one halacha to the second

: as the Rambam rules in Hilchos Maaseh HaKorbanos "A person who vows brings a korban of a poor person" <b>stam</b> — while he says explicitly in Hilchos Mechusei Kaparah

that if the vower is a rich person he must bring "korbanos of a rich person"?

The Kessef Mishneh

addresses it and says,

that the Rambam "did not trouble to explain here because he relied on what he wrote there".

But the answer is suitable only according to the approach of the Baal HaMeor,

that the Rambam in his book relies in one place even on what he writes in a <b>later</b> place.

But according to the opinions — and so it is reasonable,

apparently — that the Rambam relies only "on

what he wrote <b>already</b> in another place <b>prior</b> to this, but that he relies here on what will come before us is a reliance that has no standing" — then the answer has no place at all.

3.

And it can be said,

that in this law there are two categories: from the aspect of the category of <b>the act of the offerings</b> it is sufficient that the rich person bring for the poor metzora offerings of a poor person

(and if the metzora is a rich person — he must bring for him,

like his vow,

offerings of a rich person)

; however, from the aspect of the law of those lacking atonement, the rich person is obligated to bring

(for the poor metzora)

offerings of a <b>rich</b> person¹³.

And the explanation of this:

The law is¹⁴,

that "Chatas and Asham ..

do not come by vow and by donation,

one who says 'Upon me be a Chatas or an Asham ..

<b>has said nothing".</b>

But when someone says "The Chatas etc. of so-and-so upon me,

if that so-and-so wishes, behold this one allows him to offer them by his hand and he achieves atonement through it"¹⁵.

And one may say,

that in this law

(that one can bring a Chatas etc. for another who is obligated in it)

there are two novelties:

a)

From the side of the laws of <b>vows — </b>although that "One who says 'I take upon myself a sin-offering...

has said nothing"

(There is not placed upon him any obligation to fulfill the vow),

is "In what context are these words said" when in this sin-offering of G‑d etc. there is not <b>any aspect </b>of obligation; but when the vower says "The sin-offering of G‑d of so-and-so

(one obligated in the matter)

upon me",

there is placed upon the vower.

A <b>obligation </b>to bring this offering from the side of the law of <b>vow</b>¹⁶.

b)

From the side of the <b>one being atoned</b>¹⁷

<b> </b>— although that the <b>obligation </b>to bring the sin-offering etc. is,

incumbent,

of course,

only upon the one who has committed the sin

(or he finds himself in a situation that requires an atonement — and as in our case,

a leper)

— but the Torah innovated,

that from the side of the mutual responsibility of Jews

(All Jews are responsible for one another¹⁸)

another Jew can bring the offerings "on his behalf",

and the other's offering effects the atonement of the <b>sinner </b>

(or of the one lacking atonement — leper).

4.

And this is the point of distinction between the two laws — in the laws of the performance of the offerings and in the laws of those lacking atonement:

In the laws of the performance of the offerings comes the law of "one who says 'the offering of this leper ...

upon me" in continuation of the laws of vows and freewill offerings regarding offerings¹⁹,

namely,

that here it speaks about the <b>obligation </b>that lies upon the vower to fulfill his <b>vow </b>— and therefore the Rambam says that "the vower brings the offering of a poor person"

(even when the vower is a rich person)

— because the <b>speech■ of the vow </b>was indeed "the offering of a leper <b>this ...</b>

upon me",

he took upon himself the <b>offerings of that </b>leper; and since the leper is a poor person,

he is, from the perspective of the laws of <b>vows </b>, obligated to bring the offering of a poor person²⁰

(and likewise conversely — "if they were rich, the vower brings the offering of a rich person even though the vower is poor").

But not so in the laws of those lacking atonement, the content is — <b>the atonement of the metzora,</b>

and consequently the emphasis here is on that which the vower brings the offering

(not to fulfill <b>his </b>obligation

(due to his vow),

but)

to remove the lack of atonement for the <b>metzora.</b>

but not so in the laws of those lacking atonement — "brings <b>on his behalf </b>the offerings of a rich person": in the laws of the procedure of offerings it speaks about how the vower is obligated to carry out through the offering <b>his vow</b>²¹

<b> — </b>"the <b>vower </b>brings"; but not so in the laws of those lacking atonement the main discussion is about the offering that he needs to bring because of the atonement of the metzora — <b>"on his behalf"].</b>

And this is the reason why in the laws of those lacking atonement the Rambam says "he brings on his behalf the offerings of a rich man" — because the law from the aspect of "those lacking atonement" is,

that from the aspect of the principle of guarantee, another Jew can take upon himself also the bringing of the offering of the leper

(as if the vower were the leper).

And since the vower becomes the one who brings and offers the leper's offering,

therefore it is

(in this particular)

measured according to his financial capacity

(not of the leper,

but)

of the vower²²,

and if "the hand of the vower does not reach" he must bring the offerings of a rich man,

the offerings of a rich man,

because "and if he is poor, the Merciful One said,

and he is not poor"...

5.

Based on this, the language of the Rambam is also resolved in the second case "and a poor person who said ..

and the leper was rich, behold he brings ..

the offerings of a rich man, for this vower is obligated in the offerings of a rich man":

Although from the side of "Laws of Those Who Lack Atonement" one indeed reckons with the financial capacity of the one

(vower)

<b>brings </b>the offering as above,

and since the bringer of the offering is in this case a poor person,

he must bring a poor person's offering — nevertheless he must in this case bring rich person's offerings,

because <b>"this vower is obligated </b>in rich person's offerings" — from the side of his <b>vow </b>he obligated himself to bring "the offering of the leper <b>this" </b>

(who is a rich person),

he must consequently bring rich person's offerings

(as the Rambam says in Laws of the Performance of Offerings,

The explanation, however, is not entirely smooth.

Because the Rambam also says in a second case "brings <b>through him </b>rich person's offerings",

from which emphasis it is implied,

as above).

as above,

that his obligation to bring "rich person's offerings" is

(not only because of fulfillment of the vow,

but)

also because of <b>atonement of the leper</b>²³.

that post facto,

if the vower

(the poor person)

brought offerings of a poor person,

the metzora is atoned,

only the vower did not fulfill his vow — unlike when this is an obligation also because of the &lt;b&gt;atonement&lt;/b&gt; of the metzora,

as understood].

And one can say the explanation in this:

Even though the vower himself is poor,

and it would have to be measured according to <b>his</b> capacity²³

— but since with his vow he obligated himself in offerings.

<b>rich,</b>

it is as if the <b>vow</b> itself has effected upon him that he should have the status of capacity of a <b>rich man</b> — also because of the atonement of the metzora — and therefore he "brings <b>according to his hand</b> the offerings of a rich man".

And along these lines, that one swears to fulfill commandments²⁴

Because this will.

him naturally <b>and actually</b> spur himself <b>to exert.</b>

to fulfill his oath — .

Until "you have toiled <b>and found</b>"²⁵.

6.

From this there is a wonderful lesson in the greatness of the power of love of Israel and unity of Israel:

First of all, one sees,

how one Jew can do for another Jew so much,

that through <b>his</b> bringing a sacrifice, atonement is achieved for another Jew; and not only <b>in</b> a case where the other is poor and is not capable of bringing his own sacrifice,

but even when the metzora is a <b>rich man,</b>

another Jew can

(and — a poor man!)

bring for him his sacrifice.

And this is to such an extent — that in bringing the sacrifice, the <b>vower</b> is accepted as if <b>he</b> were the one who needs the atonement, and they reckon with the <b>vower's</b> financial ability!

Because this is the true concept of the unity of Israel,

that Jews are like one body

(as explained in the Yerushalmi²⁶),

and therefore,

when there is a blemish and deficiency by one Jew, may G‑d spare us,

(in one "limb" of this body),

it is felt in all the "limbs" of the general structure²⁷

(the collective of Israel).

Because it is not merely "that other person's" deficiency and blemish,

but an <b>own</b> deficiency and blemish.

the reason why even tzaddikim recite the text of the confession "We have sinned, etc." — although they are not connected to a sin²⁹

and especially to so many of the enumerated sins — because "all of Israel" are like "one body",

and "this is the mutual responsibility that a person is responsible for his fellow if he sins"].

7.

Also here is emphasized an even greater matter — that when a Jew puts himself in to effect an atonement for another Jew at a time when he himself is a poor person and the other is a rich person — the Torah places him into the category of a "rich person" and he is <b>obligated</b> to bring for the other "offerings of a rich person".

If he himself had, heaven forbid, been a leper — he would <b>not</b> have been obligated in the offerings of a rich person³⁰

; and at the time he takes upon himself to help another Jew — he becomes obligated in the offerings of a rich person

(But <b>his</b> "means" as above)

What the reason and explanation

(inner)

of this is, can be said according to what has been told several times³¹,

that what was seen by the Rebbe the father-in-law at the time when it dealt with reprinting here

(in the United States)

for the first time the responsa of the Tzemach Tzedek — that he proposed to a certain Jew that he should volunteer the printing expenses of the books — although according to his standing and situation this was entirely not according to his capacity.

The Jew accepted this upon himself and the Rebbe blessed him etc.

Afterwards the Jew became wealthy and succeeded in fulfilling his promise in full — he gave all the money for printing the books.

Then the Rebbe my father-in-law said,

that at the time he took the promise from the Jew, this was <b>indeed</b> not according to his capacity

(even not according to how much was allotted for him <b>from above)</b>

; rather, through that good resolution itself, there were opened for him from above <b>new "channels"</b> of livelihood,

so that he could fulfill his promise.

And in this manner is the explanation in our subject: At the time when the Above sees how a Jew goes out from his boundaries,

and not looking at that he is a poor person, he exerts himself beyond his capacity for the atonement of his fellow the rich one — the Above "opens" for him &lt;b&gt;new &lt;/b&gt;"channels" of livelihood,

so that he should &lt;b&gt;be able &lt;/b&gt;to fulfill the good resolution — &lt;b&gt;in wealth.&lt;/b&gt;

(From the talk of 26 Tishrei 5746)