English translation — ויקרא ב

Sicha on <pg>7</pg>

A.

The Rambam wrote<sup>1</sup>

: "One who sets aside his sin-offering for the fat that he ate may not bring it for the Shabbat that he desecrated or for the blood that he ate, as it is said<sup>2</sup>

And he shall bring his offering, a female goat, etc., for his sin which he sinned, so that his offering should be for the sake of his sin,

not that he should offer it from one sin for another sin<sup>3</sup>.

And if he offered it, it is invalid<sup>4</sup>.

Beyond this they said<sup>5</sup>

One who set aside his sin-offering for fat that he ate last night may not bring it for fat that he ate today, and if he brought it, it atones<sup>6</sup>

".

That is,

that the law of a sin-offering that one set aside for fat that he ate last night, he may not bring it for fat that he ate today,

is only a prohibition ab initio

(rabbinically<sup>7</sup>),

but post factum, if he brought it, it atones.

But there are those who read in the Rambam⁸

"And if he brought, it did not atone" — that there is no difference whether the sin-offering was set aside for a different sin

(like [for] fat on blood)

or for this same sin

(of yesterday)

that in any case this is an offering "from sin upon sin",

and also if he brought a sin-offering that he set aside for fat that he ate yesterday for fat that he ate today — "it did not atone"

(even after the fact).

And now, simply, this dispute

(between the two versions)

depends on the interpretation of the verse "And he shall bring his offering etc. for his sin which he sinned" — according to the version "And if he brought, it atoned",

"we read in it properly 'his offering for his sin' since it is for that same type"⁹,

but not so according to the version "And if he brought, it did not atone",

the interpretation of "for his sin" is that it must be "for his actual sin"¹⁰,

this actual sin that he committed.

But in addition to this, that this itself

(the dispute in the interpretation of the verse)

requires explanation — it is difficult to interpret that according to the Rambam "we read properly 'his sin-offering for his sin' because it is for that species",

for the Rambam¹¹

rules like Rabbi Yochanan¹²

who learned from this verse that when one ate two olive-bulk of fat in one lapse of awareness,

if he became aware of the first and then became aware of the second, he brings two,

because "his sin-offering which he sinned" means — "for each and every sin he shall bring"¹³,

thus, the phrase "his sin-offering which he sinned" does not mean the species of the sin which he sinned,

but rather his actual sin,

this particular sin that he transgressed¹⁴.

And therefore it seems to me that this distinction

(between the versions)

depends on the essential definition of the atonement of the sin-offering,

as follows.

<pg>8</pg>

2.

And this is with the introduction of the explanation of the reason for the difference between an olah

(which comes for a positive commandment¹⁵)

and a chatat

(which comes for a negative commandment),

that even if one transgressed several positive commandments, he is atoned for with one olah¹⁶,

but not so a chatat "for each and every sin requires bringing"¹⁷

(And in this itself — "for each and every time"¹⁸).

In Rashi¹⁹

he writes the reason that an olah atones for several positive commandments,

"because Scripture did not obligate him to bring it that it should obligate²⁰

for each and every positive commandment, but rather a mere gift" — as it is stated in the Gemara²¹

"For what does a chatat come..

before an olah",

because it

(the chatat)

is like "an advocate who enters"

("like a person who sinned against the king and appeased him through advocates"²²),

and an olah is like the gift,

that after the "advocate appeased, a gift enters after him"²¹

("as one who comes to greet him brings a gift in his hands"²²).

But superficially it requires explanation — since the completeness of the atonement

("that he will be appeased to him to see the face of the king"²³)

does not come except through this gift,

why is there no need to bring a gift in the continuation for each and every atonement?

And one cannot say that this is because the person has already done repentance and his iniquity has been completely atoned for him²⁴

(as our sages, of blessed memory, [said]²⁵

one who transgressed a positive commandment and repented, he does not move from there until they forgive him)

— for also a sin-offering does not atone except for those who repent²⁶,

and as the Rambam ruled²⁷

that "those liable for sin-offerings..

are not atoned for through their offering until they do repentance and confess a confession of words",

and as is emphasized also in the aforementioned parable that a sin-offering is like "an advocate who enters",

which is possible only after the person regrets his deeds,

rather, in order to appease the king that he should forgive him, he needs an advocate.

And nevertheless we say,

that even though the person has already done proper repentance for each and every sin by itself,

nevertheless he needs an "advocate" by itself for each and every sin; and why regarding "gift" is it sufficient that he bring only one for several positive commandments?

And one must say the explanation in this:

In the definition of "the mitzvah of repentance from the Torah" —<pg>9</pg>

that it is "abandonment of sin alone"²⁸

— of the Alter Rebbe²⁸

"That is, that he should resolve in his heart with a whole heart not to return again to foolishness, to rebel against His kingship, blessed be He, and not to transgress again the king's commandments, G-d forbid, whether positive commandments or negative commandments."

That is: the heart's resolution of repentance must be not only that he will not again do this sin that he transgressed

(as per the simple language of the Rambam²⁹

"that the sinner abandon his sin etc. and resolve in his heart not to do it again"),

but that he will not transgress any commandment

("whether positive commandments or negative commandments")³⁰,

and also "that he resolve with a whole heart not to return..

to rebel against His kingship, blessed be He"

(and from the simple language of the Alter Rebbe it implies that this is a condition for the commandment of repentance from the Torah).

And as for the reason for the matter, it can be said:

In the commission of a sin

(even one sin)

— two matters: a)

The evil in this particular deed.

b)

Since each and every commandment is "the King's commandments,"

therefore,

through the commission of a transgression,

whatever it may be,

the person is in the category of a rebel against His kingship.

And to rectify this rebellion, one must accept upon himself anew the yoke of the kingdom of heaven³¹

(not to rebel against His kingship)

and the yoke of commandments³¹

("the King's commandments shall not be transgressed again, G-d forbid, whether positive or negative").

And with this will be understood the reason that the burnt-offering atones for several positive commandments because it is a "gift":

The action of "gift" is not forgiveness of sin

(and cancellation of the punishment)²⁴,

but that he can "see the face of the king".

And this matter pertains to acceptance of the yoke of His kingship, may He be blessed.

For forgiveness of sin

(which exempts him from punishment)

pertains to abandonment of sin; but seeing the face of the king depends on the king agreeing to see him,

that he is willing to accept him as a servant etc.,

and this depends on acceptance of the yoke of His kingship, may He be blessed,

which is expressed through the offering of the burnt-offering.

And therefore one burnt-offering suffices for several positive commandments — because the appeasement of the burnt-offering is in connection with the acceptance of the yoke of kingship and yoke of commandments of the person,

that he accepts upon himself "not to return..

to rebel against His kingship, may He be blessed, and not to transgress further the king's commandments, G-d forbid, whether positive commandments or negative commandments",

and since this acceptance includes all the commandments all as one³²

— therefore also the appeasement for this acceptance does not pertain to or connect with the particularity of a sin,

or to each sin individually.

But not so the atonement

(of the sin-offering)

it is the atonement of the sin,

(simply)

is related to the specific sin that he transgressed,

and therefore needs a sin-offering by itself for each and every sin.

3.

However,

also the atonement and forgiveness for sin has two aspects:

a)

Abandonment of the sin-act,

i.e. "that the sinner abandon his sin..

and resolve in his heart that he will not do it again" — for when the Holy One, blessed be He, sees that the person truly accepts upon himself "that he will not do it again"

(and especially in a manner that "the Knower of secrets testifies about him that he will never return to this sin forever"³³),

He atones for his iniquity and forgives him the punishment.

b)

Remorse over the past

(verbal confession)

by which one effects the uprooting of

(nullification)

the evil³⁴

that "<pg>10</pg>

enters into him,

by means of committing this sin,

and only then is his iniquity atoned,

for as long as this evil is still within him,

it is impossible that the sin be forgiven him

[and based on this our master the Alter Rebbe explains

(in Iggeret HaTeshuvah&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;)

the reason that if one transgressed a negative commandment, repentance suspends and Yom Kippur atones&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

— for repentance alone does not have the power to purify the soul completely from the sin,

and therefore there is no atonement until Yom Kippur which purifies the children of Israel,

as it is said&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

"And he shall atone upon the holy from the impurities of the children of Israel and from their transgressions..

before the Lord you shall be purified"].

And now we must investigate regarding that which one who transgresses a negative commandment unintentionally is liable to bring a sin-offering

(and repentance alone is not sufficient as for one who transgresses a positive commandment)

— for which particular detail and matter

(of these two matters)

is he in need of the sacrifice:

a)

For the purification of the soul³⁸

— for just as with intentional [sins]

(with intent^*38)

the deed is divided regarding atonement in this time³⁹,

that with intentional [sins] one needs Yom Kippur to purify his soul from the evil that adhered to it through the deed of the transgression, and repentance alone is not sufficient

[unlike in the nullification of a positive commandment,

whose entire matter is only that he "rebelled against His kingship and did not do the king's command"⁴⁰,

behold, through repentance alone — that he accepts upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven and the yoke of commandments — they forgive him immediately]

— so it is with unintentional [sins]

(in the time of the Temple),

that the need for the sacrifice is to cleanse and purify the soul from the sin that adhered to it through the deed of the transgression.

b)

Because the finality of a person's heart "that he will not do it again" is not accepted before the Holy One, blessed be He, except when he also brings a sacrifice.

And according to the simple meaning of the aforementioned analogy,

that they compared the bringing of a sin-offering to appeasing the king through an advocate,

that this is not related to the removal of evil from the soul of the sinner,

but rather to appeasing the king.

That is to say: even though the person resolved in his heart with a complete heart "that he will not do it again" and there is no longer upon him the name of wicked⁴¹

— nevertheless, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not forgive him the punishment until he brings a sacrifice,

in the manner of appeasing the king through an advocate.

And that regarding the nullification of a positive commandment there is no need for a sacrifice for the acceptance of the completion of his heart and that he be forgiven the punishment — this is because the rebellion against the King was only through a passive action&lt;sup&gt;*41&lt;/sup&gt;,

therefore repentance alone suffices

(the acceptance in the heart not to rebel further against His kingship, etc.)

that he be forgiven his sin; but not so regarding a negative commandment,

where the rebellion was through an action&lt;sup&gt;*41&lt;/sup&gt;,

the acceptance in the heart does not suffice&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

"that he will not do it again",

but rather also requires bringing a sacrifice&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;.

&lt;pg&gt;11&lt;/pg&gt;

[But regarding cleansing the stain of sin, it can be said that there is no need for a sin-offering,

since he transgressed only unintentionally,

the stain is not so great and he can remove this evil through repentance alone

(but not so regarding an intentional sin, which requires Yom Kippur,

as above)].

4.

And one can say,

that in this the two versions above in the Rambam differ:

According to the version "if he brought atonement" — that the offering that he set aside for the fat that he ate last night can atone

(ex post facto)

for the fat that he ate today — the atonement of the sin-offering pertains to the appeasement of the King,

that His acceptance of the person's resolve "that he will not do it again" be received.

For since it is about that same type of sin

(eating fat),

and behold the acceptance is "that he will not do it again"

(and especially if it is in a manner that "the Knower of mysteries testifies about him that he will not return to this sin ever",

in whatever situation it may be)

— then it is found,

that it is one and the same acceptance

("that he will not do it again")

for all the times that he transgressed this sin⁴⁴,

and therefore also the appeasement effected by the offering for this type of sin is equal each and every time.

And even though he must bring a sacrifice by itself "for each and every time"

(if they were not in one unawareness)

— and one sin-offering does not atone for several negative commandments

(that were not done in one unawareness)

— this is because the state of the person and the place etc. is not similar each and every time

[therefore complete repentance is in that place etc.⁴⁵

— for that he does not transgress this sin in one state is no proof that he will not do it in another state]

— and therefore he needs repentance and acceptance by itself for each and every time

(in accordance with the state of the person and the place etc. of this time),

and consequently he also needs a sacrifice by itself,

because abandoning the sin means abandoning the act of sin

(also)

in this manner that was done then;

But after the fact, the sacrifice that he set aside for the fat that he ate last night is effective to atone for the fat that he ate today — because ultimately there is no removal of the name of sacrifice from sin to sin,

since the content of the sacrifice

(the person's acceptance not to do this sin — in general)

is exactly the same in both times.

But not according to the version "if he brought, it does not atone",

the atonement of a sin-offering pertains to the purification of the evil that came about through the act of sin,

in which each act of sin is a matter in itself,

for with every act of sin additional evil "enters" into his soul&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;

and requires an action in itself to remove the evil of each and every time&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;.

Therefore the offering that he set aside for the fat that he ate last night cannot atone for the eating of fat of this day.

5.

And one may add an explanation in this according to Chassidus — and with a preface of the precise wording "fat that he ate last night..

fat that he ate today",

for according to the plain sense here the distinction of days is not relevant, but rather the distinctions of times,

that the offering that he set aside for the first time that he ate fat, he should not bring it for the second time that he ate fat&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;.

And what is the precise wording "last night..

today"?

&lt;pg&gt;12&lt;/pg&gt;

And we must explain this

(in the inwardness of the matters),

according to the words of the Zohar⁴⁹

in the explanation of the verse⁵⁰

"And Avraham was old, coming in days",

that "days" refers to the garments of the mitzvos

(that through the doing of a mitzvah a garment is created through which the soul can enjoy the radiance of the Shechinah in the World to Come),

and "coming in days" means that all the "garments" of Avraham Avinu were with him in perfection,

that there was not lacking with him even one garment.

And it is explained in this,

that the intention of the Zohar is not to remove the matter of "days" from its simple meaning,

but rather the garments of the mitzvos also pertain to "days" in their simple sense⁵¹.

For each and every day of the days of a person has "garments" that pertain specifically to this day,

and in order to attain these garments it is necessary that this day be "filled" with the doing of mitzvos.

[And it can be said that for this reason the Baal Shem Tov warned&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;

"One should not let any day pass without performing a mitzvah",

i.e.,

even if he can complete tomorrow what he missed today, in a way that nothing will be lacking from the total number of mitzvos — nevertheless,

since he lacks one day,

he lacks the garment that belongs specifically to this day]&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;.

And based on this, the precision of the language "If one set aside his sin-offering for the fat that he ate yesterday, he may not bring it for the fat that he ate today" will be understood — for the main division between the two eatings,

because of which one must bring a sacrifice by itself for each and every eating,

is due to the division of the days,

which is a division in the "garment".

That is: from the aspect of the "light" and content of the action — it is equal in both eatings,

and there is not so much reason to distinguish between them that the first sacrifice could not atone for the second eating; rather the main question is because of the difference of the days,

since each day the "garment" changes,

and it is found,

that each eating of fat that pertains to the correction of a different "garment",

and therefore ab initio according to everyone he should not bring [the sacrifice] of last evening for the eating of today.

However, since after all the difference is only in the "garment",

but regarding the light and the content it is exactly equal in both — therefore he holds

(according to one version),

that ex post facto,

if he brought — it atones.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Eikev,

20 Menachem Av,

5747)